Author:
Publication: Zenit.org
Date: February 17, 2001
Purchases Raise Ethical Problems
Arms exports have been declining
since the end of the Cold War, but the Third World is buying a bigger share
of the weapons.
Worldwide, arms sales diminished
in 1999 to $53.4 billion, down from $58 billion the previous year, according
to an analysis of the latest report from the International Institute for
Strategic Studies, published in the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore on
Feb. 12.
Compared with the high point of
the Cold War sales, $92.5 billion in 1987, sales have fallen notably. While
international commerce in arms fell last year, however, overall military
spending remains stable. The report said that $809 billion was dedicated
to the military sector in 1999, almost the same quantity as the previous
year. This is down from the Cold War peak of $1.36 trillion in 1987. The
reduction in arms sales in 1999 of $4.6 billion is due entirely to the
cutback in purchases of $4.7 billion by Saudi Arabia.
The report, "The Military Balance
2000-2001," points out procurement accounts for only about 20% to 30% of
military spending in countries with big arms budgets. The largest slice
of the defense-budget pie in those countries is usually operations, maintenance
and personnel.
Mideast countries continue to be
the biggest buyers of arms, with Saudi Arabia spending $6.1 billion in
1999. In Asia, shipments to Taiwan totaled $2.6 billion.
In all, the G-7 countries accounted
for 85% of the exports. The United States raised its share of the world
arms market to 49.1% in 1999 from 47.6% a year earlier, according to the
report, while Britain was second with 18.7% of the market. In third place
came France with 12.4%, after having doubled its previous market share
of 6% due to price cutting. Russia, the fourth-largest exporter, boosted
its market share to 6.6% from 4.6% in 1998.
Among the Western countries, U.S.
arms purchases have increased 6.5% in real terms since 1995, even though
defense procurement spending among European countries of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization has dropped 2.2% in real terms. Overall defense spending
by European NATO countries also continued its declining trend, falling
5% to $147 billion in constant 1999 dollars.
Russian sales increase
The increase in Russian exports
noted in 1999 continued the following year. The BBC reported Feb. 7 that
Russia´s arms exports reached a 10-year high in 2000 with sales nearing
$4 billion. A Russian arms trade official, Viktor Komardin, said he had
signed a deal to sell five Ka-31 long-range radar detection helicopters
to the Indian Air Force for $100 million. He also said a new $1 billion
contract with India for T-90S tanks and other weapons would be signed by
the main Russian state-run arms exporter, Rosoboronexport, in the first
quarter of 2001.
Russian defense officials say their
goal is to sell $6 billion of weapons per year -- a fraction of the $20
billion exported by the Soviet Union in the 1980s. China and India were
the leading customers throughout the 1990s, each purchasing more than $1
billion of Russian arms each year, but Russia views Iran as another promising
market, despite U.S. disapproval.
Russia told the United States at
the end of November that it was ending its 5-year-old undertaking not to
sell conventional weapons to Iran. Estimates of the potential value of
new arms sales to Iran, currently flush with oil revenues, range from $1
billion to $7 billion.
Weapons sales cause concern
Although sales of weapons by Western
countries have diminished, ethical concerns remain. A worrying aspect is
that almost 60% of the 1999 sales were destined to Third World countries,
which in many cases are struggling to pay for education and health programs.
While both rich and poor countries spend, on average, approximately the
same share of gross national product, 2.6%, military spending as a proportion
of government revenues in the Third World reaches 13%, compared with 9%
in the developed nations.
At the same time the Third World
has increased its share of world military spending, from 7% in 1961 to
almost 25% in 1995. From 1991 to 1998 about three-quarters of all international
arms deliveries, exceeding $250 billion, were exported to developing countries.
Apart from economic questions, another
source of unease is that many weapons are destined to countries that do
not observe basic human rights. For example, 40% of the arms that Spain
sells go to nations that violate human rights or that are involved in internal
conflicts, according to a Jan. 25 report in the Spanish newspaper El Mundo.
Countries such as Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Indonesia
and Turkey are among Spain´s customers. Other buyers, such as Bulgaria
and Burkina Faso, are suspected of reselling arms to guerrilla movements
or to countries placed under international arms embargoes.
In England, too, protests have been
made about the lack of controls on arms sales. The Telegraph reported Jan.
23 that the Labor government´s pre-election pledge to legislate to
control arms exports remains "a promise unfulfilled," according to Kim
Howells, junior trade and industry minister.
Howells´ admission followed
criticism of the time being taken to introduce legislation from Lord Justice
Scott, who headed the inquiry into the arms to Iraq scandal. It is almost
five years since the Scott report recommended changes to arms-export laws,
some of which date back to 1939 and protect contracts from parliamentary
scrutiny.
An article in the January issue
of The World Today, published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs,
accused Britain of having sold arms that "have seen more service in coercion,
repression and aggression than in self-defense." In fact the article noted
that in 1982 Argentina deployed British weapons in the Falklands War and
that in 1991 the supply of machine tools from English companies helped
to produce munitions in Iraq. The publication also accused the British
government of muting its criticism of Indonesia´s occupation of East
Timor due to its desire to continue selling arms.
Ethical principles
Back in 1994 the Pontifical Council
for Justice and Peace published a document on this matter, "The International
Arms Trade: An Ethical Reflection." It notes that while the right to legitimate
defense by armed means exists, at the same time this is coupled with the
duty to reduce to a minimum the causes of violence.
Each state may possess only those
means necessary to ensure its legitimate defense. But the excessive accumulation
of weapons, or their indiscriminate transfer, is not justifiable.
The responsibility lies both on
importing and exporting countries. The former should carefully evaluate
the reasons why they want to acquire arms. In this sense, notes the document,
the introduction of new arms into a region that can trigger an arms race
is to be avoided. While the latter should evaluate the requests for purchases
by judging if the transfer of certain weapons exceed the legitimate needs
of would-be buyers.
The Pontifical Council for Justice
and Peace pointed out that arms can never be treated like other commercial
goods because of the close relationship between weapons and violence. Therefore
the law of profit cannot be supreme and sales should be subject to strict
controls.
