Weapons, whether conventional or of mass destruction, are today the biggest danger for countries across the globe. Can India, which believes in principles of non-violence, help establish a region of peaceIJ
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has just issued a report stating that in 2016 there was a major increase in arms sales following a slump over the previous five consecutive years. Among the suppliers of arms, US companies recorded an annual increase in sales of four per cent, reaching a total of $217 billion. This represented 58 per cent of global sales during the year, and included companies like lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. Earlier this year, the US Senate approved $700 billion as the military spending bill for 2018, citing as a basis the threat from North Korea, which would require more ships, aircraft and troops and strengthening of US missile technology.
Since SIPRI started its analysis in 2002, global sales of arms and military services have increased by 38 per cent. This not only provides an indication of the fragile nature of peace in the world but also represents a threat for the future. It was a celebrated General, Dwight Eisenhower, who while laying down office as President of the US, warned his nation about the power of the “military-industrial complex”. It appears that this power has grown dangerously, and that the US and others have ignored what he had stated: “In the councils of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist”.
Eisenhower also highlighted the importance of disarmament when he recommended that “Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war — as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilisation which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years — I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight”.
The hazards of today’s high-level of military spending are related not only to the horrors of war and violent conflict, but extend to arms sales influencing dangerously the whole international order. It is no secret that in the Middle East, for instance, some countries, which have been regular buyers of military equipment from the US, have been great favourites of successive US Administrations. In our own neighbourhood, Pakistan has consistently received favoured treatment, even while US leaders have castigated that nation for harbouring terrorists and spreading terrorism in different parts of the world.
While one can say a great deal on the moral dimensions of power exerted by corporations, Government policies to suit business interests, are generally not even in the national interest. The creation of the Taliban as a counter to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan may have been an effective response by the US and Pakistan in the short term, but its effects over time have been, and continue to be, disastrous not only for the US but for the whole world.
Several analysts have advanced the argument that the 2003 invasion of Iraq, then justified on the basis of manufactured and spurious intelligence, was pushed by the military-industrial complex, which saw the war as essential for lifting its sales and immediate profits. Today North Korea stands out as the biggest threat to the US, essentially because of its nuclear and missile capabilities. But many may be unaware or have forgotten that North Korea’s nuclear programme received vital assistance from the AQ Khan enterprise in Pakistan, almost with the consent of some other nations. In an article dated November 11, 2007, the Washington Post elaborated on “the leniency we’ve shown toward the most dangerous nuclear-trafficking operation in history — an operation masterminded by one man, Abdul Qadeer Khan.”
This game of double standards goes back to the mid-1970s when AQ Khan, who was working in the Netherlands, was collecting all the crucial equipment and wherewithal for Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, and this was found out by the Dutch secret service. When the information was shared with the US, the Central Intelligence Agency preferred that no action be taken, so that Khan’s procurement activities could be monitored. Anyway, Khan either received a tipoff about his cover having been blown or sensed that something was amiss. That is when he bolted to Pakistan, and rest, as they say, is history.
Khan is reported to have later transferred knowhow and equipment to libya, Iran and North Korea for their respective nuclear programmes, and the latter two countries are now a thorn in the side of the US. Significantly, the Washington Post reported that during “a campaign stop in Florida in January 1980, Ronald Reagan was asked about Pakistan’s atomic ambitions. “I just don’t think it’s any of our business,” he replied.”
It needs to be accepted by all sane persons in the world that weapons, whether conventional or of mass destruction, have become ever more dangerous for every corner of the globe. limited conflicts spill over their original territories and proxy wars are being fought in remote corners of the globe with increasing profits for the suppliers of arms and military hardware. There is reason to believe that the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about is running amuck while selling their wares, with subtle and often open support from their respective Governments. Those who suffer from wars are innocent persons, including women and children, thousands of miles away from the merchants of death supplying weaponry to stoke conflict or prevent its resolution.
Has the UN become an ineffective spectator to this theater of the absurdIJ Why are world leaders not engaged in defining and dealing with the real source of this problemIJ Why does the challenge of widespread poverty and increasingly inequitable development not engage our attention and efforts, even as we sell arms and the weapons of war at the shocking level of $375 billion annuallyIJ
We in India are proud to belong to the land of Gandhi, the highest apostle of peace and non-violence in modern times, and should, therefore, find the current situation unacceptable and an insult to our collective conscience. Can India not launch a missionary crusade to bring down military sales globallyIJ Can our leaders turn away from heaping abuse on each other, and show moral strength to work collectively in curbing the global destruction and death which provides evil profits for by the military-industrial complexIJ And if they do, then let us first make South Asia a region of peace and non-violence.
(The writer is former chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002-15)