Defending world peace... by selling guns

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

2011 was the year of protests and great changes. People in the Middle East took to the streets and defended their right for democracy, human rights, and a fairer access to the resources of their countries. The sparkle of the Arab spring jumped over to China and Azerbaijan, Yemen and Bahrain. But now as we look back, the democratic achievements in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt could hardly be called a success. Meanwhile, regimes like China used their full repressive capacity to suffocate the democratic movements in their roots. Words like 'Jasmine Revolution' and even 'Egyp't were banned from the Internet there. The governments of Syria and Azerbaijan displayed the harshest reaction to public dissent. Others bought their subjects' loyalty and silence with whimsical bonuses, like Saudi Arabia and Oman. Very few decided to make real changes. It would now seem that most of these societies, after venting out most of their frustration, will have the same-old-same-old once more, but with different players, and while only nominally being called democracies. Reference: Egypt.

Europe and America may have given their verbal support for the democratic movements, stating that criticism of state oppression and its heavy economic consequences is well grounded. But in the meantime these same paragons of democracy have never interrupted their connections with either those repressive governments (where they remained) or their successors (where the revolutions succeeded). Because geopolitical interest trumps nice words, and many of these regimes guarantee relative stability in strategically important regions, which on top of that abound of natural resources. As a consequence, human rights violations committed by friendly regimes are being either ignored or in the best case met with scorn, and nothing more. No real measures are being taken against them, while business continues as usual. This is the conclusion of none other but Amnesty International and many other human rights organisations.

Take Bahrain for example. The US have geostrategic and military interests there. When the local regime "invited" Saudi Arabia to help it suffocate the public protests, the US practically remained impassive. In fact it turns out only some of these democratic movements enjoy Western support (at least in words), while others do not. In the cases like Bahrain, the silence has been deafening. Because the military base there is more important, and the regular oil deliveries too, and last but not least, the lucrative arms deals with the local regimes. The oppressors of democracy have the money, and they pay very well for arms, produced in the West. That same West, which claims to be defending peace and freedom.

Italy, France and Britain were among the main arms suppliers for Gaddafi in Libya, and America was and still is the main arms supplier for Egypt (previously of Mubarak, now most likely of the Muslim Brotherhood). Tanks, helicopters, ammo, and experts - those were the supplies that came from the West. Meanwhile, Germany had secretly approved the delivery of its most modern tanks to Saudi Arabia. There was criticism from the opposition and the Church in Germany, but the agreement is a fact now.

Turns out that Germany is a larger arms supplier in the world than China itself. But everyone is complaining about China's geopolitical inroads in Africa and Central Asia, and its arms production and arms supplies for friendly regimes throughout Asia. How come? We cannot be so blind as to not notice that all the UN Security Council members, presumably those guarantors for peace in the world, are in fact the largest arms producers and suppliers in the world?

In reality, the bulk of world's weapons trade in the world belongs to the 5 veto members in UNSC. The biggest exporters of conventional weapons were USA (30%) and Russia (23%), followed by France (8%), Britain (4%), and China (3%). Yes, "militaristic" China exports 10 times less than America.

So we shouldn't be acting surprised when Russia is vetoing any attempts for harsher sanctions against Syria in the UNSC. It would be too optimistic to believe that the Council is a real guarantor for the human rights around the world, having sold weapons to regimes and groups who outright spit on these very same human rights. But let's make this clear. I have no intention to over-generalize and put labels on entire countries. It would be too easy to do that, and we should keep in mind that juggling between the various political and economic interests is a difficult game, and moreover all politicians, governments, and policies, should not be put under the same denominator.

The more important question could well be: will an efficient control be put on the arms trade worldwide? Would anyone let that happen?

Well, there will be an international conference in New York in July, where a possible solution to the issue will be sought, and hopefully an international agreement on arms trade would be reached. It should introduce a certain set of international standards for cross-border trade with conventional weapons. Let's wait and see if it would be watered down under the pressure of big interests, or the politicians would show some balls this time. Frankly, I remain skeptical. Granted, there has been some pressure from various countries to do something in that respect, and that pressure if correctly focused on the biggest players like America and the remaining UNSC permanent members. And I do believe such a possible agreement should include not just weapons, but ammunition as well.

The agreement is supposed to be adopted by UN on July 27. We will be watching closely.

Comments

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

We do what were told. We get what we pay for, and we've already built and paid for weapons. The flags and wars are incidental consequences of moving inventory.

The arms trade is a global multi currency self sustaining system. Where to systemically starve this system? How to collapse it before we collapse under it?



Its sunny in Oakland today. Someone will die from gunfire, sats..., I wonder who made and sold the bullet?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

And yet the primary UN opponents to going into Iraq were the largest arms dealers to Hussein and yet that was conveniently ignored.

Meanwhile in Egypt, we had people critiquing our military support of Mubarak who have suddenly gone quiet while the new guys are even more vicious and regressive and yet aid and money has increased.

Here's the problem, restricting arms exports won't solve anything.

'In reality, the bulk of world's weapons trade in the world belongs to the 5 veto members in UNSC. The biggest exporters of conventional weapons were USA (30%) and Russia (23%), followed by France (8%), Britain (4%), and China (3%). Yes, "militaristic" China exports 10 times less than America.'

That's comparing dollar figures. The US can sell a billion dollar anti-missile system to Taiwan and kill not a single person while Russia and China can sell a million dollars in AKs and ammo and tens of thousands of Africans will die.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

It "can" and "could". What "could be" and what "is", are two different things, however.

The US and UK are the two biggest arm suppliers to Africa (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/arming-africa-who-is-the-secondlargest-supplier-of-weapons-in-the-world-china-france-russia-no-its-britain-1353105.html).


China supplies fewer arms to dictatorships than US (http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,6388021,00.html)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

The first link really supports what Bogey is saying, they list very expensive things such as jets, and other high value systems. The second link you provide also mentions several experts in other countries that mentioned some issues too, for example to include China and the United States during a period when China wasn't even bothered with Africa, skews the results, and it also cites experts saying a proper distinction between high value weapon systems, cf:

Deborah Brautigam, a political scientist at Washington DC's American University, thinks the study is imbalanced. She has criticized the fact that the information used for the study was based on the monetary value of arms rather than on their quantity or their destructive powers. American weapons are more expensive than Chinese weapons so the statistics are distorted. She also said there would have been a very different picture if the study had not only focused on heavy weapons, such as tanks and missiles, as these do not have such a crucial role in Africa’s civil wars. "We are talking about AK 47s and ammunition. And that’s how these wars are being fought – a lot of them with Chinese weapons.

And this link, from a French website (http://www.france24.com/en/20120307-china-arms-trade-africa-sudan-usa-uk-business-military) states:

The data, released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Even without the relevant data on China’s arms producers, the role of the Asian powerhouse in the global arms trade continues to come under scrutiny, especially in relation to regions of Africa where conflict and human rights abuses are common.

A separate December 2011 SIPRI report titled, "Arms Flows to Sub-Saharan Africa" revealed that by 2010 China was the number one exporter of arms to the region, ahead of Ukraine and Russia. Between 2006 and 2010, China gained 25 percent of the market compared to 9 percent between 2001 and 2005. Paul Holtom, director of The Arms Transfers Program at SIPRI, said China was leading the way to challenge the longstanding dominance in arms sales of the big five – the United States, Russia, France Germany and the UK.

China’s growing influence in the market is fuelled by its desire for natural resources and its willingness in a global recession to offer military aid or cheaper deals in exchange for natural resources rather than cash. The super power’s desire to take a larger slice of the African arms market was seen in 2010 when it was by far the biggest exhibitor at the Africa Aerospace and Defence (AAD) expo - the largest arms fair on the continent - held in South Africa.

My apologies, I didn't realize when I posted this some of it has been already covered. My bad :-X.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Thousands of people who've been killed in Syria during the last year were killed with Russian produced weapons. Meanwhile, Egypt continues receiving arms supplies by the US. Germany is a bit more cautious, but that doesn't mean its arms business isn't going well. Same about France and Britain, they've invested a lot of political effort in the Maghreb (including Libya).

In a nutshell, none of the listed countries is an exclusion from the rule of cynicism and hypocricy.

I'm not sure anyone could make a statistic about whose guns killed the most people, but also I don't think that's the point. Everyone does it.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I know it's a tired cliche' but the guns are not the issue.

People killing people is the issue, take away the guns and they'll just go back to using swords machetes or setting eachother on fire.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

And someone will have to sell them the swords ;)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Maybe a few sword vendors will be at the Africa Aerospace and Defence (AAD) Expo this Fall in South Africa.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It likewise tends to be ignored that the USA was a willing collaborator in Iraq violating anti-WMD treaties involving chemical weapons to a point of taking Iraq OFF the terrorist sponsoring states' list, which all by itself renders most US criticism of Iraq's so-called terrorism to be a matter of hypocrisy.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'Deborah Brautigam, a political scientist at Washington DC's American University, thinks the study is imbalanced. She has criticized the fact that the information used for the study was based on the monetary value of arms rather than on their quantity or their destructive powers. American weapons are more expensive than Chinese weapons so the statistics are distorted.'

That's what you're overlooking.

Whose weapons are used in genocides? Often it's not an M-16 used to keep people down.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Let me get this clear. You are arguing that the US is selling the most weapons but they are not the most used because they are the most expensive? Why would anyone buy expensive weapons and then never use them?

You are talking about AK47, aren't you? And Russian tanks. Is this the only weapon that is being used by dictatorial regimes? Take Saudi Arabia for example. Did you know that it is not the US who supplies the most weapons and ammunition to Saudi Arabia, but the EU (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/eu-makes-controversial-weapons-sales-to-saudi-arabia-a-822288.html)?

Saudi Arabia did not use AK47s to put down the uprising in Bahrain. And the list could get really long.

All that said, the record arms sales in no way make a more peaceful world, regardless of who is selling them. Especially when all sides involved claim to be protectors of peace, while simultaneously they are arming warring groups and dictatorial governments. If you want to calculate which type of gun has killed the most people, by all means. Probably you could come up with some statistics that could even prove that it is the AK47. But that is not my point.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

The US isn't selling the most. The figures you're looking at is in terms of dollars.

The most oppressive regimes on the Earth as North Korea, Iran, and Syria. Who arms them?

Start listing oppressive countries and then list their sugar daddies.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Sudan, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Venezuela, Colombia, DR Congo, Nigeria, Chad, Ethiopia, Yemen, Jordan: source (http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/commentanalysis/humanrights/oppressiveregimes.aspx).

The deadliest ongoing conflicts are the Syrian civil war, the Niger Delta conflict, South Sudan conflict, Darfur genocide, Somalian civil war, the LRA insurgency in DR Congo, the Iraqi insurgency, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the South Yemen insurgency, the Turkey-PKK conflict, the Taliban insurgency, the Jammu & Kashmir insurgency, the Tamil insurgency, the South Thailand insurgency, the Mexican drug war and the Colombian armed conflict. Most of these governments are directly armed by the US, Britain, France and China. The death toll in some of them by far exceeds the current atrocities of the Assad regime in Syria, but very little is being said about them. The North Korean government does not commit armed genocide against its people, although what it is doing to them is much worse than that. The Iranian government is probably the only major regime, apart from Syria, that has done it, while being supplied with Russian weapons.

Again, that said, I think you are desperately trying to divert the focus from its original point about the hypocricy of politicians speaking in favour of peace while simultaneously favouring the arming of both guerrilla groups and oppressive governments around the world - into some kind of "but who has killed the most people" argument.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

What you are looking at is a big red herring tactic.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

It would've been big if it had involved at least some effort.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

He red herring is the original argument.

The West is simply not the problem.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

I am glad that you recognise that there is a problem. ;-)

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

The west is part of the problem.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I don't see oppressing the Muslim Brotherhood as a problem.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

What is red and smells fishy?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I do when they're the only people opposing the dictatorships the USA is so happy to pay for and call freedom (which doesn't, BTW, deceive the people repressed by such regimes, they're not idiots and know barbarism when they're subjected to it) as this only means that the system winds up with two options by default: another round of US-backed dictators that shoot anyone they dislike or a religious autocracy.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Iran primarily arms itself and has its own domestic industry, partially from experience of the Iran-Iraq War and partially so it can play King of the Mountain with Israel without being as limited as other states (which is one area where Khameini is actually a smart guy, not a dumbass).

North Korea IIRC probably the PRC or old Cold War-era Soviet technology that would primarily serve as ROK target practice.

Syria probably still has T-34s in its army......

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

By the same token, Russian and Chinese arms could've contributed to toppling the biggest amount of oppressors throughout recent history.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

If you'd like to argue that US weapons sales to South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Israel, and South Africa are to be criticized because of the human rights violations of such countries while Russian and Chinese arms sales to Sudan, Congo, and Vietnam have brought down dictators, then by all means follow this line of reasoning.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Well, the US has been arming regimes all throughout the Middle East and Latin America, who are not exactly "democratic". The point is that claiming to be a protector of democracy while being in the company of such nice "protectors" of democracy like Russia and China, does sound a bit disingenuous, dontchathink?

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

The US certainly isn't the protector of democracy. No country is, ever has been, or ever will be. US foreign policy has always been a mixed bag. We stick up for democracies likes of Taiwan and South Korea as well as Western Europe during the cold war and also support a lot of unsavory folks.

The foreign policy of Russia and China is not so mixed.

This certainly does call for grading on a curve, but I'm not seeing how this puts the US in the same company as China and Russia. You can certainly criticize the US for supporting Egypt (or more accurately Egypt's military) but when you equate this to Russia's support for Syria, you start losing any sense of proportion.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Well, neither Russia nor China have claimed to be the beacons of freedom and democracy around the world, nor do they regularly include such a meme in official speeches about the "Russian way of life" or "what China stands for in the world".

Any sense of proportion goes right out the chimney as soon as we look into the amicable relations between the US and the theocratic regime of Saudi Arabia, a string of US presidents holding hands and kissing the Saudi king on the cheeks and supplying him with the cutting edge military technology allowing him to dominate not only his people but an entire region, and spread the influence of his dictatorial regime throughout the Middle East. All for cheap oil of course. And nowhere has China claimed to "stand for" democracy around the world while essentially doing the very same with the likes of Iran and Sudan.

If one cannot notice the "slight" difference here, it's on them.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Well, neither Russia nor China have claimed to be the beacons of freedom and democracy around the world, nor do they regularly include such a meme in official speeches about the "Russian way of life" or "what China stands for in the world".

Yep. And it's a good thing they haven't. And that certainly explains the lack of such quotes from dissidents in those countries (ESPECIALLY the Chinese) when routinely condemning their governments' suppression of civil liberties and crack downs on democracy, and instead cite the United States and its ideals.

Unless of course, that agitator Hillary Clinton is just paying off all the dissidents around the world with promises of weapons for their oil and resources.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Ideals are a great thing - especially when adhered to in practice, rather than words.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Here's the thing with Saudi Arabia.

It's realpolitik. They're not really good people. Heck, they're jerks and vicious SOBs. But the problem is the vast majority of people in the region are real honest to goodness bastards. There's no way for anyone to come out on top that will be a Western styled free nation. The only thing we can do is support the bastards who will keep the rest in line and occasionally give them a light smack so they can at least give the people a semblance of a free life. To see what happens if we abandoned them look over to Egypt. Or at best, look to Syria.

It works a lot better than the alternative that we saw in 1990s Afghanistan. Honestly, disengagement would have been the best strategy. But that ship sailed back in the post-WW2 era. We picked a side and supported them and there's no way to disengage without a lot of blood.

Our current arrangements are by no means ideal but they're the "best" choice we have today. Who knows in 10-20 years? Maybe they can turn into South Korea and morph into a better society through gradual gov't reforms. But to cut loose and let the kingdom fall into the hands of religiously devout maniacs... let's not go there.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

It's realpolitik.

That's enough for me.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Except that in the 1950-3 war South Korea was not a democracy so much as a US-made dictator ruling an intact survival of the Axis colonial regime there, pitted against a Korean Stalinist regime that in the usual Cold War fashion saw the Soviet proxy slap the US proxy around with impunity. Even Israel is an example of this as the more dependent on the USA it became the less impressive its military performance became. Usually US support in the Cold War was a sign that the Soviets were going to get an asswhupping of our allies at our expense. And it's not because dictators can't win wars if we back them but because we had an invariable ability to pick the dumbest motherfuckers on the whole damn planet to back.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

I was referring to South Korea in the present tense.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And the reality is that South Korea became this in spite of, not because of, the USA.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually there is some argument that in the Cold War the USA didn't give a flying fuck about freedom and rather wanted its dictators to fight Moscow and Peking's pet dictators. However the Soviet proxies could at least aim a gun at someone shooting at them and expect to do something with it, US proxies couldn't shoot their way out of a wet paper bag.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

"So we shouldn't be acting surprised when Russia is vetoing any attempts for harsher sanctions against Syria in the UNSC."

Not surprised, but it is rather outrageous that Russia did veto sanctions against Syria and that China did the same against Sudan for years. Sure, the US supports Israel pretty much unconditionally in the UN and deserves any criticism that brings, but this does not in any way absolve China and Russia from supporting some of the bloodiest dictators in the world.

Just as US arms shipments to South Korea, Taiwan, South Africa and even Saudi Arabia don't justify continuing arms shipments to the government of Syria. Both are of course subject to criticism, but if you equate the two, you are not creating an honest argument.

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

I don't see that there's going to be a lot of resolution out of the UN, because the arms suppliers are only have the equation. i think although there's a lot of noise from the smaller countries many of the world's big arms importers are also doing to be concerned. Very few large arms importers are free of human rights skeletons in their closet (very few countries in general are free of that, including the arms exporters), and there may be some fear that this will be used against them. The problem with the whole arms restriction attempt has been that everyone wants arms trade restricted...for their neighbors, not for them. It may not get watered down on paper, but probably it will in execution from everyone's side.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

To be honest thanks to Kalashkinov any idiot with a sufficient will can handmake his own AK-47 and ammunition and things wouldn't be all that different. When that weapon was made traditional concepts of arms limitations became obsolete.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

IIRC the original AK-47 used a milled receiver, which could not be easily made. It had loose tolerances so it worked well enough and could be easily assembled however.

Later versions used a stamped sheet metal receiver which made it to where any country capable of stamping sheet metal (all of them) could make as many AKs as they wanted. The only technically challenging portion was barrels and trunnions. But again, any machinist circa 20th century could manufacture those pieces and an illiterate peasant could assemble it in a hut.

Heck, I've made an AK receiver. It's as easy as pie.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I can dismantle an AK in 25 seconds, and then assemble it in 55. Or at least I could, a few years back.

Of course first it has to be produced.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

By assembling, I mean mating the parts together to create the rifle. The trunnions have to be riveted into place and the barrel has to be pressed and pinned into the rifle. After that it's easy to slap the internals together.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

True, but my point is in reference to the variety that is a shake and bake assault rifle. When something like that is plausible, it's impossible to keep people from accessing a great deal of firepower. Of course having an assault rifle never means adequate ability to use it, however.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Since it came up a lot in some of the comments, there is a Dutch documentary about small arms industry and the inability of the UN to control them. The New York Times has a great review about the movie. (http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/movies/21deal.html)