According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, the United States kept its large lead in the global arms market last year. It captured 39 percent of new contracts, totaling $11.8 billion. That's more sales volume than Russia, France, the United Kingdom and China combined. The United States also delivered $18.4 billion worth of arms in 1999, or 54 percent of the worldwide total.

The United States should not be promoting arms exports in a world where most societies would rather see their governments invest in education, jobs and health care than in major weapons systems.

The Clinton administration pushes U.S. arms by touting the need for compatibility with U.S. forces in peacekeeping operations. Developing nations may be lured by the prospect of closer ties with the U.S. military. Unfortunately, this strategy has paid off. For the third year in a row, the share of U.S. arms exports to developing states was on the rise.

Secretary of Defense William Cohen's worldwide travels often resemble arms marketing tours. In Latin America, he encouraged Chile and Argentina to "upgrade" their arsenals, especially fighter aircraft. In the Persian Gulf, he has been trying to obtain support for a "Cooperative Defense Initiative," an early warning system that relies on the purchase of U.S. command, control and communication as well as expensive Patriot missiles.

And in Eastern Europe, the U.S. government is trying to gain future paying customers by donating used equipment. For example, it is pushing Hungary to drop its plans to upgrade its Soviet-era MiG-29s by donating F-16 jets — on the condition that Budapest spend $4 million to $5 million apiece for upgrades from U.S. contractors.

The Clinton administration has also been trying to persuade European allies that they should be devoting a larger part of their budgets to buying arms, preferably American ones. Recent changes made to U.S. arms-export regulations enable NATO members, Australia and Japan to buy U.S. weapons more freely; some may even be able to buy arms without an export license.

The administration doesn't see why those countries shouldn't be able to buy U.S. missiles or fighter jets as easily as American toasters. The Clinton administration has put the health of the U.S. arms industry ahead of the pressing social and economic needs of our trading partners.

This fall, we need to question the presidential candidates on whether they plan to continue this misguided policy.

Pamina Firchow and Tamar Gabelnick track U.S. arms sales for the Federation of American Scientists in Washington. They wrote this commentary for the Progressive Media Project in Madison, Wis.

###