Sale of Weapons of Mass Destruction - Essay Example

? Globally Relevant By Due Arms control has become a huge problem in the world today. Theharmful effects of uncontrolled arms are manifold. The careless usage of weapons is damaging the world’s environment at a great rate. Unfortunately, all the countries of the world are not contributing equally to cure this problem. Different countries have different needs as far as weapons are concerned. In most of the countries, there are conflicts among groups. It is easy to disarm a certain group but extremely difficult to disarm the other. This results in no disarmament at all. Also, certain counties have threats from other countries. Such countries have, therefore, a national interest in having weapons. Countries that have weapons are facing a lot of pressure from other countries. The powerful countries of the world are co-operating the least in the movement against weapons. Such countries have the capacity to create weapons of mass destruction that include nuclear and biological weapons. However, poorer countries are also gaining access to such weapons. That is continuously giving chances to terrorists to strengthen themselves and create big disasters. Further, many countries allot a great portion of their budgets to making or acquiring of weapons. The same amount can also be spent on education, environment or other development projects, but it does not happen due to the requirement of a strong military. There is also very limited gun control in many countries which is why the percentage of gun violence related incidents is very high. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)’s recent trends summary, world military expenditure in 2010 was estimated to have reached $1.63 trillion at 2010 prices. This is almost 2.6 percent of world gross domestic product (GDP) or $236 for each person in the world. Out of the total military expenditure in the whole world, the expenditure by the US accounts for 41% of it. SIPRI also found out that the major portion of the total military expenditure in the world is made by large countries. 15 major countries of the world spend 81.8% of the total military expenditure. An important point is that the world faced a very bad economic depression in 2008 hence resulting in many countries cutting their spending in various sectors. However, the spending in the military sector is continuously on a rise. It does not seem to be justified but it has valid reasons. (GlobalIssues) Just before the time the depression arrived, it was not reasonably foreseeable. It could not have been expected that a crisis of such magnitude was about to hit. Many countries were happy with their economic growths and they had easy access to credit. They had their fixed or pre-planned foreign policy objectives, the knowledge of available resources were satisfactory, the peacekeeping operations were expected to go as normal and the policies were fixed. Countries like China and India saw a boom in the economies and they increased the spending on military. Also, the high prices of minerals and fossil fuels enabled quite a few countries to increase military expenditure. However, after the 2008 financial crisis had hit, military spending still appears to have increased. It has been observed by SIPRI that some nations like China and India did not face a financial crisis but continued to grow. As the financial crisis hit big countries like the US, the governments responded by employing expansionary fiscal policies according to which they increased the government expenditure. Among these expenditures which were made to counter the crisis, many new military projects were started too which is why there has been an increase in the total military spending. Most importantly, many countries have continued to put the strategic and geopolitical concerns above other matters. If these concerns demanded an increase in military expenditures, the governments did not hesitate to increase the spending despite dire economic straits. In contrast, Freeman et al found out that, “when it comes to smaller countries — with no such power ambitions and, more importantly, lacking the resources and credit-worthiness to sustain such large budget deficits — many have cut back their military spending in 2009, especially in Central and Eastern Europe.” (pp.1–2) There have been various International laws and treaties in order to limit the arms deals all over the world. The most notable of these is the Arms Trade Treaty. Largely, these agreements attempt to prevent non-democratic regimes from purchasing arms because of the possibility that such regimes would use the weapons in an inappropriate manner and abuse human rights of their people. Also, regions in which internal or external conflicts may fuel are also prevented from attaining arms. Sale of weapons of mass destruction that have the ability to undermine development and increase poverty is also discouraged. It is extremely difficult to implement these terms because the arms dealer have repetitively been successful in selling arms to dictatorships and other regimes which violate human rights. The major reason for this is that many countries do not honor the terms of the treaty with equal diligence. In certain countries, it is very easy for arms dealers to roam around and make deals. Also, the terms of the treaty are often interpreted differently by different countries. They have their own foreign policies and they implement the rules in their own way. The Control Arms Campaign noted that, “The arms industry is unlike any other. It operates without regulation. It suffers from widespread corruption and bribes. And it makes its profits on the back of machines designed to kill and maim human beings.” It has been agreed upon by almost all the countries that the space is to be used for the benefit of all of them. The benefits include monitoring of weather, detection of natural disasters, helping in search and rescue etc. this has been done using surveillance sites etc. However, the Bush administration showed its interest in bringing the space into its military capacity too. Space is currently being regarded as the fourth military arena. Whoever has a control over this arena is bound to have a great military advantage. If the US gains military control over space, it would have a great benefit in its defense too. However, if the US looks to push its own interests using the space, (the interests which have mostly not been in the best interests of the rest of the world) there would be a huge imbalance of power in the world. The resulting expenditure can ultimately prove to be a very wasteful one. If the US continues to pursue its military expansion in the space, other countries would be compelled to do the same. They will also then make very needless expenditures on military expansion in space. China is probably the only country that can challenge the US supremacy in the space in the future. China has shown almost no interest in space expansion but it seems that if the US pursues it, China would inevitably follow. For instance, when the Bush administration signified that the US might go for a military expansion in space, China hit one of its aging satellites with a ballistic missile. Moreover, China is a growing economy and its military expenditures in the future are expected to increase. (GlobalIssues) Another controversial feature of arms dealing is military aid. Its major objective is to help allies or poor countries fight against terrorism, drug forces etc. The country that donates weapons also helps in training the people who have to use the weapons. It is believed that when two countries are democracies, their military collaboration helps in strengthening their relationship. Very often, it happens that two opposing groups are provided with military aid and then they fight with each other. It is possible that both groups are democratic in nature and they fight just because of geopolitical objectives of the superpowers that back them. It was seen in the Cold War that the US would always help the group that was fighting against another group which was supported by the USSR. In the wake of “War on Terror”, military aid has risen significantly. It is impossible to regulate all the funds that go into military aid. Also, it can never be ensured whether the weapons hence provided are being used for the right purpose. The US gives millions of dollars in military aid today. (GlobalIssues) Another major problem is the lack of gun control around the world. In many countries, civilians own guns for their own protection against burglars etc. However, such widespread availability of guns to civilians results in innumerable incidents due to gun violence. When the licenses to own guns are distributed, there are very limited background checks as to the credibility of gun owners. This leads to the formation of gangs and the possibility of crime increases manifold. The most compelling case of reducing gun violence is that of Australia. In 1996, there was a huge massacre and the guns were responsible for it. As a reaction, the Australian government forcefully purchased all the guns from the civilians and burned them in a furnace. Now, Australia has a strict gun control policy and employs strict background checks. It has been 17 years and there has not been even a single event of gun violence in Australia. The government of the US is thinking very hard about employing a similar gun control policy. However, there are many political hurdles in the process. In a process of change, the hardest step is of unfreezing. In many countries, politicians are very reluctant to take the unfreezing step and feel comfortable with status quo. In certain countries, the crime syndicates are so strong that it is almost impossible to disarm them. It would probably take a military action to disarm such groups. For instance, there is a group called MQM in Pakistan which has been terrorizing the city of Karachi for more than 25 years. This group is heavily armed and has created such areas in which no person who does not belong to MQM can even enter. MQM is responsible for almost all the gun violence related incidents in Karachi. It can all stop if this group is disarmed. This group has a strong political influence too. It is impossible to disarm MQM unless the Pakistani army takes a military action against it. There are similar cases in other parts of the world too. Overall, the availability of weapons is in itself a detriment to peace. No country in the world wants to be under the influence of another country. This is why when a country grows in military power, the other countries try to match it. Most of the times, weapons are prepared just for the purpose of showing them to the rest of the world. Sending indirect messages has become very important in today’s international politics. But as long as weapons are purchased and made all over the world, the chances of attaining world peace are very bleak. References “Expenditure Trends.” SIPRI. Trends, n.d. Web. 24 May 2013. Sam Perlo-Freeman, Olawale Ismail and Carina Solmirano. “Military Expenditure” , Chapter 5, SPIRI Yearbook, June 2010, p.1-2. Shah, A. “A Code of Conduct for Arms Sales.” Globalissues. Articles, 30 Nov 2008. Web. 24 May 2013. Shah, A. “Military Aid” Globalissues. Articles, 03 May 2010. Web. 24 May 2013. Shah, A. “World Military Spending.” Globalissues. Articles, 06 May 2012. Web. 24 May 2013. “The Arms Industry.” ControlArms. Issues, 28 August 2004. Web. 24 May 2013. “US Seeks Militarization of Space” Globalissues. Articles, n.d. Web. 24 May 2013. Read More