The Arms Trade is Big BusinessAuthor and Page information
The world spends some $1,000 billion annually on the military. How is this so? This web page has the following sub-sections: World Military Spending Out Does Anything ElseAs detailed further on the next page on military expenditure, world military spending has now reached one trillion dollars, close to Cold War levels. As summarized from the Military Balance, 2000/2001, by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (October 2001), for the larger arms-purchasing nations each year:
In more recent years, annual sales of arms have risen to around $50-60 billion although the global financial crisis is slowly beginning to be felt in arms sales too. Arms sales figuresEvery year, the U.S. Congressional Research Service releases an authoritative report looking at arms transfers to the developing world. The latest report (as of writing), released September 22, 2011, is titled Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2003-2010 These reports are also known as the Grimmett Report, after the author, Richard F. Grimmett. They provide insight into where the arms are going. The following breakdowns are based on this report. Global Arms Sales By Supplier NationsThe 5 UN Security Council permanent members are generally the largest arms dealers (though others such as Germany often feature quite high - higher than China for example): As a bar chart
Developing nations are top recipientsThe Grimmett Report also notes that,
For arms suppliers, despite the impact the global economic situation has had recently on sales, a number of weapons-exporting nations have increased competition for sales, going into areas and regions they may not have previously been promninent. Competition between sellers will only intensify due to the limits for growth, Grimmet also notes. Just ten developing nation recipients of arms sales accounted for 60% of the total developing nations arms market between 2003 and 2010: What is sold?The Grimmett Report describes items counted in the weapons categories as follows:
— Richard F. Grimmett, Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2003-2010 As world trade globalizes, so does the trade in armsControl Arms is a campaign jointly run by Amnesty International, International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) and Oxfam. In a detailed report titled, Shattered Lives, they highlight that arms are fueling poverty and suffering, and is also out of control. In addition,
— The Arms Bazaar, Shattered Lives, Chapter 4, p. 54, Control Arms Campaign, October 2003 The top five countries profiting from the arms trade are the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council: the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China.
— The Arms Industry, Control Arms Campaign, October 2003 The third world is often the destination for arms sales as the Control Arms Campaign also highlights graphically: In order to make up for a lack of sales from domestic and traditional markets for military equipment, newer markets are being created or sought after. This is vital for the arms corporations and contractors in order to stay afloat. Respect for human rights is often overlooked as arms are sold to known human rights violators. Heavy militarization of a region increases the risk of oppression on local people. Consequently reactions and uprisings from those oppressed may also be violent. The Middle East is a current example, while Latin America is an example from previous decades, where in both cases, democracies or popular regimes have (or had) been overthrown with foreign assistance, and replaced with corrupt dictators or monarchs. Oppression (often violent) and authoritarianism rule has resulted. Sometimes this also itself results in terrorist reactions that lash out at other innocent people. A deeper cycle of violence results. The arms trade may not always be a root cause, because there are often various geopolitical interests etc. However, the sale of arms can be a significant contributor to problems because of the enormous impact of the weapons involved. Furthermore, some oppressive regimes are only too willing purchase more arms under the pretext of their own war against terrorism. In quoting a major international body, six basic points harshly criticizing the practices and impacts of the arms industry are listed below, by J.W. Smith:
— J.W. Smith, The World's Wasted Wealth II, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), p. 224 But, this was not of the arms industry of today. Smith was quoting the League of Nations after World War I, when “Stung by the horrors of World War I, world leaders realized that arms merchants had a hand in creating both the climate of fear and the resulting disaster itself.”. And unfortunately, it also summarizes some of the problems of today, too. Justification for arms and creating the market for arms expenditure is not a new concept. The call to war and fear-mongering is an old tradition.
— Globalized Weaponry, Foreign Policy In Focus, Volume 5, Number 16, June 2000 Hidden Corporate Welfare?
— Stephen Staples, Confronting the Military-Corporate Complex, presented at the Hague Appeal for Peace, The Hague, May 12th 1999. Vast government subsidies are sought after in the pursuit of arms trading. US and European corporations receive enormous tax breaks and even lend money to other countries to purchase weapons from them. Therefore tax payers from these countries end up often unknowingly subsidizing arms sales. While there are countless examples, a recent one that made a few news headlines was how Lockheed managed to get US subsidies to help sell a lot of fighter planes to Poland at the end of 2002/beginning of 2003. This was described as the biggest deal ever in Europe at that time. Arms Trade Post September 11, 2001To counter the horrific act of terrorism in the United States, on September 11, 2001, George Bush has started a War on Terrorism. However, Human Rights Watch has argued that in the pursuit of military policies which include selling arms or providing assistance to other countries, the U.S. has “expressed minimal concern about the potential side effects”. That is, the increase in militarism itself is risking both the restriction of people’s rights, and the entrenching of power of those who violate human rights. See also Post Sept. 11 Arms Sales and Military Aid Demonstrate Dangerous Trend from the Washington D.C.-based Center for Defense Information. They list a compilation of post-Sept. 11 pending and approved U.S. arms sales. One concerning trend that the Center raises is that “The United States is more willing than ever to sell or give away weapons to countries that have pledged assistance in the global war on terror.” And in order to do this the United States has revised the list of countries that are ineligible to receive U.S. weapons so that “a significant number of countries … are now receiving military aid that would have been denied before Sept. 11.” Side Note» In addition, the Federation of American Scientists also raise the issue that U.S. military aid has been justified around the world on the grounds of the war on terror, even though that has at times been a dubious reason. In addition, previous restrictions or conditions for military aid are being “jettisoned”:
— Military Aid Post September 11th, Arms Sales Monitor, Federation of American Scientists, No. 48, August 2002 Furthermore, Lip Magazine highlights that “the U.S. has sold weapons or training to almost 90% of the countries it has identified as harboring terrorists.” It does not seem to matter who arms are sold to
— Uncle Sam World’s Arms Merchant Again; In 2000 U.S. Sells $18.6 Billion Worldwide, $12.6 Billion to Developing Countries, Arms Trade Insider—#53, Arms Trade Oversight Project, Council for a Livable World, August 20, 2001 As mentioned above, the “War on Terror” has seen the U.S. selling weapons or training to almost 90% of the countries it has identified as harboring terrorists. Yet, for decades, a lot of the arms that the West has sold has gone into the hands of military dictatorships or corrupt governments. This can have the additional intention or effect of hampering any form of democracy in those countries. Sometimes, these arms sales are made secretly and sometimes, arms are sold to human rights violators (such as one third of all sales by the US, in 1998, as the previous link notes). According to a report, from the Council for a Livable World’s Arms Trade Oversight Project, “[s]ince the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the world’s largest arms dealer … Consequently, governments with some of the worst human rights records [have] received American weapons and training.” In November 2001, The Center for Defense Information, a military watch-dog in Washington D.C., provided a detailed list of the 18 countries and 28 terrorist groups cited by the U.S. State Department as hotbeds of terrorist activity. Included in the list is a chronology of U.S. arms sales and training from 1990-1999 and information on use of child soldiers by governments and non-state actors in each country. The U.S. supplied arms to a number of these nations:
— A Risky Business; U.S. Arms Exports To Countries Where Terror Thrives, Center for Defense Information, November 29, 2001 A report from the World Policy Institute released mid-2005 has found that the U.S. is routinely funneling military aid and arms to undemocratic nations. In 2003, for which the most recent data was available at the time,
The arms trade is corruptAs noted in this site’s section on the arms trade code of conduct, many nations are often against measures to improve transparency of international arms. Part of that reason might be the benefits involved. The international arms trade is also considered to be one of the three most corrupt businesses in the world, according to Transparency International, the leading global organization monitoring corruption. Professor Robert Neild of Cambridge University writes extensively about corruption, and notes the following with regards to the arms trade:
— Robert Neild, Public Corruption; The Dark Side of Social Evolution, (London: Anthem Press, 2002), pp. 139-140, 142 Neild notes how some of the top most people in rich countries, from ministers, to even a prince, have been implicated in such corruption. The end of the Cold War, Neild also observes, has not led to a let up of corruption in the arms trade:
— Robert Neild, Public Corruption; The Dark Side of Social Evolution, (London: Anthem Press, 2002), pp. 139-140, 142-143, 195 Geopolitical and Economic AgendasWith the arms trade, governments and corporations can “cooperate” to meet their different political and economic agendas. The military industrial complexes of the powerful countries also help influence and shape foreign and military policies in a way that enhances their bottom line of profits. For governments though, selling arms can help other geopolitical and strategic interests. Consider, for example, the following:
As mentioned later in this web site’s section on arms trade, selling advanced weapons is often accompanied by the same sellers and the military industrial complex pointing out how the new world is getting more dangerous due to an increase in the sophistication of weapons. As a result, they inevitably recommend more research and development to stay ahead! This is a nice circular argument that also serves to keep the military industry in business, largely paid for by the tax payers. The Council for a Livable World’s Arms Trade project shows an example of this, in an article, where the title alone summarizes this situation quite well: U.S. in arms race with itself. The article describes how the U.S. Pentagon allows the U.S. Navy to export its newest jets. As a result, they note that:
— U.S. in arms race with itself, Council for a Livable World, Arms Trade Insider—#51, August 9, 2001 (Text is original, bulleted formatting it mine) As another example, consider India. Since September 11, 2001, there has been even more volatility in terms of Muslim/Hindu relations, India/Pakistan/Kashmir tensions and other issues. As a result, India is seeking to increase their military spending, while arms dealers are only too willing to help both India and Pakistan. Furthermore, government officials from major arms dealing nations are major actors in attempting to see deals through, as there are obvious political dimensions. The Financial Times in UK reported (February 27, 2002), that “While the international community calls for restraint on the Indo-Pakistan border, governments led by the UK and the US are jockeying as never before for a bigger slice of India’s growing arms budget.” Further, they also reported that, “Industry officials were unabashed in admitting that the current regional tension between the nuclear-armed neighbors is a unique selling opportunity.” (Emphasis Added). One could point out that as a business an arms company’s main objective is to make profit so they can remain in business. However, for governments that host these arms industries, it would seem that security issues would be an important part of their foreign policy objective. In that context then, when even very senior government officials are taking part in procuring contracts, it suggests that while this helps achieve economic objectives of arms firms, it doesn’t really address the issue of achieving political stability or not, or even if it is really a major concern as touted. For sure, it is no easy task for such governments because there can be powerful domestic interests and issues and concerns from related industry and other groups, who can argue that continuing to sell arms will help maintain or even create jobs, etc. (This is discussed in more detail a bit later in this section on propaganda for arms trade). For example, in reference to India holding so-called talks with various governments on easing India-Pakistan tensions (while pitching for defense contracts), the same Financial Times report also points out that Jack Straw, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, is “also expected to use the opportunity to lobby for a Pounds 1bn (Euros 1.6bn, Dollars 1.43bn) deal to sell BAE Systems Hawk jets to India”. An official of no less stature than Foreign Secretary (somewhat similar to U.S. Secretary of State) is involved in “marketing” for a weapons company. But it can go even higher than that. Yahoo world news quoted (February 22, 2002), Praful Bidwai, an Indian journalist and commentator who specializes on defense issues who commented on British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, “It’s disgraceful that Blair should have spent more than half his time in India [during his last visit] urging India to buy the jets.” (The sale of jets Bidwai is referring to is 66 British-made hawk jets, at a cost equivalent to US$1.4 billion.) While public relations departments of such governments can say that their leaders are going on humanitarian or peace missions to urge some nations not to go to war, they are also selling arms at the same time, often to both parties. Geopolitically, this is “divide and conquer” still at work, while economically, this proves beneficial to the armament firms. Corrupt leaders of recipient governments are only too happy to take part as well. Unfortunately, these are not isolated occurrence (nor is it usually even reported as sensational or questionable), as for a long time, public officials and leaders have been involved in such issues. As an example of how long this has been going on, consider J.W. Smith’s research:
— J.W. Smith, World’s Wasted Wealth II, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), pp. 223–224 It isn’t just the UK that appears to target each side. The World Policy Institute reports in its 2005 report about U.S. routinely funneling military aid and arms to undemocratic nations that, “As in the case of recent decisions to provide new F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan, while pledging comparable high-tech military hardware to its rival India, U.S. arms sometimes go to both sides in long brewing conflicts, ratcheting up tensions and giving both sides better firepower with which to threaten each other.” On September 28, 2005, the Guardian reported that Britain “agreed in secret” to expel two Saudis dissidents during a £40 billion (about $70 billion) arms talks. With such massive amounts of money criticism has been raised again that profit comes before people. And, as J.W. Smith adds,
— J.W. Smith, World’s Wasted Wealth II, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), p.225 A cycle of violence is a real concern. Though the arms trade may not always be a root cause, their impacts are of course significant. Some countries resort to oppression as the way to address problems, and are only too willing to accept new arms. But the arms industry is also willing to help, while some governments may often encourage such regimes to purchase weapons from them, rather than from “competing” nations. Most arms supplier nations will have champions defending the sales; it creates wealth, it provides jobs, etc. As detailed further on this site’s arms sales propaganda page many of these reasons may be white lies that bring in political points and reach out to patriotism and emotion. In the midst of a global economic crisis which has seen all sorts of cut backs, including defense budgets, many ministers in UK have repeatedly hailed the arms industry as a vanguard of the government’s export drive. The previous link also notes UK Prime Minister, David Cameron being attended by representatives of many arms companies, when touring the Middle East — at a time when a delicate Arab Spring looks to be faltering and some regimes such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia appear to be comforted by the West’s tacit support (though others like Libya of course lose it altogether). To want such an industry to be a major driver for economic growth can perhaps raise some moral questions given that the murky arms industry has helped fuel conflicts or served other geopolitical interests as alluded to earlier. (Interestingly, such a policy decision is also something that would never have entered public debate, and certainly not a topic that comes up in election campaigns where local and national issues take priority. If that is the case, then it raises the interesting question of whether a citizenry of a democracy would want this being a policy in their name. For sure many nations, such as the US, have arms export controls that may offer some degree of comfort but as mentioned above it has often been violated it seems, without any accountability. Even calls for a global arms trade treaty is a painful struggle.) The UN has long called for a “creative partnership” with the arms industry saying that such an arrangement would help promote greater transparency, help curb illicit arms trafficking and ensure legitimate use of the purchased weapons. In some respects, this is would be a welcome step forward (as assuming a transition to a real world peace without arms and weapons etc seems highly unlikely, even though it is probably desired by most people.) The U.N. as well as various public groups are in essence pressuring governments of major arms producing and selling countries, to be more responsible and accountable for who arms are sold to and for what purpose. However, it could be argued that it is under under such rhetoric, combined with the powerful lobbying of the military industries that governments can intentionally or unintentionally end up aiding military industrial complexes more than other governments. As a result, many are concerned that seeking “peace via war” is a questionable foreign policy to say the least. Indeed, military expenditure in major countries seem to be rapidly increasing, as we turn to next. Where next?Related articles Share this page with:Bookmark or share this with others using some popular social bookmarking web sites: Link to this page from your site/blogCopy/paste the following HTML code to your page:<p>Anup Shah, <a href="http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business">The Arms Trade is Big Business</a>, <cite>Global Issues</cite>, Updated: October 23, 2011</p> … to produce this: Anup Shah, The Arms Trade is Big Business, Global Issues, Updated: October 23, 2011 Alternatively, copy/paste the following MLA citation format for this page: | Research Links: http://justf.org/Program?program=Foreign_Military_Sales http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business     Country Description Date of Approval or Notification: Estimated Cost 12 AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters Company: N/A Transfer Type: Excess Defense Articles (EDA) Status: N/A 4/3/02 N/A Option to provide engineering, technical, management and financial support services for the F/A-18 aircraft programs. Company: Veridian Engineering Transfer Type: FMS Status: contract signed, export license granted 11/18/02 $16,727,126 Seven phase 1 retrofit kits for the AN and APG-73 radar for the F/A-18 aircraft Company: Raytheon Transfer Type: FMS Status: contract signed, export license granted 9/3/02 $12,443,000 Australia Joins Joint Strike Fighter program with plans to buy 100 F-35 aircraft form the United States Company: Lockheed Martin Transfer Type: N/A Status: Congress notified 8/11/02 $8 billion Australia Design, development, manufacture and maintenance of the Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) Radar/IFF subsystem Company: N/A Transfer Type: N/A Status: Congress notified 4/26/02 N/A Austria 30 F-16 A/B fighter jets upgraded with the Falcon Up structural modification and the Mid-Life Update (MLU) capability modification Company: Lockheed Martin Transfer Type: Foreign Military Sale (FMS) Status: Congress notified[1] 3/19/02 $1 billion One AN/TPS-59(V)3 3-dimensional land-based radar, one Air Defense Communication Platform, spares, training and other related elements of program support Company: N/A Transfer Type: FMS Status: Congress notified 6/26/02 $40 million Missile boresight correlator upgrade kit and support equipment upgrade Company: Lockheed Martin Transfer Type: FMS Status: contract signed, export license granted 4/24/02 $8,109,231 Bahrain Eight 44 foot Motor Lifeboats Company: Boeing Transfer Type: EDA Status: N/A 1/15/02 N/A Brazil Two KC-135A Stratotanker air-to-air tanker/transport aircraft Company: N/A Transfer Type: EDA Status: N/A 5/1/2002 N/A Brazil 12 F-16 fighter jets Company: has reached preliminary agreement with Lockheed Martin Transfer Type: FMS Status: waiting to sign contract 4/19/02 $909,000,000 Bulgaria Naval architecture and marine engineering services for the basic and detailed development of a multi-mission corvette Company: N/A Transfer Type: Direct Commercial Sale (DCS) Status: Congress notified 4/15/02 N/A 10 ALQ-211(V)4 Advanced Integrated Defense Electronic Warfare Systems for F-16s Company: N/A Transfer Type: FMS Status: Congress notified 8/13/02 $51,653,708 Colombia 210-foot Medium Endurance Cutter Company: N/A Transfer Type: EDA Status: Congress notified 8/29/02 N/A Czech Republic 150 AIM-9M-8/9 Sidewinder missiles, associated equipment and services Company: N/A Transfer Type: FMS Status: Congress notified 7/22/02 $35,000,000 Dominican Republilc 8 UH-1H Helicopters Company: N/A Transfer Type: N/A Status: Congress notified 8/21/02 N/A Dominican Republic SH-3 Sea King Helicopters Company: N/A Transfer Type: N/A Status: Congress notified 7/30/02 N/A 20,000 M16 rifles Company: N/A Transfer Type: EDA Status: N/A 1/23/02 N/A Two UH-60L Black Hawk helicopters Company: N/A Transfer Type: FMS Status: Congress notified 10/17/02 $47,000,000 A contract to assist the government of Egypt in the development of a capability to produce 120mm tank training ammunition Company: Alliant Techsystems Transfer Type: N/A Status: contract signed 8/11/02 $27,000,000 6 Theatre Airborne Reconnaissance Systems (TARS) Pods, associated equipment and services Company: N/A Transfer Type: FMS Status: Congress notified 7/25/02 $70,000,000 Time and materials contract to provide for expanded repair capability on the Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night as Part of the Peace Kamar Program Company: Lockheed Martin Transfer Type: FMS Status: contract signed, export license granted 4/23/02 $10,763,955 Egypt Contract modification to manufacture 26 M993AO Multiple Launch Rocket System Carriers Company: United Defense Transfer Type: N/A Status: contract signed, export license granted 4/15/02 $23,400,000 Egypt Technical data, defense services and articles for the upgrade of C-130's and other transport aircraft Company: N/A Transfer Type: DCS Status: Congress notified 4/2/02 $50,000,000 Egypt 5 Naval Special Warfare Rigid inflatable Boat detachments in support of a U.S. Special Operations Command Program Executive Office maritime and rotary wing Company: United States Marine Inc. Transfer Type: FMS Status: contract signed, export license granted 3/20/02 $10,113,602 Egypt Support package for Fast Missile Naval Craft including 53 RGM 84-L-4 Harpoon Block II antiship missiles, 4 PHALANX CIWS, 50,000 rounds of 20mm tungsten ammunition, 4 AN/SWG-1A Harpoon Shipboard Command Launch Control Systems, spare and repair parts Company: Boeing and Raytheon Transfer Type: FMS Status: Congress notified 2/13/02 $255,000,000 Egypt Anti-tank ammunition Company: N/A Transfer Type: FMS Status: Congress notified 2/02/02 $13,400,000 Egypt 7 M728 Combat Engineer Vehicles Company: N/A Transfer Type: EDA Status: N/A 1/23/02 N/A Egypt Modification for a previously awarded firm/fixed price contract (DAAE30-99-C-1049) for the delivery of 5,000 additional KEWA-1 cartridges for production acceptance training Company: General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems Transfer Type: N/A Status: contract signed, export license granted 1/10/02 $13,400,000 Egypt 26 M270 launchers - Modification to previous contract Company: Lockheed Martin Transfer Type: N/A Status: contract signed, export license granted 12/19/01 $78,714,454 Egypt Incorporation of advanced digital transfer equipment/digital video recorders into 50 F-16D aircraft under FMS program Company: Lockheed Martin Transfer Type: FMS Status: contract signed, export license granted 11/29/01 $9,605,216 has been obligated (not to exceed $23,161,000) Egypt For F-16s: spares, containers, mainframes, side activation for listening II pods for the Peace Marble V program under FMS program Company: Northrop Grumman Corp. Transfer Type: FMS Status: contract signed, export license granted 11/29/01 $13,584,421 Egypt Remanufacture of 35 Egyptian Air Force AH-64 D Apache Helicopters with fire control radar/radio frequency Company: McDonnell Douglas Co. Transfer Type: N/A Status: contract signed, export license granted 11/15/01 $241,993,426 Egypt Refurbished 201 M109A2/A3 155mm self-propelled howitzers Company: United Defense LP Transfer Type: FMS Status: Congress Notified 11/08/01 $77,000,000 France Order against a previously awarded Basic Ordering Agreement for supplies and spares associated with the installation and system integration of a French-unique Dual Microwave Landing System for 3 French E-2C aircraft Company:Northrup Grumman Systems, Corp. Transfer Type:FMS Status:contract signed, export license granted 9/11/02 $12,443,000 Technical data and assistance for the BSAT-2c commercial communications satellite Company: N/A Transfer Type: DCS Status: Congress notified 4/15/02 $50,000,000 Contract modification to provide for additional buy of 40 conformal fuel tanks (CFT), CFT support equipment and eight targeting pod pylons for the Peace Xenia III Program Company: Lockheed Martin Transfer Type: FMS Status: contract signed, export license approved 10/16/02 $22,775,345 210-foot Medium Endurance Cutter Company: N/A Transfer Type: EDA Status: Congress notified 1/31/02 $34,262,481
100 ARIM-120 C5 advance medium range air-to-air missiles and spares Company: Raytheon Transfer Type: FMS Status: contract signed, export license granted 1/31/02 $34,262,481 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.
developing countries
industrialized countries
