"A man may build himself a throne of
bayonets, but he cannot sit on it."
William
Ralph Inge
“What’s the point of having this superb military…
if we can’t use it?”
Madeleine Albright, former American
ambassador to the UN and former Sec. of State
"It
is not an exaggeration to say that it is clearly in the interests of the
world's leading arms exporters to make sure that there is always a war going on
somewhere."
Marilyn
Waring (Counting for Nothing)
One
indication of the current breaking down of international law is the
ongoing arms race to obtain or enlarge the stocks of both nuclear and
conventional weapons, and to militarize space.
As far
as nuclear arms proliferation is
concerned, we all know about the efforts by a growing number of countries to
obtain them. This is happening even though the 1968 Treaty on Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT). was designed to
limit the spread of nuclear weapons. Far from
contracting, the club of countries with nuclear capabilities (USA, Russia,
China, France, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel) is expanding, while the
goal of nuclear disarmament has become a dead letter.
Some among the most heavily armed countries, such as the United States, have
revealed plans to replace their ageing nuclear weapons stockpiles with more
modern and more deadly weapons. The Bush-Cheney Administration, for instance, announced
last March 5 (2006), its plan for building as many as 125 new nuclear bombs
a year, from 2010 to 2022, while at the same time assuring
other nations that it is not seeking a new arms race. — Last June 13
(2006), the Bush-Cheney administration also made it clear that whatever the 1967 U.N. treaty
banning weapons of mass destruction from space says, the United States is going
ahead with plans to develop weapons for use in Outer Space, with
the clear intention of asserting American dominance of this common property of
humankind. If needs be, the Bush-Cheney administration will not hesitate to
pull out of the 1967 Treaty, just as it pulled out, in 2002, from the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. It is obvious that a nuclear arms race is
on the way, with very few checks in its path.
In the
world of conventional weapons,
their production, their spread and their use is even more endemic. Existing
international conventions against the use of inhumane weapons against
populations, such as the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), are openly violated, as the summer 2006
destruction of Lebanon by Israel vividly
illustrated. And, what is more, new efforts to restrict their proliferation,
especially in the developing world, such as the proposed Arms Trade Treaty,
are being resisted by some of the countries that are the larger
producers and exporters of armaments.
On October 27 (2006), for example, the vast majority
(139) of countries represented at the United Nations voted an historic
resolution to have the new UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon prepare a global Arms Trade Treaty for 2007. The aim is to
introduce some regulation of the wide-open international arms transfers that
fuel conflict, poverty and serious human rights violations in many developing
countries. However, the main exporter of armaments, the United States, voted
against the resolution. —It was the only country to vote no. Twenty-four
countries, among them large arms exporters such as Russia and China, abstained.
It can be considered a tribute to some European countries that are large arms
exporters, such as France, Great Britain and Germany, that they supported the
resolution in favor of the coming arms trade control treaty. These European countries,
at least, are showing some leadership, even though the U.S. has abdicated any
pretense of leadership in this domain. —To be effective, however, the
proposed treaty would need to be implemented by all countries that are large
producers and exporters of armaments and by most other countries. The reason is
simple: a weapons company with its headquarters in a given country with strict
export controls can always circumvent national regulations by manufacturing
weapons in a non-complying country. Even then, there would remain the hurdle of
stopping those underground international arms dealers who do their illegal
trade without requesting any export licenses.
The total
international arms trade has been increasing
rapidly, in 2005 reaching an all-time high in current dollars of $44.2 billion
(from $38.9 billion in 2004). The United States is
the world’s leading conventional arms exporting
nation, accounting for about 29 percent of all international arms trade. Last
year, in 2005, it exported $12.8 billion of military gear of all
sorts, about half of it ($6.2 billion) going to developing nations. The other
main arms exporting nations last year were France (second with $7.9 billion in
total arms sales) and Russia (the third exporter, with $7.4 billion in total
sales). The United Kingdom and China came in behind, with $2.8 and $2.1 billion
in arms exports in 2005. Overall, however, the 25 countries of Western Europe
surpass the U.S. in trade of armaments, with about 44 percent of total arms
exports. The other two non-Western countries, Russia and China, are responsible
respectively for about 17 percent and 5 percent of total world arms exports.
Such
a large-scale trade in armaments has
the expected consequences of fueling regional
conflicts, when they are not solidifying undemocratic and abusive regimes. It
also has the effect of increasing poverty in countries that are already poor.
But is it realistic to want to reduce arms exports without at the same time
attempting to reduce military production?
Indeed, the
fundamental cause of the flourishing international trade in armaments is the
large military establishments that industrial countries subsidize year after
year. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has
estimated that total world military expenditures, (which had been falling from 1991 to 1996), are on the
rise again, especially since 2001, and amounted to $1,118
billion in current dollars, in 2005, or 2.5 per cent of total world production,
or again, about $173 per capita. This is big business and it can only be
sustained with the threat of oncoming armed conflicts or through arms exports
to countries in turmoil.
The USA is responsible for close to half
(48% in 2005) of all military expenditures in the world. It is, therefore, not
too surprising that it is also the largest arms exporter and that many of its
industries are reluctant to loose such a lucrative business. Fourteen other
countries account for about 36 per cent of global military expenditures, with
such countries as Russia, UK, France, Japan and China, each spending about 4 to
5 per cent of the total. In other words, the five nuclear members of the U.N. Security Council (USA, Russia, China, U.K. and
France) are also the world's largest military spenders —Therefore, it is only normal
that leadership on this matter should originate from this quarter.
Rodrigue Tremblay is
professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be
reached at tremblay.rodrigue@yahoo.com
He is
the author of the book 'The New American Empire'
Visit
his blog site at: www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.
Author's
Website: http://www.thenewamericanempire.com/
_____________________________________
Posted,
November 6, 2006, at 5:30 am
Email
to a friend:
http://www.TheNewAmericanEmpire.com/tremblay=1044
Send contact,
comments or commercial reproduction requests (in English or in French) to:
N.B.:
Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Please register
to receive free emails on new postings of articles.
Send an email
with the word "subscribe" to: bigpictureworld@yahoo.com
Home:
TheNewAmericanEmpire.com
©
2006 by Big Picture World Syndicate, Inc.