A World of Arms Pushers and Fixers Essay

Introduction

In 1139, Pope innocent II summoned an urgent international conference to address concerns over an emerging and dangerous weapon; the crossbow. The world today is characterized by weapons of mass destructions such as nuclear, chemical and biological warfare, which would only require minutes to destroy an entire population. Unfortunately, there is wanton acquisition, procurement and possession of these weapons and arms charged by the gluttonous need for power, wealth and victory in times of war, and back dates to historical eras of international relations, economics and military history respectively (Krause, 2005, page 12).

It is unrealistic to attempt to analyze matters of arms control and disarmament in a modernistic system because this will fail to illuminate the historic backdrop that paved and charted the patterns that characterize today’s arms’ transfer, acquisition and production problems. Arms control is the attempt to reduce the risk of war and the extent of destruction in the event of war. Arms control also attempt to regulate military defense through state arrangements as a means regulating the development, manufacture and deployment of weapons and military forces (Lee, 1999). Disarmament on the other hand is a comprehensive aim to abolish weapon systems (Lee, 1999).

The biggest culprits of this trend are the powerful and wealthy nations, who have the resources to acquire them extensively. However, recent times have seen the less endowed nations engaging in the same trend. The general consensus is that not only is the political will of any given nation instrumental in determining the engagement in arms acquisition, but also the economic endowment (Krause, 2005, page 13).

Arms are an integral in war. As has been argued by analysts, wars during the 16^th – 18^th centuries had an impact in the emergence of capitalist systems. Capitalism is characterized by the oppression of the masses, who more often that not, have no means of resisting oppression by the powerful. War also hampers capital investment and accumulation, results in the deterioration of capital stock, distorts investments plans, misuses labor resource and in general, weakens the prevailing economic arrangement of the affected state. Furthermore, the emergence of war results in increased taxation and centralization of government in the attempt to fund the war.

The greatest challenge in the fight against the trade of arms, especially within nations that are addicted to weapons such as the US, Russia, Israel among others, is the difficulty in changing their ways. Just as is the case with addition to drugs, there is always a ready pusher to help out with a fix. In the world of arms’ trade, there are faceless fixers who transcend the globe in the search for deals to illegally transport and supply arms. The consequence has been an increase in armed conflict, which is fuelled by the unending demand for military associated equipment such as ammunition. This intense competition, charged by globalization, has led to an increased use of freight and brokering services, accounting to 90% of the delivery system (Le monde diplomatique, 2006).

In the period between 1994 and 2001, an estimated $10 billion worth of weapons were sold to developing nations by the European Union (Le monde diplomatique, 2006). In 2005, there was a 3% increase in the production and sales of arms among the top 10 largest arm producing nations. 40 US organizations alone accounted for a whooping 63%, of the combined 2005 purchase. This equated to a staggering $ 290 billion. 32 West Europe organizations, 9 Russian and a combination of Israel, Japan and India based companies accounted for 29%, 2% and 6% respectively. US, British and Italian companies increased their purchases by $ 1 billion while some companies increase their acquisitions by 30%. Interestingly, these purchases were as a charged by the acquisitions by other companies as opposed to requirement (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2007).

To date, the commitments of more powerful nations to arms reduction is under fire. This is because these nations are not reducing their arms claiming that it all for the sake of national interest and are buying more and more weapons. Anup Shah (2006) has had vast experience in dealing with nuclear weapons programs and his disapproval of the US nuclear policy has been vocal. He was quoted saying “I have seen how easy it is for nuclear contamination to occur, and how hard it is to clean it up…. Do nations possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons because of fear of attack from some other nation, or is it mainly because without them the stronger cannot otherwise exploit the weaker?” Shah insists this has adversely affected other nations and the resultant effect has been an increased resistance towards them. According to him, nations increase their defense capabilities by purchasing more weapons because they feel threatened, so they arm up just in case. These powerful nations seem like young children brandishing their latest toys and will so often claim that the other nation has more sophisticated weapons. It is this arms race that increases insecurity in the world because of the action-reaction effect it creates. When one opposing state acquires weapons, the other does the same as a build-up. This creates tension and has immense destabilizing effects. The west has found its self between a rock and a hard place because of this arms race; on one hand, they know that the possession of is a strong deterrence for unwelcome aggression. On the other hand however, the arms race is in itself, a cause of war (Lee, 1999).

In 1998, the EU became the first to make an attempt at regulating the arms trade. The member states strived to establish criteria that would put a stop to equipment export which could be useful in causing international aggression and lead to regional instability. The EU code sought to, among others, preserve regional peace and access the arms, compatibility with the country of destination (Le Monde diplomatique, 2006).

The international structure of arms control in the post war era is structures in three levels. The central agenda is the halt of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons proliferation. First, there were negotiations between superpowers and were interest determined. Secondly, there were negotiations among alliances, particularly among armed forces. Finally, there were multilateral negotiations facilitated by the United Nations (Lee, 1999). The current trends in arm trade, transfer and use has led to the emergence of treaties and movements aimed at controlling the flow and spread of arms including small arms and landmines. These controls, treaties and security arrangements intertwine to be known as the non proliferation regimes. Today, these proliferation agreements are on the verge of collapse as the drivers of proliferation increase and the divides are getting wider with each passing day. This breakdown of proliferation agreements is potentially catastrophic because this creates the likelihood of global catastrophe. These treaties include:

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT)

This treaty was endorsed in 1975 and has been approved by 187 countries world wide. Its primary objective is the prevention and spread of weapon technology and nuclear weapons and the promotion on co-operation in nuclear energy use. Furthermore, it sought to attain absolute disarmament in all nations (Global issues, 2006). Consequently, more that 180 countries promised not to acquire nuclear weapons as long as nuclear powers also eliminated nuclear weapons from their possession. Unfortunately, powerful nations have abused this treaty, citing that its sole intension was to bar others form joining the exclusive nuclear weapons club! The US for example withdrew its commitment to this treaty. However, this treaty has been criticized for seeming like an avenue for nuclear powers to hang on to their weapons while demanding that others should not develop any. Consequently, nations like Cuba, Israel, Pakistan and India did not sign, with Pakistan and India taking nuclear into their arsenal in 1998 (Global Issues, 2002).

The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty

Signed in 1972, the ABM treaty seeks to prohibit the use and application of certain defensive systems that would give an advantage to ay given side during a nuclear war. This treaty demanded that in the event of a nuclear war, either side had enough weapons and so no given nation was at a unfair advantage. The logic that if since each side was equality vulnerable, none would attempt to attack the other.

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

This treaty prevented nuclear testing hence, there would be no chance at an arms race because there would be no justification for the acquisition of the seemingly better weapons.

The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties, Start I and Start II

Theses treaties aimed to demand for the reduction of the number of weapons under the possession the US and Russia.

The Bush administration saw the fight against the trade of arms become worse, with every member of the evil axle becoming significantly more dangerous since 2001. The invasion of Iraq was under the claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, specifically, nuclear warfare. Not only was military action favoured over diplomacy, but also, the military action was effected before actual threat emerged. The logic being that since terrorist networks have no citizens to protect and hence, never announce their intention to attack. Even though several years have passed since the invasion, no weapons have been found. However, the region has become significantly destabilized and the threat that the region posses are insurmountable. This action did not do unnoticed by the rest of the world, with nations such as North Korea and Iran making significant advances on their nuclear programs. Current allegations claim that Osama Bin Laden is deeply entrenched under the new Taliban in nuclear enable Pakistan. He is basically unclear danger personified. Furthermore, the US-Russian relations are significantly strained, with the Russians warheads ready to retaliate within minutes in the event of an invasion. South Asia has since the invasion embaked on an arms race. Basically, the invasion under claim, “for the greater good of society” has seen nations across the globe secretly seeking weapons and technology to counter any invasions on their soils (Arms Control Association, 2008).

Arm proliferation and trade posses an equally significant threat to human security. In infiltration of small arms among the populace has aggravated intra- and inter-state conflicts, increased human rights violation cases, hampered economic and political development, destabilized populations and resulted in the loss of millions of lives. Small arms are the primary cause of battle related conflicts and it has been further established that the misuse of arms can cause significant development and humanitarian loss, particularly in developing nations, Whether the danger is real or perceived, there is no denying that arms create an environment where it is impossible for a given people to go about their daily routines, thereby, affecting the social capital. Arms hamper and propagation of humanitarian access in affected areas thereby, cutting the movement of facilities such as food aid and medical supplies (Small Arms Survey, 2008).

Arms further perpetrate societal violence such as homicides. In fact, 40% of the world’s homicides are caused by a small firearm (Small Arms Survey, 2008). The sale of these arms, even though at times legal, usually ends in blood loss and fatalities. There is also heated debate over the role of fire arms in suicides. The impacts of arms as far as economic implications are concerned serves as the perfect avenue for the evaluation of violence reduction and prevention measures. Violence caused by arms of any nature usually results in injuries, which often demand medical intervention (small Arms Survey, 2008).

Developing nations are characterized by high morality rates due to poor health care, acute huger and uncharacteristically high poverty levels. On the other hand, arm purchase budgets and military allocation is often staggering. Propositions by the World Health Organization and associated agencies o improve human life in these nations are highly cost effective. It has been established that for an annual investment of $ 57 billion, 8 million lives could be salvaged. This is a small investment in comparison to the annual world military and related affairs expenditure of 2006 which stood at $1204 billion. The point of this illustration is to highlight the gravity of the global prioritization situation. If more investment could be directed at improving the mortality and poverty situation, particularly in developing nations, international security is likely to improve (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2007).

In conclusion, it can be said that the primary driver for arm trade, acquisition and transfer is the pursuit of power especially among states that are in conflictive relationships. The survival of any state is directly influenced by its power and the capacity of its military to rally international policy requirements. This sufficiency is determined by the state’s manpower, economic endowment, technology and importantly, the level of its weapon technology (Krause, 1995, page 15).

There is doubt that the pursuit of power facilitates the sale of arms and makes the world significantly unsafe. The danger of terrorism inflicted on civilians increases. This is because nations actively engage in an arms race and the researches and experiments in secret labs quickly degenerate to arms production. The control of arms is the central element in the creation of sustainable international stability (Lee, 1999). The demand for weapons in creases and thus, as basic economic principles dictate, an increase in demand results in an increase in price. This directly encourages smuggling networks to thrive.

Unfortunately, the issues of financial depression solicit more attention from policy makers than matters of security. This has solicited public outrage, especially from Non Governmental Organizations such as Amnesty International, who have played a leadership role by documenting the irreversible costs of careless trade in arms. Slowly, governments had realized that there is a direct correlation between arms sales and exports and human rights violations, security and economic development, and that arms do not make a state safe, in fact, exposes it to a myriad of threats.

Works cited

1. Arms Control Association. Strategic Collapse: The failure of the Bush Nuclear Doctrine. 2008. Web.
2. Global Issues. Nuclear Weapons. 2002. Web.
3. Le Monde Diplomatique.Europe’s deadly business. 2006.
4. Le Monde Diplomatique. A world of arms pushers and fixers. 2006.
5. Lee, James. Arms control and disarmament. 1999.
6. Krause, Keith, Arms and the State: Patterns of Military Production and Trade Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
7. Small Arms Survey (2008). Small Arms Survey in brief.
8. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Analyzing risks to human lives. 2007.
9. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Arms Production. 2007.