Global military spending after 9/11 and arm race

[lmno250]

Global military spending after 9/11 and arm race

Usman karim

The increased global military spending post-9/11 and resulting increase in global arms production raises the issue of arms racing by countries like India, China and Pakistan, who have undertaken large procurements of defense equipment from the international market for example, during 2003-2007, India's rank as a leading recipient of conventional arms among the developing nations jumped five places from the eighth position it held during 1999-2002, with the value of deliveries increasing by two and a half times to US$7.2 billion. Similarly, China and Pakistan, while maintaining their respective rankings, have increased their arms procurement; their combined arms imports during the three year period (2003-07) totaled nearly US$37-40 billion. The increased flow of arms to India, China and Pakistan will not only push them into an arms race, but will also inflate their defense budgets further in future. In the context of India, whose defense expenditure in recent years has been subjected to greater scrutiny in view of competing demands from the social sectors, an over-heated arms race would pose a serious challenge to policy makers in the coming years. Much of this growth is due to the US, which alone accounts for nearly half the total global military expenditure. From 2001 to 2008, US military expenditure increased by 53 per cent in constant prices. Till 2008, the GWOT had cost the US nearly US$758 billion in supplementary appropriations or requests. Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, and the hopes of its children… This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. Arms sales are defined as sales of military goods and services to military customers, including both sales for domestic procurement and sales for export. Military goods and services are those which are designed specifically for military purposes and the technologies related to such goods and services. They exclude sales of general-purpose goods (e.g. oil, electricity, office computers, cleaning services, uniforms and boots). They include all revenue related to the sale of military equipment, that is, not only for the manufacture but also for the research and development, maintenance, servicing and repair of the equipment World military expenditure The United States maintained its role as the leading supplier of weapons to the developing world in 2006, 2007 followed by Russia and Britain, according to a Congressional study Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia were the top buyers.. If 9/11 is the prime reason underlying enhanced US military spending, it has its impact on other countries' military spending, apparent from the rising military expenditure of some major military spenders These trends in global military expenditure can be traced to 9/11, which led to the 'Global War on Terror' (GWOT), exponentially increasing military expenditure. The effect of GWOT on military spending can be seen from the latter's increase, in real terms, by 6 per cent annually over 2001-2008, compared to 0.5 per cent per year during the eight years prior to 2001 In 2008. If 9/11 is the prime reason underlying enhanced US military spending, it has its impact on other countries' military spending, apparent from the rising military expenditure of some major military spenders. The United Kingdom, which is in a distant second position vis-à-vis its transatlantic cousin, has raised its real military budget by 4 per cent every year over 2001-2008, to meet the costs of its international operations, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. The impact of higher US military spending is also visible in China, which recently surpassed Japan to become the fourth highest military spender in the world. During 2001-08, Chinese military expenditure has grown by 12 percent per year, compared to its 10 percent annual economic growth during the same period. Much of the Chinese expenditure is directed towards preparing for an 'information zed war' (i.e., a war which is 'high-paced, high-technology and digitized' in nature) to match the military power of the US, should they clash over Taiwan. If the Chinese expenditure continues to grow at the present rate, then by 2012, it will emerge as the second highest military spender in the world, surpassing France and UK en route. Defense spending in India, in comparison to the average global increase, has grown by one percent to 7 percent per year in real terms between 2001 and 2008 the United States agreed to sell $10.3 billion in weapons to the developing world, or 35.8 percent of these deals worldwide, according to the study. Russia was second with $8.1 billion, or 28.1 percent, and Britain was third with $3.1 billion, or 10.8 percent. Pakistan concluded $5.1 billion in agreements to buy arms in 2006. That total was followed by India with $3.5 billion in agreements and Saudi Arabia with $3.2 billion in deals. The combined value of arms sales worldwide to both developed and developing nations in 2006 reached $40.3 billion, a decline of nearly 13 percent from 2005. in 2006 reached $ 1204 billion in current US dollars. This surpasses cold war military expenditure levels at a time when there are no antagonisms among the great powers of the world. This figure translates into $ 184 per every man, woman and child on this earth. That is a shocking contrast to the fact that one billion people live under one dollar per day which is the accepted bench mark for absolute poverty in this world. Almost ten million children die every year before their fifth birth day from preventable causes. This will require a fraction of current global military expenditure to remedy. The entire set of eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – which range from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education - will entail an annual investment of $ 40-60 billion to achieve by the target date of 2015. $ 5.8 trillion was spent on the US nuclear programmed from 1940 through 1996. On 12 December 1980, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 35/142 B , entitled "Reduction of military budgets", which introduced the United Nations system for the standardized reporting of military expenditures. The resolution recommended that all Member States should make use of the reporting instrument and report annually to the Secretary-General, and requested the Secretary-General to report on the matter to the General Assembly on an annual basis. The standardized reporting form invites aggregate and detailed data on expenditures incurred on personnel, operations and maintenance, procurement and construction, and research and development. The alternative simplified reporting form only seeks aggregate data on personnel, operations and procurement. Reporting is based on available data for the latest fiscal year.Thus far, more than 120 States have reported to this instrument at least once since it commenced operation in 1981. Annual participation registered significant increases in recent years over all previous years. The highest number of national submissions recorded so far was 82 in 2002, rising from 61 in 2001, while the average level of participation during the 1980s and 1990s was fewer than 30.2003 76 200479 2005 77 2006 82- 2007- 79 respectively
STANDARDIZED INSTRUMENT FOR REPORTING
MILITARY EXPENDITURES 1992-2007


just see where world is heading for how the un ratified resolution is going to respected by nations The costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have gone into hundreds of billion of dollars “” which, even as you view it, shows the costs of the Iraq war escalating in nana seconds and compares it with what that expenditure can achieve in the US alone in public housing, public education, pre-schools, children’s health and college scholarships. Extrapolate these figures on a global basis and you will see the opportunity costs of global military expenditure in terms of what we can do to reduce poverty, disease, mal-nutrition, bad sanitation and most other problems associated with underdevelopment. the incontrovertible fact is that of the global military expenditure of $ 1204 billion, the share of the USA is 46%, the UK 5%, France 5%, China 4%, Japan 4%, with many other countries following. Viewed regionally, while North America accounts for 47% of military spending, Western Europe accounts for 22%, Asia 15% and the Middle East 6%. The arms sales of the hundred largest arms producing companies in the world reached an estimated $ 290 billion in 2005. list of the twenty five biggest arms producing companies shows that they are all from the developed countries of the industrialized northern hemisphere. The ten largest exporters of major conventional weapons in the period 2002 to 2007 were USA with 30.2%, Russia with 28.9%, Germany 8.6%, France 8.3% followed by the UK, The Netherlands, Italy, China, Sweden and Israel. The biggest importing countries of major conventional weapons in the same period were China and India. Pakistan ,Saudi Arabia uae Iran Venezuela
Business in million dollars by world arms companies in 2007
1. Boeing (USA) 28,05
2. North drop Grumman (USA) 27,59
3. Lockheed Martin (USA) 26,46
4. BAE Systems (UK) 23,23
5. Raytheon (USA) 19,80
6. General Dynamics (USA) 16,57
7. Finmeccanica (Italien) 9,80
8. EADS (Europe) 9,58
9. L-3 Communications (USA) 8,97
10. Thales (Frank Reich) 8,94
11. United Technologies Corp. (USA) 6,84
12. SAIC (USA) 5,06
13. DCN (Frankreich) 3,52
14. Rolls Royce (UK) 3,47
15. Computer Sciences Corp. (USA) 3,40
16. ITT Industries (USA) 3,19
17. General Electric (USA) 3,00
18. Honeywell International (USA) 2,94
19. Halliburton (USA) 2,72
20. SAFRAN (Frankreich) 2,63
21. Dassault Aviation Groupe (Frankreich) 2,21
22. Mitshubishi Heavy Industries (Japan) 2,19
23. SAAB (Schweden) 2,11
The United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend about $20 billion each year or about $3 for each of the world's inhabitants. This is a very small sum compared to most government budgets and it is just a tiny fraction of the world’s military spending. Yet for nearly two decades, the UN has faced a financial difficulties and it has been forced to cut back on important programs in all areas. Many member states have not paid their full dues and have cut their donations to the UN’s voluntary funds. As of November 30, 2007, members’ arrears to the Regular Budget topped $735 million, of which the United States alone owed $688 million (94% of the regular budget arrears).The arms trade is a deadly, corrupt business. It supports conflict and human rights abusing regimes while squandering valuable resources. It does this with the full support of governments around the world. The trade is dominated by the US, with the UK, France and Russia usually vying for second place. In 2007, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the above four plus China) produced 87% of the $60 billion of arms exported. While relatively few countries sell large volumes of weaponry, the buyers are spread across the world. Some of the largest purchasers are in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, PAKISTAN INDIA and South and East Asia. The arms themselves range from fighter aircraft, helicopters and warships with their guided missiles, radar and electronic warfare systems, to tanks, armored vehicles, machine guns and rifles. The major corporations are themselves supplied by engine producers such as Rolls-Royce (UK) and General Electric (US), and component and ‘sub-system’ manufacturers including Smiths Group (UK) and Cobham (UK). These in turn are supplied by a vast array of smaller companies. Other weapon providers include the major missile producers led by Raytheon (US) and MBDA (Europe) and small arms producers such as Heckler & Koch (Germany) and FN Herstal (Belgium).
Six years after the Sept. 11 attacks, little has changed in the Bush administration’s strategy with regard to U.S. arms exports. The Bush administration is still supplying high technology weapons and millions of dollars in military assistance to allies in the “war on terror.” Support for the United States – either in its quest to stamp out international terrorist networks, or for its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – seemingly takes precedence over other criteria usually taken into account when the United States considers an arms transfer. According to long-standing tenets of U.S. arms export policy, arms transfers should not undermine long-term security and stability, weaken democratic movements, support military coups, escalate arms races, exacerbate ongoing conflicts, cause arms build-ups in unstable regions, or be used to commit human rights abuses. However, in the last six years, the Bush administration has demonstrated a willingness to provide weapons and military training to weak and failing states and countries that have been repeatedly criticized by the U.S. State Department for human rights violations, lack of democracy, and even support of terrorism. While total U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) between FY 02 and FY 06 totaled approximately $9 billion less than between FY 97 and FY 01, the United States has increased sales to new post Sept. 11 allies and has made several large and potentially troublesome arms deals, including a multi-billion dollar sale of F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan. Further, total FMS projections for FY 06 through FY 08 are higher than any other year since the end of the Cold War. And, FMS provided to the 25 countries in this series during the five years after Sept. 11 is twice the amount sold in the five years prior. Total Direct Commercial Sales in the five years after Sept. 11 totaled roughly $66 billion more than in the five years prior, an 11-fold increase. Furthermore, the increase in DCS to the 25 countries examined in this series was even more dramatic, with DCS between FY 97 and FY 01 totaling only $72 million, as compared with more than $3 billion in DCS between FY 02 and FY 06. Increases in arms sales are in part due to the lifting of sanctions and restrictions to certain countries immediately after Sept. 11, including India, Pakistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan

U.S. Military Assistance and Sales to Pakistan,

IMET FMF DCS FMS EDA

1997-2001 $174,000 $0 $2,569,000 $259,330,000 $0
2002 $894,000 $75,000,000 $0 $6,456,000 $0
2003 $990,000 $224,500,000 $590,000 $4,659,000 $268,047,054
2004 $1,356,000 $74,560,000 $7,492,000 $36,155,000 $86,400,000
2005 $1,773,000 $298,800,000 $85,341,000 $60,739,000 $32,446,966
2006 $2,037,000 $297,000,000 $182,918,000 $3,496,729,000 $0
2002-2006 $7,050,000 $969,860,000 $276,341,000 $3,604,738,000 $386,894,020
2007 $2,075,000 $300,000,000 $27,613,000 $213,000,000 $0
2008 $2,000,000 $300,000,000 $72,159,000 $1,470,000,000 $0

U.S. Military Assistance and Sales to India,

1990-2001 $3,678,000 $0 $191,909,000 $5,134,000 $0
1997-2001 $1,800,000 $0 $0 $171,000 $0
2002 $1,012,000 $800,000 $0 $38,000 $0
2003 $1,000,000 $0 $5,651,000 $20,507,000 $0
2004 $1,354,000 $0 $15,516,000 $6,675,000 $0
2005 $1,462,000 $0 $31,891,000 $10,970,000 $0
2006 $1,272,000 $0 $39,673,000 $48,246,000 $0
2002-2006 $6,100,000 $800,000 $92,731,000 $86,436,000 $0
2007 $1,480,000 $0 $27,784,000 $14,000,000 $0
2008 $1,300,000 $0 $92,948,000 $15,000,000 $0
IMET international military education training 2 FMF foreign military financing 3 DCS Direct commercial sales 4 FMS Foreign military services 5 EDA Excess defense articals
Top spenders ranked (and sources)
Military spending in 2008 ($ Billions, and percent of total)
Country Dollars (billions) % of total Rank
Notes:
• The figure for the United States is the budget request for Fiscal Year 2009 and includes $170 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as funding for the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons activities.
• All other figures are projections based on 2007, the last year for which accurate data is available.
• All countries that spent over one billion per year are listed.
• Due to rounding, some percentages may be slightly off.
details.
United States 711 48.28% 1
China 121.9 8.28% 2
Russia 70
4.75% 3
United Kingdom 55.4
3.76% 4
France 54
3.67% 5
Japan 41.1
2.79% 6
Germany 37.8
2.57% 7
Italy 30.6
2.08% 8
Saudi Arabia 29.5
2.00% 9
South Korea 24.6
1.67% 10
India 22.4
1.52% 11
Australia 17.2
1.17% 12
Brazil 16.2
1.10% 13
Canada 15
1.02% 14
Spain 14.4
0.98% 15
Turkey 11.6
0.79% 16
Israel 11
0.75% 17
Netherlands 9.9
0.67% 18
United Arab Emirates 9.5
0.65% 19
Taiwan 7.7
0.52% 20
Greece 7.3
0.50% 21
Iran 7.2
0.49% 22
Myanmar 6.9
0.47% 23
Singapore 6.3
0.43% 24
Poland 6.2
0.42% 25
Sweden 5.8
0.39% 26
Colombia 5.4
0.37% 27
Chile 4.7
0.32% 28
Belgium 4.4
0.30% 29
Egypt 4.3
0.29% 30
Pakistan 4.2
0.29% 31
Denmark 3.9
0.26% 32
Indonesia 3.6
0.24% 33
Switzerland 3.5
0.24% 34
Kuwait 3.5
0.24% 35
South Africa 3.5
0.24% 36
Oman 3.3
0.22% 37
Malaysia 3.2
0.22% 38
Mexico 3.2
0.22% 39
Portugal 3.1
0.21% 40
Algeria 3.1
0.21% 41
Finland 2.8
0.19% 42
Austria 2.6
0.18% 43
Venezuela 2.6
0.18% 44
Czech Republic 2.5
0.17% 45
Romania 2.3
0.16% 46
Qatar 2.3
0.16% 47
Thailand 2.3
0.16% 48
Morocco 2.2
0.15% 49
Argentina 1.9
0.13% 50
Ukraine 1.7
0.12% 51
Cuba 1.7
0.12% 52
Angola 1.6
0.11% 53
New Zealand 1.5
0.10% 54
Hungary 1.3
0.09% 55
Ireland 1.1
0.07% 56
Jordan 1.1
0.07% 57
Peru 1.1
0.07% 58
North Korea n/a n/a 59
Global Total (not all countries shown): 1,472.7 100
59 countries whom budget is not less than one billion dollars
We will see the American assistance to 25 countries after 9/11 economical and military aids which really accelerated the arm race and increase the regional conflict and boost the arms industry and will create a very dangerous exploitation to poor and devolving countries