Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Despite Recession, Global Arms Race Spirals
UNITED NATIONS - The global financial crisis has not deterred some of the world's developed and developing nations from bolstering their military arsenals with expensive new weapons systems, including sophisticated fighter planes, combat helicopters, submarines, armored vehicles and air defence systems.
Israeli F-16 warplanes take part in a military parade in Tel Aviv. (AFP/Jack Guez) The five largest arms purchasers during 2005-2009
were China, India, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and
Greece, according to the latest figures released Monday by the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
The extended list of prolific arms buyers also includes Turkey, Singapore, Pakistan, Malaysia, Israel, Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Sudan, Chile and Venezuela.
"I think one should stress that political leaders in different regions of the world have expressed concerns their region is on the verge of an arms race," Dr. Paul Holtom, director of SIPRI's arms transfer program, told IPS.
SIPRI data on deliveries and orders shows signs that these concerns may have grounds as in several regions of tension there is evidence of reactive acquisitions - for example, it is reasonable to assume that the Moroccan order for U.S.-made F-16 combat aircraft is related to the orders and deliveries of Russian-made Su-30MK to neighboring Algeria, he added.
Fighter aircraft accounted for 27 percent of international arms transfers during 2005-2009.
These include 72 F-16E fighter planes to UAE, 52 F-16I to Israel and 40 F-15K to South Korea, collectively costing billions of dollars.
Russian exports of fighter planes include 82 Su-30s to India, 28 to Algeria, and 18 to Malaysia.
The Russians are also hoping to clinch a massive Indian contract for 126 combat aircraft, ahead of European and U.S. suppliers, in 2010.
And orders and deliveries of these "potentially destabilizing weapons systems have led to arms race concerns in the following regions of tensions: the Middle East, North Africa, South America, South Asia and South-east Asia," according to SIPRI, one of the world's leading research institutes on arms control and disarmament.
Since the volume of arms deliveries can fluctuate significantly from one year to the next, SIPRI uses a five-year moving average, with arms transfers for 2005-2009 being 22 percent higher than in 2000-2004.
Dr. Holtom said that SIPRI data show that resource-rich states have purchased a considerable quantity of expensive combat aircraft.
"Neighboring rivals have reacted to these acquisitions with orders of their own. One can question whether this is an appropriate allocation of resources in regions with high levels of poverty," he added.
According to SIPRI, the five largest arms suppliers during 2005-2009 were the United States, Russia, Germany, France and Britain accounting for more than 75 percent of all exports of major conventional weapons,
The United States and Russia remained by far the largest exporters, accounting for 30 percent and 24 percent of all exports, respectively.
Dan Darling, Europe & Middle East Military Markets Analyst at the U.S.-based Forecast International Inc., told IPS it might be rash to predict a continuing upward trend in military spending worldwide with so many lingering economic uncertainties.
But as the SIPRI figures show, he said, there has been a consistent rise in defence spending and arms acquisitions in the past five years.
There are myriad reasons for this, including regional rivalries (Colombia-Venezuela, India-Pakistan, Turkey-Greece, China-Taiwan, etc); surplus state revenues; the need for militaries to replace aging equipment, etc.
Whatever the reasons, arms suppliers such as the U.S., Russia, Western Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Britain) and China will position themselves to reap the benefits of this upward trend, Darling said.
Certainly defence expenditure is not going to rise significantly in Europe anytime soon, largely due to the budget deficit and public debt troubles weighing on many of the countries there, but also because of the lack of a direct strategic threat facing the continent.
Selling the public on greater defence expenditure isn't a winning political formula in many European countries, he argued.
"Swimming in its own tide of debt, the U.S., too, may soon be forced to restrain baseline Pentagon budgets to just above the rate of inflation in the coming years," he noted.
The regional breakdown of arms deliveries has remained relatively stable over the past 10 years, according to SIPRI.
The major recipient region during 2005-2009 remained Asia and Oceania (41 percent), followed by Europe (24 percent), the Middle East 17 percent), the Americas (11 percent) and Africa (seven percent).
Asked how best one could interpret the growing arms race in a recession-struck world, Dr. Holtom told IPS that acquisitions by regional rivals and states "perceived to be" potential threats obviously influences procurement decisions and can unfortunately lead to dangerous spirals, as states seek to keep up with their neighbors' acquisitions.
However, at present, and despite tense relationships, it has proven difficult to conclude that sizable arms acquisitions alone lead to conflict - although this factor can certainly influence decision-making and make the option of using military force to resolve a political conflict more attractive if your armed forces at the time appear to be significantly stronger than those of a rival/opponent.
For example, he said, Azerbaijan has been saber-rattling regarding the frozen conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia, following a period in which it has sought to outspend Armenia with regard to military spending and acquire more weapons.
Darling of Forecast International Inc pointed out that Latin America is a defence-spending region that continues to grow.
Led by Brazil, many of the countries in the region are undertaking broad military modernization programs aimed at upgrading aging arsenals.
The countries of northern Africa (Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia) are also continuing to put more and more money into defence investment.
But it is in Asia that major defence growth will take place, and which will serve as the leading market for arms sales, thanks to internal security concerns and - like Latin America - a region-wide military re-equipment cycle, he noted.
So while the defence investment of members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) may be held in relative check (at, or slightly above, inflation rates) over the next few years, other regions across the globe should continue to experience growing military expenditures resulting in more arms purchases, Darling predicted.
- Posted in
19 Comments so far
Show AllThe headline is backwards. It should read "Global Arms Race Aggravates Recession."
It is sickening and disheartening to consider what progress could be made if all of that money being spent on lavish weapons systems could be put to progressive uses.
q
Soooo, there's the real reason we cannot trim, much less cut or curtail the Pentagon budget. The U.S. military industrial complex control on U.S. war policy has our economy by the throat with its 30% domination of weapons manufacture and sale to the world frightened by our continued expansionist control patterns.
If we stop creating wars and maliciously occupying nations, then we will have to stop buying our own military killing machines because the 'need' for more weapons to maintain our 570 military bases around the world will be mute.
If we stop selling military weapons to nations trying to protect themselves from our military threats and scare tactics conservatives, then there will be no 'need' for more weapons and excuses to violate other nations' rights by invading and destroying their military arsenals we sold them to protect themselves against us... i.e. Saddam Hussein, Iraq/ Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Panama, Iran, (Oh!, Palestine, al la Israel ), et.c, etc.
We all know the Cold War is over. So now we have this little Capital War going on with "United States, Russia, Germany, France and Britain accounting for more than 75 percent of all exports of major conventional weapons".
No harm, just a little 'market' game to preserve the economies of the 'free world'.
Our 14 trillion dollar national debt can be eliminated by retrenching our EMPIRE (725 MILITARY BASES AND FIVE WARS-IRAQ,AFGHANISTAN.SOMALIA, WIRZIRISTAN AND YEMEN). Stop the madness!
I am puzzled. They list the most prolific purchasers of arms, but the United States, The United Kingdom, France and Japan not on the list.
Venezuala is listed and purchased 2.2 billion in arms while the USA will spend that amount on a single aircraft. Iran spent something like 2.5 billion. This is significantly less the Canada or Japan or the USA.
The largest purchaser of arms by far is the USA. Why is Greece listed ahead of them?
The USA spends almost as much of the rest of the world combined on arms, yet we should be more concerned by an arms race in South America? The last I looked the USA was suffereing a dperession, closing down fire departments and schools and cutting back on patments to the disabled and the poor.
By all means lets end the purchase of arms the world over but ignoring the countries that spend the most on arms seems like a bit of misinformation.
(Just a FYI in case people might think this pertains to arms IMPORTS the USA increased the total import of arms last year by some 6 billion. Thats just the amount increased, not the total spent and that amount higher then Iran and Venezuala combined.)
It pertains to arms IMPORTS, not military spending. The article makes that pretty clear, since it mentions that the major arms exporters are set to benefit. SIPRI has the US at #8 in arms imports during the 2005-2009 period that the article uses.
I stated CLEARLY that the USA IMPORTS more arms then does Iran and Venezuala combined given that the dollar value of IMPORTS increased 6 billion dollars last year into the USA.
Nor does the article make it clear, The Article refers to Military spending.
>>The five largest arms purchasers during 2005-2009 were China, India, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Greece, according to the latest figures released Monday by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
This states PURCHASERS not importers. When the US GOvernment buys arms it purchases them.Import does not mean the same as purchase.
No where in the article does the author mention he speaks solely of the import of arms.
Further to that, I fail to see the logic of arguing against an arms race but not listing Countries that manufacture their own arms. It would seem pretty obvious to be that the ESCALATION of arms purchases in places like Venezuala and Iran is a direct consequence of US threats against those countries.
It is importers, regardless of what you state clearly. The reason you are confused is that you are using different numbers compared to a different baseline than the author. SIPRI uses 1990 prices for its baseline, to allow for comparisons over time. Thus your numbers are going to be larger than their
Throughout the entire article, the author repeatedly uses terms such as "arms transfers", "exports". It is pretty clear that he means IMPORTS when he writes purchasers.
As for the logic of not listing countries that manufacture their own arms, not every country is buying arms because of US threats. The world doesn't only consist of the US, and countries it makes threat against. Malaysia and Singapore, and to lesser extents, Vietnam aren't buying large amounts of weapons because of threats against them by the US. Similarly South Korea. India. There is an big increase in arms spending among East Asian countries not because of US threats against them. Whom do you think they are concerned about? The #1 arms importer.
And the resurgence of the Chinese military has nothing to do with the fact that the U.S. has pursued a policy of deliberate provocation against the Chinese for years, with their military surveilance planes in Chinese airspace and war games and U.S. bases off their coast, right? The U.S., of course, would do nothing if the Chinese did something similar to us, right?
I suppose that this resurgence of the Chinese military isn't an intended consequence of U.S. policy and has nothing to do with the U.S. military-industrial complex making sure that U.S. tax dollars continue to flow their way, right?
The Armament Industry is an equal opportunity destroyer.
"You two guys seem to have some pretty intense differences. We'll sell both of you enough arms to destroy the other. Then, if you do get into a war, we'll resupply both sides (at a cost)
"When the war is over, we'll resupply the victor and, we'll sell replacement arms to the loser so he can fight again later. Same terms."
MIC wins, everybody loses. Nothing personal, just business.
Having lived in 4 southern states in my 73 years, I've heard it said many times during a recession that we need a "good war" to get the economy going again. The defense/weapons industry is strong in the South and all over the country with companies strategically located in as many states and congressional districts as possible. The weapons makers and corporations who exploit the resources of conquered nations like the oil companies do in the continuing strife in the middle east are also making out like the corporate bandits they are.
The more the insidious empire of the US grows with its global military might, the more $$$$ the suppliers of weapons/killing tools make as they sell them both to the US government and governments threatened by the US. In the middle east the US sells weapons to both sides in the endless Israelis v. Arab imbroglio.
It sure is great to read that the Greek government hasn't had to cut back on its weapons purchases. It's also nice to know that the U.S. has been selling weapons to both sides in the Greece/Turkey rivalry. After all, it's not like either country has anything else they might spend the money on.
The Greek / Turkish "rivalry" is not an issue. Greece is actually one of the strongest supporters for the entry of Turkey into the EU.
I find it interesting that the article talks about the largest purchasers of weapons, but does not say who is making them. This is about who is profiting from death. I want the names of the actual people who own stock in weapons manufacturers. There names should be publicized and they should be held responsible for profiting from war. I don't care what nationality they are or where they live, they are criminals against life. The people who work in the munitions factories should know what they are enabling. If no one was willing to make the weapons, things would change.
I'll not argue with that, by God.
You probably just got home from your job.
If you have one (job I meant).
I can tell you: Rockefeller, Kennedy, Carnegie.
The paper, the movie, the magazine, dope screen,
See, when the US stole everything every other country had via WWII,
It wasn't shared by all US citizens equally.
Somebody has to start the next one.
Exactly why are each of those taxpayer owned machines dumping a ton of water a minute into the atmosphere?
Lots of Carbon Dioxide too.
Any guesses at the cost of maintaining one of those machines?
Why is that particular air show in the photo being produced?
This winter, now finally ending; anybody know how many people died----just this past winter in this country, starved, froze, lost a child?
I think I hear Barbara Bush with the answer: "These people are poor. They are used to pain and death and taxes."
It's all because weaponry is the only remaining profitable "industry" in the US.
Sure, Russia has a weapons industry but that's because your country is a Global threat.
You've been conditioned.
Think "Star Trek".
What bull-shit.
The US has been spinning it's (your) wheels in a rut for years.
That costs you money, because the money is going to the top,
obviously at your expense.
Ye fellers are more like the Borg.
But resistance is not futile:
http://124.217.251.48/~alemarah/english/
Something many people forget when they think about U.S. weapons production and military expenditures, is how intrinsic this has become to our entire economic system.
Small Businesses are encouraged (via the SBA and community college small biz programs) to grow to a size where they can be eligible for a (fat, juicy) government contract.
If we realize that contractors need an incredible assortment of tiny parts & basic supplies (cardboard boxes, for example), you can appreciate that it would be a bit difficult to cut the $$ gravy train.
It's a very clever and insidious system.
The waging of war, and preparation for war, is embedded throughout our entire economy. The warmongers made sure of that.
It's long past time for it to stop!
Everyone defending against everyone else with the most advanced technologies. - That soon amounts to money. That money is needed for much better purposes.
At core it means the rest of the world is defending against USA's increases, as these two "parts" are roughly equal in military budgets.
The USA accounts for about half the global annual military spending, the rest of the world the other half. Equal opponents. - A constructed paranoia where each "part" gets to justify military madness by referring to the other half.
But the USA is driving the paranoia by having 2/3 of the global annual military R&D expenses. In addition to its own half of military spending, it sells another third of weapons to the world. This makes the USA in large part oppose its own weapons - 1/3 of the weapons it risks meeting. Not smart. Except for the profits to weapons merchants.
This way USA pulls the arms-race, forcing everyone else along. That happens mainly to keep production and consumption - i.e. the economic "engine" - going. Very few want to take the bother of changing direction of this weapons-production based distribution of economic resources, as such change means uncertainty. Yet the easy, set pattern at the same time wrecks the ecology through wrongsided resource use.
Meanwhile, the weapons are getting used, more and more as more and more come into existence.
That's ugly.