NORWAY NEWS ANALYSIS THE NORDIC PAGE

The World Keeps Buying Weapons

Norway’s recent explicit weapon trade policy has been consolidated with the government representatives’ statements and generous funding to weapon industry. While some think arm trade may be Norway’s new oil, there are arguments against this policy damaging the peace nation image of Norway.

According to research conducted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), military expenditures around the world keep increasing. This research also tells us in which regions in particular this spending is increasing.

World military expenditures were estimated at $1.630 trillion in 2010, which means there was a 1.3 percent increase compared to 2009. According to the same research, military spending has increased by two-thirds since 2001.

The biggest spender is the United States with 42.8 percent of the global total. It is followed by China at 7.3 percent. The total spending share of the European Union’s big four (United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy) is 12.4 percent and Russia’s is 3.6 percent. These figures prove that the richest countries are the ones that spend most for military purposes. There may be a linear logic between wealth and the ability to spend, but it’s legitimate to ask if a country has to spend money for weapons when it gets richer.

The figures show that the US military expenditure accounts for 5 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). The US administration could very well spend this money for health care or education but chooses not to. In Germany, 1.3 percent of GDP is spent on the defense sector, 1.8 percent in Italy and 1.5 percent in Japan; however, in Saudi Arabia, 10.5 percent of GDP is reserved for this sector.

The research proves that developed countries’ military expenditures remain high, even though a slowing down in this spending is also observed. Meanwhile, growth in this spending is increasing in developing or less developed countries. Last year, military spending increased by 6 percent in Latin America and by 5.2 percent in Africa. According to SIPRI, the growth in Latin American spending is related to this region’s increasing geopolitical importance, internal security threats and the lack of transparency. Venezuela is treated separately as this country bucked the trend in Latin America, as its spending fell.

Nothing proves that leaders, countries or societies that spend more money on the defense industry, weapons or security measures become safer. On the contrary, historical examples indicate countries that buy more weapons compared to others have a tendency to engage in wars more easily. Besides, one country’s armament justifies other countries’ armament, too. Considering that underdeveloped countries mainly use their natural resources to purchase weapons that are used in civil wars, the important revenues these countries get from the trade of raw materials are simply wasted.

Developing countries don’t spend much for high tech weapons or for weapons of mass destruction; they prefer to buy conventional weapons. Thus, wars in many regions of the world remain conventional and limited even if the countries in these regions keep buying large numbers of weapons. However, there is no certainty these conflicts will remain limited. Countries involved in civil wars or in limited wars with their immediate neighbors have the potential to set off a global conflict. Besides, there is a growing risk that weapons that have been produced, developed or purchased by states may be used later by non-state actors such as militant groups or nefarious organizations.

When there is global insecurity, the role of the defense sector increases, and the insecurity keeps growing as the defense sector’s role increases. Finally, the only ones who benefit from this situation are the bosses of the military industrial complex. And they will benefit from this situation even if they are perfectly aware that their own children, too, will grow up in this cycle of insecurity.

Dedeoglu's Previous Articles

____________________________________________________________

Clash of civilizations -- perhaps no longer an issue: Influenza A has arrived

The recent outbreak of a previously unknown virus, first referred to as swine flu and then re-named influenza A by the World Health Organization (WHO), has resulted in widespread global reactions. I wish to draw attention to a number of virus-related incidents and in particular to how China dealt with the virus on its home soil.

Henry Chaplin, 1st Viscount Chaplin, in a satirical cartoon receiving a deputation on the subject of the Swine-fever/From London Charivari

The recent outbreak of a previously unknown virus, first referred to as swine flu and then re-named influenza A by the World Health Organization (WHO), has resulted in widespread global reactions. I wish to draw attention to a number of virus-related incidents and in particular to how China dealt with the virus on its home soil.


The flu outbreak, which stopped short of becoming a pandemic, has shown us quite a lot about how some of sections of mankind deal with other sections of mankind -- those of us who are in trouble, that is.


Let us first recap some of the facts. Initially news came in from Mexico several weeks ago, that hundreds of citizens of that country had died due to influenza A. When I checked on the figures the following morning, this number had risen with cases being reported from many other countries. Days later it transpired that only a small number of people who got infected actually died of the illness -- we all breathed a sigh of relief.


Overreaction Halts Daily Life


What made me worry besides these numbers, though distressing as they were causing hardship for many families, was a story coming in from Hong Kong. In its restaurant and entertainment district of Wan Chai, a hotel named Metropark was apparently being shut down. Not only this, it was closed and sealed off with all 350 guests and staff inside -- the Chinese side called it “quarantine” as one person who was suspected of carrying the virus was thought to be staying at the hotel. Not only this; at least one person walking past the building was stopped on the street and was also quarantined inside the hotel.


Chinese authorities were either overreacting or doing the right thing; only time will tell. What should be avoided if viruses like influenza A break out again is the situation in which one country thinks that all the citizens of the country where the virus originated have to be treated as dangerous people. The next move was the culling of all pigs in Egypt -- scientifically, it was not necessary as the WHO confirmed that all meat, including pork cooked above a certain temperature, is safe to consume. The virus was not designed by a Mexican person -- and the Mexican people are the least to blame for the outbreak of this near-pandemic; they are the ones who really suffer.


Chinese vs. Mexican: New Targets?


The story then turned into a kind of retaliation match (‘China versus Mexico’) resulting in Mexican citizens being repatriated to their country and the Chinese side trying to bring their citizens back home from Central America. Carrying a Mexican passport was enough evidence that you are a threat to Chinese homeland security; bizarre, was it not?


The WHO did what it could to create an atmosphere of relative calm by not raising the alert level to six; it stopped at level five, implying that a pandemic was imminent but had not yet occurred -- a wise choice in a moment of worldwide concern. The UN showed that it actually does have a multitude of roles to play, not only with its Security Council and General Assembly, but in health-related matters, too.


The Economic Threat of the Virus


The swift reaction as demonstrated by the Mexican government deserves applause. It did not panic and tried to stay on top of the situation in line with the WHO. What it did not expect was the economic crisis which would follow in the footsteps of influenza A. Nor did it expect the five days of national standstill as were ordered by the authorities and which will cause a headache to the people of that country. The foreign investors and tourists who may decide to stay away will also bring economic hardship to its citizen unless a proactive lobbying campaign takes away unfounded fears.


What if It would Hit Norway?


Following these events from Norway, it is easy to compare the influenza A outbreak to the outbreak of bird flu here some years ago. In moments of crisis a government is asked to show that it can deal with the situation effectively. How would Norwegian authorities face with these issues? Would they have to quarantine whole villages? And if so, which? Would the authorities ban all meat imports? Would other countries retaliate and ban all poultry products coming from Norway? Would tourists change their travel itineraries, and if they would, how could the government counteract?


There will be another virus coming our way some time in the future. It may originate here in Turkey, in Mexico, in France or indeed like SARS, in China. Global solidarity is a phrase that may have lost its original meaning, but in times like these it would be wise to understand that all of us -- the pharmaceutical companies, governments, airlines and above all the people -- have to cooperate and not unduly panic when it happens. Singling out ‘the other’ is always an ill-footed cure.

TAGS: Weapon, SwineFlu

Share this on:

• 
• 
•