As a sign of the Bush administration's displeasure with France because of its opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, the Pentagon is scaling back its presence at this year's Paris Air Show, the global defense industry's largest and oldest international showcase, which opens this weekend. But make no mistake, the show will go on.
No high-ranking U.S. government official or general military officer will be in attendance, and only six military aircraft -- all of them being flown in from Operation Iraqi Freedom -- will be on display, compared to the dozen or more usually on exhibit. And there will be no high-profile flight demonstration of U.S. military aircraft.
Still, officials at the show say that over 1,800 companies will be on hand, a number similar to the record level of companies in the 2001 exhibition. However, this time around, on the heels of Gulf War II, analysts are predicting a more somber tone than in the wake of past wars.
In June of 1991 the Paris Air Show was a celebration of sorts. U.S. defense contractors displaying the weapons of war stood side by side with the military personnel who had put them to use just a few months earlier in Operation Desert Storm. While troops told stories of flying, gunning, and driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait, company representatives were busy handing out posters, coffee mugs, tote bags, pins and other souvenirs adorned with their corporate logos to potential buyers.
The 1991 show had the usual displays and exhibitions by the nation's top weapons makers. But, for the first time, the U.S. Air Force, Army and Navy also had booths at the show. More than 150 U.S. military personnel were in attendance; along with military aircraft there was an added bonus for the industry: U.S. taxpayers picked up the tab.
Representative Pete Stark (D-Calif.), who in the past has introduced legislation to end the use of taxpayer money for the shows, found that the participation of U.S. aircraft and personnel at international weapons exhibits like the Paris Air Show cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $35 million a year. Prior to 1991, the federal government's approach to air shows had been to avoid direct military involvement. Organizing and promotional activities were handled by the Department of Commerce, which runs the U.S.-built pavilion at Le Bourget. Aircraft that were used for static displays on the tarmac or demonstration flights over the show were leased to U.S. companies by the Department of Defense, and taxpayer subsidies were kept to a minimum.
Beyond the issue of whether U.S. tax dollars should be used to subsidize the cost for the shows, a more fundamental question is whether uniformed U.S. military personnel should be used as virtual sales representatives for private weapons manufacturers. According to military analyst William D. Hartung, in 1991, public affairs officer Lt. Col. John Kirkwood said that then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney "felt it was appropriate" for the military services to participate in the show to further the favorable image of U.S. soldiers, weapons, and foreign policy in the aftermath of the first Gulf War.
Clearly, this time around the Bush administration is sending a different message. According to Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Michael Humm, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has decided that "in light of the press of other events and the pace of Department of Defense activities ... U.S. participation will be more limited than in previous years."
While the Pentagon has not made a direct connection between the lower profile and the French refusal to join the coalition of the willing, some members of Congress have been more forthcoming. The most vocal opposition to U.S. participation in the Paris Air Show has come from Representative Jim Saxton (R-NJ). Saxton introduced a resolution calling for an outright boycott of the Paris Air Show, saying, "The United States was there for France in the 20th century; we expect France to be there for the United States in the 21st."
U.S. defense contractors have a decidedly different view of Pentagon participation. They have argued that opting out of the show is a pretty expensive way to deliver a message to the French government. The Paris Air Show is regarded by the aerospace and defense industries as the networking event of the year. "It's a wonderful time to see customers and competitors," said James Fetig, a spokesman from defense contractor Raytheon.
The Pentagon's decision to scale back their participation was seen as a compromise designed to placate domestic critics like Saxton while still allowing U.S. arms makers to hawk their wares at Paris, the world's premiere arms bazaar.
All of the top U.S. weapons makers will be in attendance, and although their displays may not be as extravagant as in previous years, most company officials cite economic hardship as being the determining factor, not any intention to "send a message" to the French government or anyone else. As Vice Chairman Michael Sears of Boeing put it, "These events have been getting more expensive, and with the U.S. government cutting back its participation, this seemed like a good time for us to scale back too."
The 1991 Gulf War -- in which many of the major participants in the anti-Iraq coalition faced their own weapons which had been supplied to Saddam Hussein's forces prior to the conflict -- resulted in an outpouring of government promises to bring the arms trade under stricter international controls.
We still don't know whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat prior to Gulf War II, or whether he possessed usable weapons of mass destruction. We do know that the most dangerous weapons in his arsenal -- and in the arsenal of the next Saddam Hussein, whoever that may be -- came from, and will continue to come from, a handful of countries: the U.S., Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and occasionally Israel. If these major weapons-selling nations got together at Le Bourget and announced a plan to cut arms sales to tyrants and terrorists over the next ten years, that would be something worth celebrating.
Michelle Ciarrocca is a Senior Research Associate at the World Policy Institute in New York City.