They want an end to war and a world in which there is no need to raise your gun and fire a single bullet!
NO that is NOT the case in the slightest, and anyone who believes war is fought for peace really hasn't been keeping an eye open on "Real Events"
Before I go on with this large document I would advise ALL readers to look for a film called "Lord Of War" which stars Nicolas Cage.
The Arms Trade is Big Business
Each year, around $45-60 billion worth of arms sales are agreed. Most of these sales (something like 75%) are to developing countries.
The 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, Russia, France, United Kingdom and China), together with Germany and Italy account for around 85% of the arms sold between 2002 and 2009.
Some of the arms sold go to regimes where human rights violations will occur. Corruption often accompanies arms sales due to the large sums of money involved.
World military spending had reduced since the Cold War ended, but a few nations such as the US retain high level spending.
In recent years, global military expenditure has increased again and is now comparable to Cold War levels again. Recent data shows global spending at over $1.5 trillion.
The highest military spender is the US accounting for just under half of the world’s spending, more than the rest of the G7 (most economically advanced countries) combined, and more than all its potential enemies, combined.
* Arms contractors and maintain that arms sales are essential to foster good relations and also create more jobs at home.
o Arms companies selling to one country will often demonize their neighbors. Those countries are then demonized to us so we purchase more. That does not foster good relations.
o Often, to secure a sale, the manufacture of the arms also goes to the target nation. Therefore, jobs are created, but not at home.
* Propaganda comes in various forms, often via manipulative advertising campaigns.
* Arms corporations benefit from alliances like NATO and conflicts such as Kosovo, where opportunity for sales increases.
* The growing availability of small arms has been a major factor in the increase in the number of conflicts.
* In modern conflicts over 80 percent of all casualties have been civilian. 90 percent of these are caused by small arms.
The arms trade is one of the most corrupt trades in the world, fueling conflict and poverty. Since the early 1990s there has been efforts to review and develop arms-transfer principles and codes of conduct to ensure that arms are not sold to human rights violators. The US, EU and others have developed some codes, but they are fraught with problems, loopholes, lack of transparency and are open to corruption. There is a proposed international arms trade treaty to overcome these limitations. However, for various political and profit reasons, some nations seem unwilling to agree to a code of conduct. Proposals are growing stronger for an arms trade treaty. Will that suffer the same problem?
Summarizing some key details from chapter 5 of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)’s 2010 Year Book on Armaments, Disarmament and International Security for 2008:
* World military expenditure in 2009 is estimated to have reached $1.531 trillion in current dollars;
* This represents a 6 per cent increase in real terms since 2008 and a 49 per cent increase since 2000;
* This corresponds to 2.7 per cent of world gross domestic product (GDP), or approximately $225 for each person in the world;
* The USA with its massive spending budget, is the principal determinant of the current world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for just under half of the world total, at 46.5% of the world total.
The global financial and economic crisis has resulted in many nations cutting back on all sorts of public spending (often against the criticism of targeting sectors that were not responsible for the crisis), and yet military spending seems to be increasing. How is that justified?
It should be noted that just before the crisis hit, many nations were enjoying either high economic growth or far easier access to credit without any knowledge of what was to come.
A combination of factors explained increased military spending in recent years before the economic crisis as earlier SIPRI reports had also noted, for example:
* Foreign policy objectives
* Real or perceived threats
* Armed conflict and policies to contribute to multilateral peacekeeping operations
* Availability of economic resources
The last point refers to rapidly developing nations like China and India that have seen their economies boom in recent years. In addition, high and rising world market prices for minerals and fossil fuels (at least until recently) have also enabled some nations to spend more on their militaries.
China, for the first time, ranked number 2 in spending in 2008.
But even during the past year in the aftermath of the financial crisis and cries of governments cutting back, military spending appears to have been spared. How is that justified? SIPRI provides some observations:
"The USA led the rise [in military spending], but it was not alone. Of those countries for which data was available, 65% increased their military spending in real terms in 2009. The increase was particularly pronounced among larger economies, both developing and developed: 16 of the 19 states in the G20 saw real-terms increases in military spending in 2009."
There are some nuances, however, that can explain this, as SIPRI explains:
* Some nations like China and India have not experienced a downturn, but instead enjoyed economic growth
* Most developed (and some larger developing) countries have boosted public spending to tackle the recession using large economic stimulus packages. Military spending, though not a large part of it, has been part of that general public expenditure attention (some also call this “Military Keynesianism”
* Geopolitics and strategic interests to project or maintain power: “rising military spending for the USA, as the only superpower, and for other major or intermediate powers, such as Brazil, China, Russia and India, appears to represent a strategic choice in their long-term quest for global and regional influence; one that they may be loath to go without, even in hard economic times”, SIPRI adds.
By contrast, “when it comes to smaller countries — with no such power ambitions and, more importantly, lacking the resources and credit-worthiness to sustain such large budget deficits — many have cut back their military spending in 2009, especially in Central and Eastern Europe.” (Perlo-Freeman, Ismail and Solmirano, pp.1 – 2)
Natural resources have also driven military spending and arms imports in the developing world. The increase in oil prices means more for oil exporting nations.
The “natural resource curse” has long been recognized as a phenomenon whereby nations, despite abundant rich resources, find themselves in conflict and tension due to the power struggles that those resources bring (internal and external influences are all part of this).
In their earlier 2006 report SIPRI noted that, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Russia and Saudi Arabia have been able to increase spending because of increased oil and gas revenues, while Chile and Peru’s increases are resource-driven, “because their military spending is linked by law to profits from the exploitation of key natural resources.”
Also, “China and India, the world’s two emerging economic powers, are demonstrating a sustained increase in their military expenditure and contribute to the growth in world military spending. In absolute terms their current spending is only a fraction of the USA’s. Their increases are largely commensurate with their economic growth.”
The military expenditure database from SIPRI also shows that while percentage increases over the previous decade may be large for some nations, their overall spending amounts may be varied.
Spending for peace vs spending for war
In a similar report from 2004, the SIPRI authors also noted that, “There is a large gap between what countries are prepared to allocate for military means to provide security and maintain their global and regional power status, on the one hand, and to alleviate poverty and promote economic development, on the other.”
Indeed, compare the military spending with the entire budget of the United Nations:
The United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend about $30 billion each year, or about $4 for each of the world’s inhabitants. This is a very small sum compared to most government budgets and it is less than three percent of the world’s military spending. Yet for nearly two decades, the UN has faced financial difficulties and it has been forced to cut back on important programs in all areas, even as new mandates have arisen. Many member states have not paid their full dues and have cut their donations to the UN’s voluntary funds. As of October 31, 2009, members’ arrears to the Regular Budget topped $829 million, of which the US owed 93%.
The UN was created after World War II with leading efforts by the United States and key allies.
* The UN was set up to be committed to preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security.
* Yet, the UN’s entire budget is just a tiny fraction of the world’s military expenditure, approximately 1.8%
* While the UN is not perfect and has many internal issues that need addressing, it is revealing that the world can spend so much on their military but contribute so little to the goals of global security, international cooperation and peace.
* As well as the above links, for more about the United Nations, see the following:
o This web site’s section on the United Nations and Development looks at its role in fighting poverty and other issues, plus some of the problems it faces.
o The United Nations web site
At the current level of spending (for 2009), it would take just a handful of years for the world’s donor countries to cover their entire aid shortfall, of over $4 trillion in promised official aid since 1970, 40 years ago.
Unfortunately, however, as the BBC notes, poverty fuels violence and defense spending has a tendency to rise during times of economic hardship. The global financial crisis is potentially ushering in enormous economic hardship around the world.
At a time when a deep economic recession is causing much turbulence in the civilian world … defense giants such as Boeing and EADS, or Finmeccanica and Northrop Grumman, are enjoying a reliable and growing revenue stream from countries eager to increase their military might.
Both geopolitical hostilities and domestic violence tend to flare up during downturns.
…
Shareholders and employees in the aerospace and defense industry are clearly the ones who benefit most from growing defense spending.
Defense companies, whose main task is to aid governments’ efforts to defend or acquire territory, routinely highlight their capacity to contribute to economic growth and to provide employment.
Indeed, some $2.4 trillion (£1.5tr), or 4.4%, of the global economy “is dependent on violence”, according to the Global Peace Index, referring to “industries that create or manage violence” — or the defense industry.
…
Military might delivers geopolitical supremacy, but peace delivers economic prosperity and stability.
And that, the report insists, is what is good for business.
The Global Peace Index that the BBC is referring to is an attempt to quantify the difficult-to-define value of peace and rank countries based on over 20 indicators using both quantitative data and qualitative scores from a range of sources. Here is a summary chart from their latest report:
(The top ranking nations on the global peace index were, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Austria, Sweden, Japan, Canada, Finland, and Slovenia. It is worth looking at the report for the full list of indicators used, which cover a mixture of internal and external factors, weighted in various ways.)
FINAL THOUGHTS ....
Well put bluntly, if you still think we are fighting to secure world peace and prosperity for all. THINK AGAIN!
The power control has future weapons on the floors of science labs, they have bendy bullets and laser weapons, they have chemicals and biological agents that can wipe out towns and cities. They have "Race Targeting Dirty Bombs" that can literally wipe out a group of people according to ethnic background. They have no aims to slow down. Only to accelerate their agenda.
I hope this was interesting for those who take time to read my blog. I have enjoyed learning about the arms trade in more detail during the course of these studies.
It is an eye opening subject that displays the level of corruption and lies that goes on inside the big governments of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment