Who are the winners and losers in the arms trade Essays

Who are the winners and losers in the arms trade Essays Who are the winners and losers in the arms trade Essay Who are the winners and losers in the arms trade Essay The prolific and largely unregulated transfers of arms, particularly small arms and light weapons, has resulted in tremendous human suffering. Tens of millions of people have been killed in wars since 1945. By the end of the 1990s, a large percentage of war-victims were non-combatants and at least half of these were children. The arms trade fuels these wars, wasting life, natural resources and vast sums of money. Despite this, world military expenditure has increased sharply over the last decade; US, Japan, UK, France and China are the top 5 spenders, which equals 62% of world military spending. In particular, several countries like UK and US use military exports as a tool of foreign policy. In this essay, I will examine the profit and cost brought by the arms trade, and try to justify whether there are winners or losers in the arms trade. First of all, let us look at why there are several countries continuing to support the export of military equipment. Let us take Britain, which continues to rank as one of the worlds largest arms exporter (WMEAT, P. 470) as an example. The British government claims, support for military exports helps employment, bring budgetary savings, benefit the balance of trade and deliver other wider economic benefits. ( deso. mod. uk/policy. htm) Since 1995, three reports have begun to estimate the overall net costs to government of engaging in this kind of activity. Estimates vary mainly because of different approaches to research and development spending but they all show that exports benefit from considerable subsidies- between 228 million pounds up to a possible 990 million pounds per annum. WDM, 1995) It is obviously to see that with larger export of the military equipment, there is always a great profit coming with. Furthermore, the British government claims that defence exports help support a strong UK defence industry and contribute to the security of our friends and allies overseas; defence exports can also contribute to international stability by strengthening bilateral and collective defence relationships. ( deso. mod. uk/policy. tm) In addition, the British government believes that a strong defence industrial base is important for the United Kingdoms defence. It enables us to manufacture the equipment to meet our armed forces requirements, including the development of future systems and the regeneration of capability at times of crisis. The skills of our defence industry workers are themselves a valuable defence resource. For an average in each year of 86,000 jobs in the UK are working in defence industry. Without a large export trade, the whole size of the industry will have a dramatic decrease. deso. mod. uk/policy. htm) all above seems to be a very strong evidence of supporting arms trade despite some of the factors might be still debatable. The situation in Britain can roughly reflects the benefit brought by the arms trade in other countries. If all the policy based on the benefits to their own Defence and international security, arms trade can play a powerful role in deterring aggression and promoting stability, it would not be difficult to see the advantages of arms trade. In some extend, we have faced the fact that a number of major initiatives were approved making a significant contribution to the fight against terrorism. These included tightening controls over Man Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS) and agreeing to enhance transparency of transfer of small arms and light weapons (SALW). But does all above mean that the countries which exports military equipment are the winners of arms trade, the answer is: it does not tell the whole picture. The United Kingdom enforces very strict control of defence equipment exports. Export licences are not approved if to do so would fail to comply with UKs international obligations or if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression or international aggression, or may affect regional stability in any significant way. ( deso. mod. uk/policy. htm) However, there always is hidden potential for arms exports, which is also called the invertible hand by some press. Because there is high value of profit, it is not difficult for people to guess there are people selling arms by illegal methods such as trading arms in a black market, otherwise there would be less properly armed terrorists. It can be a direct impediment to the achievement of peace and international security. Now, let us look at one of the biggest arms exporter France as an example. All wars have winners and losers. The war in Iraq is no exception. France is a big loser. France lost billions to Saddam Hussein by selling the Iraqi dictator arms on credit. France lost billions in oil contracts and business deals when the Iraqi dictator fell. France also lost a major alliance with the United States by putting up such a sham over Iraq. The lost alliance between Paris and Washington will cost France. (WWW. newsmax. com) The evidence shows that there are still some arms being exported to destinations where they are likely to be used to commit grave violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, owning to the fact that there is always uncertainty such as misusing of the arms imported. In practice, however, successive governments have failed to close the loopholes in arms export laws and have even failed to abide by their own guidelines. The decision-making process is weighted heavily in favour of the arms dealers and, time and time again, concerns of human rights are overridden in the interest of exports. A recent example of this was in late 2001 when BAE Systems were granted a licence to sell a i 28million military air traffic control system to the Tanzanian government despite the fact that: Tanzania has a sum total of eight military aircraft and such a system could only provide limited support for civilian air traffic control. A civilian ATC system costing a quarter of the price would have met the countrys needs. The cost of the system will add to Tanzanias debt burden and do nothing to address poverty in the country. Adding to the debt burden seems especially short-sighted given that some sections of the UK government are trying to cancel debt. The UKs export licensing criteria state that account must be taken of the compatibility of arms exports with the technical and economic capacity of the recipient country, with this information gathered from the IMF and World Bank. In this case the World Bank criticised the proposed export for the first two reasons above. (CAAT, 2002) The UK government continues to allow the export of military equipment to many countries with records of sustained human rights abuses, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Indonesia and China. Indonesias military, for example, has an appalling human rights record and continues to wield considerable power. (CAAT, 2001) The UK government argues that it has received assurances from the Indonesian army that equipment will not be used for internal repression. It chooses to believe this despite the militarys record and evidence of previous use of that, or similar, equipment. In addition, the export of arms can also make a very bad effort fuelling conflict. Many of the UKs arms customers are situated in areas of actual or potential conflict. The 2001 Annual Report 1 lists exports to Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Angola, Algeria and Colombia. Where more than one country is involved, the UK is commonly willing to sell to both, or all, sides. The above report lists exports to India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Turkey and Greece, Israel and many of its Middle East neighbours, and Uganda, Angola and Zimbabwe during their involvement in the Democratic Republic of Congo conflict. Countries with massive development needs, such as India and South Africa, are among the UKs most lucrative customers for military equipment. The governments support for arms sales encourages such countries to waste money that could be spent to meet peoples basic health and education needs. (CAAT, 2002) Any of this military equipment imported for these countries will be a risk, If any of these arms is used in the war or even local conflict, it would be doubtlessly for us to see how disastrous it can be for their people. In general, I could say that thousands of lives are suffering from these trade arms. All above shows that, the exporters of arms like France are not the final winners and many countries, which imports lots of arms are suffering. Most of the people believe that arms exports are a useful tool in foreign policy and giving us some control over other nations. Honestly, they could be in some cases, but in practice they arent. For example, the government happily granted export licences for the supply of spare parts for Hawk fighter jets to the Zimbabwe government for use in the terrible conflict over the Democratic Republic of Congo. This was in spite of opposition from human rights campaigners and some members of the cabinet, who suggested that the government might like to refuse the licences and thereby show their displeasure that Zimbabwes actions. (Brittan, 2001,p2) The tool has lost its power simply because you cannot have total control on other nations. On the other hand, people argue that if we do not sell these arms, someone else will. I have to confess the fact is true. This will need lots of co-operations and trust between nations. In conclusion, I would like to say there are no absolute winners and losers in the arms trade. In the past, the main victims of war have been soldiers and other armed combatants. However, nowadays, as the opening quote states, the majority of causalities in modern wars are innocent civilians. Anyone who is involved in arms trade, will have a risk of being accused of any tragedy happened. In general, lots of the arms deals are being processed, and all we hope to see is, more and more countries are working together, having more control on arms trade, and create a better environment for the world itself.