THE WORLDWIDE TRADE IN WEAPONS OF WAR – HOW IT INFLUENCES AND SHAPES REGIONAL AND GLOBAL POLITICS

0
484

For as long as humanity has existed, so has war. Sticks to swords to guns, and now nuclear weapons and chemical warfare. War is business, and the people who craft the tools and implements for fighting these wars not only profit monetarily, but also enjoy an enormous amount of power and influence. Their decisions over which army to fund is not just a simple matter of deciding who pays more. There are so many different factors that influence the decisions of the global arms industry, which in turn influences regional and global geopolitics.

ARMS TRADE IN THE EARLY MODERN ERA

During the early modern period, certain European countries like France, the United Kingdom, Netherlands and a few states in Germany started relying on domestic arms production and became self-sufficing. The modern arms industry started to emerge in the second half of the nineteenth century as a product of the creation and expansion of the first big military-industrial companies. As smaller nations could no longer produce cutting-edge military equipment with their indigenous resources and capacity, they stepped up their military equipment manufacture and export contracts, like battleships, artillery and rifles, to foreign concerns.

The British government awarded a contract to the Elswick Ordnance Company, in 1854, for the supply of their latest breech loading rifled artillery pieces. This galvanized the private sector into weapons production, with the surplus being increasingly exported to foreign countries. The owner of Elswick Ordnance, William Armstrong, became one of the first international arms dealers, selling his weapon systems to governments across the world from Brazil to Japan. In 1884, he opened a shipyard at Elswick which specialized in warship production—at the time, it was a one of a kind concern – the only factory in the world that could build a battleship and arm it wholly. The factory produced war vessels for a number of navies, including the Imperial Japanese Navy. Several Armstrong cruisers played a crucial role in defeating the Russian naval fleet at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905.

The volume of the arms trade greatly increased during the 20th century, and it began to be used as a political agency, especially during the Cold War where the United States and the USSR supplied weapons to different countries to fight their proxy wars across the world, especially third world countries.

FIGURES AND STATISTICS IN THE GLOBAL ARMS TRADE

Overall global arms exports rose of about 6 per-cent in the last 5 years compared to the period 2010-2014 and increased by 20 per-cent since 2005–2009, with USA in the number one position as the world’s largest manufacturer and exporter of weapons. In 2018, the US exported close to $10.5 billion worth of weapons to different countries around the world. The top 5 arms manufacturing companies in the world, with Lockheed Martin at number one, are American concerns. From 1998 to 2001, the USA, the UK, and France earned more income from arms sales to developing countries than they gave in aid.

Saudi Arabia, Australia, China, India and Egypt, in order of sequence, are the top 5 arms importers in the world.

THE IMPACT OF THE GLOBAL ARMS TRADE ON SOUTH ASIAN GEOPOLITICS

Developing nations continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity by weapons suppliers though most arms are supplied by just 2 or 3 major suppliers. Despite the global economic climate, major purchases continue to be made by a select few developing nations in these regions, principally India in Asia, and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. The strength of individual economies of a wide range of nations in the developing world continues to be a significant factor in the timing of many of their arms purchasing decisions.

The world’s foremost arms importers enjoy substantially close ties with their suppliers. This is quite apparent in the long history of close ties between the United States and Saudi Arabia which have only strengthened since the latter recently took over India as the World’s largest arms importer. The importance given to Saudi Arabia’s defense contracts in the US is such that the entire diplomatic fallout from the Jamal Khashoggi affair last year was dialed down and simply presented as an unnecessary inconvenience by none other than President Trump himself. Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi Arabian political dissident and author, was assassinated by Saudi agents at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

Whereas the bulk of India’s military hardware is sourced from Russian defense manufacturers, US defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing have consistently eyed gaining a wider share of the Indian market. India, with one of the fastest growing economies in this region, has been looking to expand upon and upgrade their Soviet-era defense technology and weaponry, especially with the Chinese threat looming large on the Eastern horizon. Perhaps the most lucrative opportunity for US defense contractors out of India is the Indian Air Force’s latest purchase of 114 fighter aircraft to replace its Soviet-era MiG squadrons. Worth around $18 billion, the Indian government’s requirements are based around developing an indigenous production base built on large-scale transfers of technology, training and maintenance operations. With the long-term goal of reducing its dependence on imports and developing its own local arms industry, India’s requirements thus extend beyond the mere procurement of platforms. Instead, they involve a unique opportunity for the world’s foremost arms manufacturers to gain a long-term foothold within the Indian market, while simultaneously investing in the country’s rapid economic growth.

Offered as an exclusive India only upgrade of the widely used F-16 fighter aircraft, by Lockheed Martin, the F-21 is being marketed as a highly viable solution to India’s modernization needs. With its production line planned on being based in India, Lockheed is aiming to build on last year’s announcement that it would be transferring the production of the F-16’s wings to its joint facilities in India by 2020. These developments are likely to have a serious impact on the trajectory of US-India relations for the foreseeable future. This in turn would also significantly affect both China’s and Russia’s approach to South Asia, particularly with respect to their diplomatic policies involving Pakistan. In fact much of the discourse on the development of Indo-US military ties is already based directly on the US’s strategic rivalry with China over the Indo-Pacific region.

All this talk of international arms deals and the politics that they shape and influence raises another important question. How do we decide when and where to impose restrictions on the arms trade? Certain weapons are extremely dangerous and possess the capability to cause extreme levels of devastation, wiping out entire regions from the map. There are, in place, international treaties that prevent the manufacture and purchase of such weapons, like nuclear weapons, for example. These arms treaties are crucial to ensuring some semblance of global peace.

ARMS CONTROL TREATIES

Arms control is usually exercised through the use of diplomatic negotiations between global powers, which seeks to impose certain reasonable limitations upon consenting participants through international treaties and agreements. However, it may also consist of efforts by a nation or group of nations to enforce limitations upon a non-consenting country. Arms control treaties and agreements are often seen as a way to avoid costly arms races which could prove counter-productive to national aims and future peace. Some arms control agreements are entered to limit the damage done by warfare, especially to civilians and the environment, which is seen as bad for all participants regardless of who wins a war. On the other hand, some arms treaties exist to limit the manufacture and usage of certain weapons of mass destruction with a singular potential for devastation, like nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry.

Enforcement of arms control agreements has proven difficult over time. Most agreements rely on the continued desire of the participants to abide by the terms to remain effective. Usually, when a nation no longer desires to abide by the terms, they usually will seek to either covertly circumvent the terms or to simply end their participation in the treaty.

IN CONCLUSION…

The arms trade is a dirty game, but a necessary one. A weapon is a tool and its usage depends on the person using it. The shifting tides of politics is often directly influenced by the arms suppliers, both legitimate and illicit. The right weapons in the right hands can stabilize a region, or annihilate it. A profession as old as mankind itself, this industry has been around for thousands of years and will be around for thousands more, shaping the world.