The Arms Trade in International Politics

Note: This essay is littered with errors, and if I had the time and motivation to rewrite it I would many times over. Although it received a B, it is not up to my standards- keep this in mind.

“The five permanent members of the UN Security Council—France, Russia, China, the UK, and the USA—together account for 88 per cent of the worlds conventional arms exports” (Globalissues.org). The arms are exported with the intention to protect a developing nation’s political and economic stability from external aggression. However the same arms that protect some nations fuel conflict and violence that dissolve the political and economic stability of other undeveloped countries like Uganda and Sudan. It can be concluded that the statement:
“The arms trade and weapons proliferation are perhaps the most significant source of instability in the current international system”
is complex, and in order to be fully evaluated requires analysis of the roles of major arms exporters, the impact on the politics and economics of the purchasers and their neighbours, and the significance of weapons proliferation to the stability of the international system of politics. The arms trade provides poor and undeveloped nations the means to maintain stability and autonomy, however when these weapons are used to fuel conflicts it threatens the international system of politics.
The proliferations of weapons that threaten the international system of politics originate mainly from nations involved in the international system politics. “The five permanent members of the UN Security Council—France, Russia, China, the UK, and the USA—together account for 88 per cent of the world’s conventional arms exports” (Globalissues.org). The USA currently exports more weapons than any other country in the world, these arms are made by well known companies like Boeing, and General Electric. The top purchasers of American arms are nations they are politically involved with, Saudi Arabia purchases the most, followed by Taiwan, Israel, and South Korea (Center for International Policy). The destination of these weapons is rarely where they end up, small arms produced by these nations fuel conflicts in sub-Sahara Africa that dissolve weak states, and threaten the international system of politics. The UN to which the major arms exporters belong issues arms embargo’s to conflict ridden nations in attempt to cut their supply of weapons short.
The choice to invest in weapons over the needs of a countries citizens, is clearly analysed by former U.S. president, Dwight D. Eisenhower
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hungry 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 labourers, the genius of its scientists, 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.”
When impoverished countries choose to invest in conflict, they clearly forfeit not only the safety and security of their citizens, but the progress their nation, and potentially their neighbours. Countries like Sudan and Sierra Leone cannot afford clean water for their citizens let alone war, a study by the World Bank concluded that a civil war costs a country approximately 60% its annual GDP (2003). The weapons made in developing nations contribute to the regression of 3rd world states. The weapons that allow South Korea to maintain solidarity in a unstable political environment are the same weapons that allow poor in conflict ridden nations to continue killing each other on a larch scale. The threat to the international system of politics lies in conflicting undeveloped nations. The UN issues embargos to curtail the flow of arms into conflicting nations, but unfortunately the proliferation of arms to conflicting states continues. Arms that circumvent embargos are used to fuel unnecessarily violent wars.
“In many cases, weapons have been illegally retransferred from countries at the conclusion of conflicts, traveling to incite or reignite additional conflicts in neighbouring countries.” (Stohl, Myerscough. 2007).
Weapons starting in Liberia travel to Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, and Guinea. Guns from Chad are found in the Darfur region of Sudan. These are the poorest places on the earth, and when in conflict the political and economic situation can only deteriorate. Instability born of violent crimes hinders a society’s ability to regroup after a conflict. Crime perpetuates instability, citizens are killed, and after the conflict is over the weapons and disgruntled combatants remain, further causing violence and instability. This violent instability is illustrated in places like South Africa where crime and violence accounts for an annual “80,000 bullet wounds that require hospitalization”. Even camps for refugees are vulnerable to the violence of gangs armed with these weapons. There are other ethical issues that are born from the proliferation of weapons
“The Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, which has waged an insurgency against the government for 20 years, is believed to have a fighting force made of up to 80 percent child soldiers” (Stohl, Myerscough. 2007).
Child armies are needed when there are no longer enough men to fight; the breakdown of these countries into this state is nearly irreversible. The presence of internal conflict prevents these nations from regrouping and thus condemns these countries to regress continually. Even international aid to these countries is displaced; leaving the citizens without much needed provisions like medicine and clean water.
It is the intention of arms producing countries to help recipients maintain stability, and not to fuel conflicts. UN Embargoes attempt to address the presence of a violent conflict in a nation, currently these regulations at best stop honest exporters from shipping goods directly to these war torn countries. As the proliferation of arms continues, so builds a force that threatens to erode the foundations of the international system of politics. The threat to international politics is not in the arms, but the injustice that occurs by the presence of these arms. Martin Luther King Jr. emphasized that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” and this is wholly applicable to the injustice born of small arms proliferation throughout 3rd world states. The relative solidarity of the nation is what makes the difference between the drastic instability the continent of Africa experiences as a result of the 30 million small arms, when compared with the 200 million circulating the USA. There is a lack of government transparency that allows G8 nations to sell arms to nations in conflict, and this must be addressed in order to progress the international system of politics. The Sierra Leone UN embargo was circumvented by using neighbours Liberia and Burkina Faso as a proxy through which to deliver arms, and this is one of the many things that the UN must address. The arms trade and weapons proliferation has an immense impact on the 3rd world, destabilizing national governments and further threatening the stability of any international system of politics. If weapons proliferation continue unwatched, the international community will be further impacted by the violent conflicts of developing nations, potentially the threat that the proliferation of weapons include nuclear WMD. There is a threat to arms producing nations that the subtle integration of the arms trade into governmental process allows terrible lapses in ethical behaviour. This is exemplified by former US vice president Cheney who in his own self interest held significant ties to a military company Halliburton while influencing a the war in Iraq. George Washington warned “overgrown military establishments” are “inauspicious to liberty”, and the arms the entanglement of the American & British arms trade with their governments have led to a series of highly unethical decisions by major political figureheads.
The conflicts in sub-Sahara Africa are fought with weapons made in countries that form the UN Security Council, despite regulation against it. These arms are exported with the intention to protect a developing nation’s political and economic stability from external aggression, but often have a life beyond that. The weapons make their way into conflict zones through proxy like willing neighbours, and gun runners. The presence of these weapons dissolve the political and economic stability of undeveloped nations, and threaten the stability of the international system of politics. It can be concluded that the statement:
“The arms trade and weapons proliferation are perhaps the most significant source of instability in the current international system”
Is complex, because on one hand these arms exports provide nations in need the means to defend themselves, and protect the stability of their nation, and on the other hand these weapons spread into conflict zones and fuel needless violence. The conclusion of these assessments is that the arms trade when properly regulated protects the solidarity of the international political system, but the proliferation of weapons is something that must be addressed with regard to the state of the nation and its neighbours. The significance of the arms trade and weapons proliferation stems from the roles of major arms exporters, the impact on the politics and economics of the purchasers and their neighbours. Let it rest that the arms trade is a necessary evil that provides stability in optimal circumstance, but otherwise threatens safety.