War: The global arms race is one of the more shocking aspects of humanity.

Giles Crosse investigates the situation.

Making capital from violence and death is not something we might associate with advanced nations. But the international arms race is something that seems genuinely tough to control.

Whether it’s a race towards nuclear weaponry in the Middle East, or deals between Westernised governments and multinational warplane suppliers, the fact is that most of this is driven by demand for profit, illustrating how our existing economic models don’t favour sustainability at a global level.

All too often there’s a link between oil revenues in Gulf countries, which depend on these for cash for their armed forces. Lots of the oil, of course, goes west. So in many ways developed nations are funding weaponry in unstable states overseas. And there are strategic choices driving all of this.

Previously tightly controlled communist states have huge stockpiles of weaponry, which risk being poorly regulated and ‘disappearing’ into other countries for a quick buck.

There are plenty of campaigning organisations out there looking to put an end to profit from war. Among them is the International Crisis Group (ICS), which works to put an end to worldwide conflict.

Back in 2008 the group reported on how and why arms races can potentially boil over; ‘Two states wedged between Europe and Iran are locked in an arms race and preparing for war. The international community, particularly the EU, might be able to slow down Armenia and Azerbaijan’s slide toward another devastating conflict.

‘Attempts to broker peace over the past dozen years have failed, and worse, a massive arms build up has started. Boosted by oil revenues, Azerbaijan increased its military spending by a record 51 per cent in 2004/05, and then raised it a further 82 per cent in 2006.

‘The shopping spree has so far included large numbers of multi launch rocket systems, new artillery, tanks and both F-15 and Mig-29 fighters. In 2007 President Ilham Aliyev promised to make Azerbaijan’s military spending equal to Armenia’s entire state budget.

‘But Armenia is hardly a tortoise in this race. Though its military budget is only about a quarter of its neighbour’s, it last year spent some $280 million on weapons, another record.’

More recently, in March 2009, the same group reported on fears that a space arms race was developing in Korea.

‘Space race dynamics are among the likely Pyongyang motivations for the Taepodong-2 launch.’ explained the report, describing North Korean aspirations. ICS reckoned every advance in technology and development raised the risks of an arms race.

Back in 2008, reporting on the situation in Chad, in its ‘Africa report No 144’, ICS recommended a ‘regional conflict resolution mechanism should be established.’

‘It should address and seek to eliminate the support provided by Sudan and Chad to armed groups in each other’s country, improve security and protection for civilians along their common borders, attempt to halt arms trafficking and address the negative ramifications of these regional disputes for the Central African Republic (CAR).’

It also asked the Government of France to; ‘Halt all arms deliveries to the government of Chad,’ The Government of Libya to do the same, and the EU to; ‘Obtain a moratorium on arms deliveries to the government of Chad from member states’

It seems that often lots of global players are involved in what’s taking place. But they seem less able to act.

Growing fears

Another disconcerting element is that if anything the problem is increasing. The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is a global coalition of 800 groups in 120 countries.

According to IANSA, ‘In 2009, worldwide military expenditure reached $1,531 billion,’ it says, quoting the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

‘This represents an increase of 5.9 per cent in real terms compared to 2008 and an increase of 49 per cent since 2000,’ says SIPRI itself, at the June launch of its 2010 Yearbook on Armaments, Disarmament and International Security.

“Many countries were increasing public spending generally in 2009, as a way of boosting demand to combat the recession. Although military spending wasn’t usually a major part of the economic stimulus packages, it wasn’t cut either,” explains Dr Sam Perlo-Freeman, Head of the Military Expenditure Project at SIPRI.

“The figures also demonstrate that for major or intermediate powers such as the USA, China, Russia, India and Brazil military spending represents a long term strategic choice which they are willing to make even in hard economic times.”

It’s remarkable where all this money is coming from amid a global recession. ‘The USA, with a real terms increase of $47 billion, accounted for 54 per cent of the world increase in military expenditure,’ explains SIPRI’s press release.

 ‘Although the USA led the rise, it was not alone. Of those countries for which data was available, 65 per cent increased their military spending in real terms in 2009.’

Which makes a complete mockery of world leaders’ claims for needs to cut spending on education, healthcare or social services due to the recession.

SIPRI explains that ‘natural resources help drive military spending and arms imports in the developing world.’

‘The Middle East has for a long time been the region with the highest level of military expenditure relative to GDP, the ‘military burden’, in the world.’

‘This is a factor of the high level of conflict in the region and the low level of democracy but also, arguably, the vast oil revenues enjoyed by many countries in the region.’

‘The ‘resource curse’, the cycle of conflict and poor governance that can be created when resource revenues are not managed in the interests of the population as a whole, has been widely noticed by academics, nongovernmental organizations and policymakers.

‘There are many reasons also to believe that high levels of resource revenue dependency may also lead to high levels of military spending and arms purchases.’

Peaceful futures

How we might create a more peaceful future actually seems quite obvious. The Control Arms Campaign, run by Amnesty International, Oxfam and IANSA, is calling for a global treaty on arms. It suggests five rules might be enough to deliver the change needed;

‘States shall not authorise international transfers of conventional arms or ammunition where they will:

(i) be used or are likely to be used for gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law.

(ii) have an impact that would clearly undermine sustainable development or involve corrupt practices;

(iii) provoke or exacerbate armed conflict in violation of their obligations under the UN Charter and existing treaties.

(iv) contribute to an existing pattern of violent crime.

(v) risk being diverted for one of the above outcomes or for acts of terrorism.’

That makes sense. If only the sense were there for global governments to listen. Given over half the world just spent more than ever before on things to kill one another, it seems unlikely.

Oil- and gas-producing states with large military spending increases

Increase by Country 2000-2009

Algeria 105%

Chad 663%

Nigeria 101%

Ecuador 241%

Timor-Leste a 255%

Viet Nam b 55%

Azerbaijan 471%

Kazakhstan 360%

a Increase 2003-2009

b Increase 2005-2009

Table source: http://www.sipri.org/media/pressreleases/pressreleasetranslations/storypackage_milex

 World trends in military expenditure

• Estimated total world military expenditure in 2009 was $1531 billion (at current prices).
• Spending increased by 5.9 % in real terms over 2008 and by 49 % compared to 2000.
• The USA’s real-terms increase of $47 billion accounts for 54 % of the world increase.
• Significant increases also by regional powers such as China, India and Brazil.
• Spending increased in all regions and subregions except in the Middle East.
• The region with the fastest real-terms increase in 2009 was Asia and Oceania, at 8.9 %.
• The subregion with the fastest real-terms increase in 2009 was South Asia, at 10.9 %.
• The global financial crisis and economic recession had little impact on world military expenditure.

Table source: http://www.sipri.org/media/pressreleases/pressreleasetranslations/storypackage_milex

What are your views?  Not sure? Read the resources below for more information. Add your comment below. We welcome your thoughts and proposals. Not a Planetary Citizen? Sign up to Our Future Planet today!

Read more articles with reference to Sustainability and Conflict, or Economics and Politics

Resources:

Crisis group annual report 2009 
SIPRI YEARBOOK 2010 —MILITARY EXPENDITURE 
UNSC resolution 1874 (2009) 
Global principles for international arms transfers 
SIPRI YEARBOOK 2010 - NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL, DISARMAMENT AND NON-PROLIFERATION 
SIPRI YEARBOOK 2010—TAKING STOCK IN AFGHANISTAN 
Control Arms Briefing Note - The AK-47 the world's favourite killing machine

Comments (1)