[R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Real 'Merchants of Death'

[Bill Totten]

by Conn Hallinan

Foreign Policy in Focus (September 21 2010)


Accused Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout is a centerpiece for the
book Merchant of Death (2008)and the model for the Hollywood movie
The Lord of War (2005). He is the archetypal bad guy. Washington
apparently traded military hardware to the Thais to get him
extradited from a Bangkok jail {1}.

Is Bout a major actor in the international arms trade, as Hollywood
portrays him? In reality, he's a penny-ante operator who can't hold
a candle to the real "merchants of death" like Lockheed Martin, BAE
Systems, General Dynamics, Dassault Aviation, Finmeccanica, Boeing,
Rosoboronexport, and Northrop Grumman. Bout is like the guy who
sells you a Saturday night special in a back alley. If you want
something that will flatten a village you need a Massive Ordinance
Penetrator from Boeing, or a General Atomics "Reaper" drone armed
with Lockheed Martin "Hellfire" missiles.

The former Russian naval officer is accused of running guns to the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the Taliban, and
anti-government insurgents in Somalia. The United States has sent
{2} some $5 billion in military aid to the Colombian government to
fight the FARC, has spent over $300 billion trying to defeat the
Taliban, and props up the current Somali government.

Exporting Death

The global arms trade is a $60 billion yearly business. The United
States controls {3} nearly forty percent of this trade, defending
its turf with the ferocity of a junkyard dog. The ten biggest arms
exporters are - in order - the United States, Russia, Germany,
France, the United Kingdom, Spain, China, Israel, the Netherlands,
and Italy. Sweden and Switzerland are close behind. This order
shifts from year to year, but one thing never changes: The United
States is always Number One.

According to the Congressional Research Service {4}, due to the
current economic downturn, world arms sales dipped 8.5 percent in
2009. But "dipped" is a relative term. The price tag was still
$57.5 billion, of which the US share of 39 percent came to $22.6
billion. Russia was second at $10.4 billion, and France third with
$7.4 billion in sales. Other countries split the rest.

Most of the trade - $45.1 billion - focuses on developing nations.
Of the top seven arms purchasers in 2008, four of them - India,
Malaysia, Pakistan, and Algeria - are countries that can ill afford
to put money into weapons systems. Brazil, Venezuela, Egypt, and
Vietnam were also among the bigger arms buyers in 2009, and Iraq is
planning to purchase $13 billion in US weaponry {5}. All are
countries struggling with poverty.

The United States overwhelmingly dominates arms sales to the
developing world. In 2008 it cornered 68.4 percent of such sales
{6}, and 45.1 percent in 2009. It is currently negotiating a $60
billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia that will probably cost $120
billion when parts and maintenance is added in {7}.

Arms sales many times parallel the foreign policy of the suppliers.
US arms sales to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the
United Arab Emirates, Colombia, Japan, and South Korea arm allies
against regional antagonists like Iran, Syria, China, and
Venezuela. Arms sales to places like Yemen and Somalia support US
allies caught up in civil wars.

Where the Profits Go

The arms trade is also an enormously profitable enterprise for the
companies involved, and any effort to curb that trade brings on an
assault of lobbyists and political action committees. Lockheed
Martin, the world's largest arms producer, spent over $20 million
to lobby Congress in 2009 {8}.

The companies have carefully spread their operations to scores of
states, so that when an effort is made to cutback or eliminate
certain weapons, some local congress member will rise to defend
jobs in his or her district. When a move was made to cut the B-2
stealth bomber - an almost useless aircraft that cost $2.1 billion
apiece - its manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, mobilized 383
congressional districts in 46 states to successfully save the plane
{9}.

In reality, military spending doesn't create jobs, it kills them.
According to a study by the Center for Economic and Political
Research, military spending actually has a negative impact on
economic growth {10}. A one percent increase in defense spending -
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates' current proposal - would, over
twenty years, reduce GDP by 0.6 percent. That translates into
approximately 700,000 jobs, with construction and manufacturing
particularly hard hit.

While Gates talks about "efficiencies", he is not proposing to cut
the military budget, just trim things like health care and
bureaucracy and shift those savings to support troops in the field
{11}.

"The long-term impact of our increased defense spending will be a
reduction in GDP of 1.8 percent" {12}, says economist Dean Baker.
"The projected job loss from this increase in defense spending
would be close to two million [jobs]".

Unnecessary Systems

The result of PACs {13} and lobbing efforts by the arms companies
isn't only continued spending, but also expensive weapons systems
that don't work or are simply unneeded. The United States currently
has eleven aircraft carriers, while no other nation possesses even
one carrier that can match the huge $6.2 billion Nimitz-class
vessels in the US fleet.

Lockheed Martin's taxpayer funded F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - at
$184 million apiece, the most expensive weapons system ever built -
is, according to arms analysts Pierre Sprey and Winslow Wheeler, an
overweight, underpowered turkey that is so complex it will likely
spend most of its time in the repair shop {14}. Lockheed Martin is
already taking orders from foreign buyers.

Many companies have responded to the recession by buying up
enterprises specializing in defense electronics, cyber security,
and the hottest new thing: killer robots {15}.

Countries all over the world are clamoring to buy General Atomics'
Predators and Reapers, BAE's Tiranis, and Israel's Harpy and Heron,
the latter a mega beast the size of a commercial airliner and
capable of carrying a wide range of weapons. Predators run $4.5
million apiece while the larger, more muscular Reaper costs $10.5
million {16}.

Bout on the Margins

The international arms trade will not even notice if Viktor Bout
ends up behind bars. Men like Bout are shadowy actors that play on
the margins. To have a real impact on the global arms enterprise
will require confronting powerful corporations, with their lobbies
and their PACs, as well as an immense military establishment. But
according to Frida Berrigan of the Arms and Security Project of the
New American Foundation, the Obama administration is
"investigating" how to make the selling of military technology
easier {17}.

A number of NGOs, including Amnesty International, the
International Network on Small Arms, and Oxfam, are working on an
arms trade treaty that would try to keep weapons out of the hands
of human rights abusers {18}.

But "human rights abusers" is a slippery term. For the United
States, Venezuela is a human rights abuser and can't buy US arms,
while Honduras and Colombia are okay, even though regimes in both
of the latter countries have been accused of working with death
squads. The most Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez can be accused of
is a certain love of bombast and strong opposition to Washington's
policies in the region.

A UN conference on drawing up an arms trade treaty is set for 2012,
although there have been no serious negotiations to date. But such
a treaty will need to do more than just get a handle on some of the
more odious practices currently underway. It must restrict and then
move toward an eventual ban on the trade itself.

Links:

{1} http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/world/30bout.html

{2} http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/weekinreview/25bumiller.html

{3}
http://www.truth-out.org/frida-berrigan-america%25E2%2580%2599s-global-weapons-monopoly-don%25E2%2580%2599t-call-it-%25E2%2580%259C-global-arms-trade%25E2%2580%259D56952

{4} http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/world/13weapons.html

{5}
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iraq_seeks_US_arms_worth_13_billion_999.html

{6} http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/world/07weapons.html

{7}
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/08/30/Saudis-amass-US-weapons-to-confront-Iran/UPI-93911283184412/

{8} http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=14183

{9} http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=14183

{10}
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/defense-spending-job-loss/

{11} http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/us/politics/09gates.html?_r=1

{12}
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/defense-spending-job-loss/

{13} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

{14} http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=14183

{15}
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/132a6bee-9b51-11de-a3a1-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=f56b05c8-9b55-11de-a3a1-00144feabdc0.html

{16} http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/business/17uav.html

{17}
http://www.truth-out.org/frida-berrigan-america%25E2%2580%2599s-global-weapons-monopoly-don%25E2%2580%2599t-call-it-%25E2%2580%259C-global-arms-trade%25E2%2580%259D56952

{18} http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/control-arms

_____

Conn Hallinan is a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus. His
writings can also be found on his blog:
dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com

http://www.fpif.org/articles/the_real_merchants_of_death?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FPIF+%28Foreign+Policy+In+Focus+%28All+News%29%29


TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this
essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/