Research: Commentary

Time to Rein in the Global Arms Trade

Americas Program, June 13, 2012 | Article

By William D. Hartung

Even as the world remains mired in the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, one sector continues to thrive: global arms exports. Arms exporting countries and weapons contractors are scrambling to expand foreign sales at a time when their own military budgets are leveling off or declining. This new export push has dangerous consequences for international security.

Conservatively estimated at $40 to $50 billion per year, the trade is dominated by a few players. The United States has accounted for half or more of the value of international weapons exports in recent years, followed by Russia at about 20%. Weapons sales by these and other major players directly contradict the need to cut back on weapons proliferation at a time of rapid political change and ongoing conflict.
The war on everyone’s mind at the moment is in Syria, where the Assad regime has been slaughtering opponents of its dictatorial rule with impunity. Russia is far and away Syria’s largest arms supplier, and that connection combined with its historic political ties to Damascus has led it to oppose a United Nations embargo on weapons transfers to Syria even as the killing there escalates. Pressure from the United States and other supporters of an embargo has resulted in a voluntary Russian pledge to end sales of small arms and ammunition to Syria, but it continues to transfer other kinds of weapons, along with spare parts that help keep the Syrian military up and running.

Despite efforts by Washington to promote an arms embargo, there is an element of hypocrisy in current U.S. policy towards Syria. Even as it is pressing for a weapons cutoff, Washington is buying helicopters for use in Afghanistan from the very same Russian company – Rosoboronexport – that is the prime supplier of arms to the Syrian military. Ken Roth, the director of Human Rights Watch, has denounced this relationship, arguing that “the bottom line is that no one should do business with any company that may be an accomplice to crimes against humanity.” The Pentagon has ignored this demand, arguing that the purchase of Russian helicopters is “essential.” Stopping U.S. complicity with Rosoboronexport would be one small but important step towards promoting an embargo.

Russia isn’t the only country engaged in questionable arms deals in the Middle East. The United States is in the midst of fulfilling a record $60 billion order from Saudi Arabia, one of the most tyrannical regimes in the region and one that has fiercely resisted moves towards democracy within its own borders and in neighboring Bahrain, where it has sent troops to help suppress the democracy movement there. In addition to the Saudi deal, the United States is currently committed to supplying arms to Bahrain, although a sale of armored vehicles has been delayed under pressure from Congress and a network of human rights groups spearheaded by Amnesty International. Last but not least, Washington has continued its commitment to supply over $1 billion in annual aid to the Egyptian military at a time when that country has far greater need for economic assistance to help bolster its transition to democracy.

The acceleration of weapons exports ignores the fact that we are still a world at war, with at least two dozen major conflicts now under way, according to the Canada-based Project Ploughshares. Over a third of these wars are in Africa, with Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo the most deadly of all, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths – mostly of civilians. China has been a major supplier to Sudan, while a variety of arms dealers, neighboring countries, and other war profiteers are pouring arms into the Congo in exchange for access to the country’s natural resources.

U.S. arms transfers to Latin America are relatively modest compared to those to other regions, but sales through traditional channels are complemented by a dizzying array of other programs that supply arms and training under the guise of fighting the drug war or promoting military-to-military relationships. The largest new market is Mexico, where U.S.-subsidized weapons transfers topped $300 million in 2010 to a country that received little or no U.S. weaponry in the early 2000s. The cruel irony of this process is that it puts U.S. weapons on both sides of the conflict, as the cartels take advantage of loose gun laws to buy weapons in the U.S. even as Washington dramatically increases its weapons transfers to government forces.

The question raised by this flurry of arms trafficking is what can be done to rein it in, at a time when it is doing so much damage to human life, fueling conflicts that are killing thousands of people per day. Thankfully, there is one major initiative under way–the push for a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This initiative would make it harder to arm dictators or push weapons into areas of active conflict. A United Nations conference to be held next month in New York will determine the shape of the ATT and decide whether it will be a relatively weak voluntary measure or a treaty with real teeth that can have a real impact in keeping weapons out of the hands of human rights abusers and government and non-government parties to ongoing wars.

The crucial question is whether the most important political players – and the biggest arms exporters – can be brought on board in efforts to enact a tough treaty. The United States, Russia and China will be particularly important in this regard. They will face pressure from a global network of NGO’s organized under the umbrella of the Control Arms campaign, reinforced by sympathetic governments.

The ATT is an idea whose time is long overdue. The question now is whether public pressure can force governments to do the right thing before thousands more people die from wars that can and should be prevented.

CIP in the Press
  • RSPO Recertifies IOI Group, But NGOs Have Yet to See ‘Real Action on the Ground’

    CIP quoted

    Sustainable Brands, 08-09-16

    Less than five months after the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) suspended Malaysian palm oil producer IOI Group’s certification, that suspension has been lifted – much to the dismay of NGO campaigners. While the RSPO’s Complaints Panel has said it is “satisfied that IOI has met the conditions set out in its letter to IOI,” Greenpeace Indonesia and the Center for International Policy says they have yet to see any real action on the ground...Read More »

  • Think Tanks and their Corporate Funders: Who’s Selling What?

    Bill Goodfellow quoted

    Nonprofit Quarterly, 08-09-16

    The article concedes that much of Brookings’ work appears unconnected, at least on the surface, to corporate interests. Still, as Bill Goodfellow, the executive director of the Center for International Policy, another think tank, said, “People think of think tanks as do-gooders, uncompromised and not bought like others in the political class. But it’s absurd to suggest that donors don’t have influence. The danger is we in the think tank world are being corrupted in the same way as the political world. And all of us should be worried about it.”—Ruth McCambridge...Read More »

  • Thousands of Pages of Confidential Think Tank Documents Detail Corporate Ties

    Bill Goodfellow quoted

    DESMOG, 08-09-16

    “People think of think tanks as do-gooders, uncompromised and not bought like others in the political class,” Bill Goodfellow, executive director of one think tank, the Center for International Policy, told The New York Times. “The danger is we in the think tank world are being corrupted in the same way as the political world. And all of us should be worried about it.”...Read More »