Here
and
Now

opinions

Why war is bad for people but good for business

8 Comments

Some truths are best left unsaid, particularly in polite company. So it came as somewhat of a surprise when an analyst at Deutsche Bank posed the following question to Marillyn Hewson, the CEO of Lockheed Martin, in a recent conference call with investors: “If the U.S. does move toward the normalization with Iran over nuclear activities, does that in any way impede what you see as progress in the foreign military sales front there?” The question carries additional weight now that Iran has agreed to a framework deal that would curb its nuclear activities for the next decade and beyond.

The implication of the analyst’s question – which was uncovered by Lee Fang, a journalist at The Intercept – is that a reduction of tensions in the Middle East could be bad news for Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest arms-producing corporation.

Hewson didn’t accept the specific idea that a deal with Iran would be bad for business, but she did embrace the notion that turbulence makes it easier to sell arms, noting that “there are plenty of threats in the region.” To underscore her point, Hewson asserted that “even if there is some sort of deal with Iran, there is volatility all around the region.” She also suggested that “you could take that argument to the Asia-Pacific region, which is also a growth area for us.”

It may come as no surprise that war and the threat of war drive the global arms market. But what is good news for Lockheed Martin is bad news for America and the world. The last thing that is needed in the Middle East and North Africa – a region that now hosts wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen – is to pour more fire on the flames in the form of stepped-up arms sales. Unfortunately, one could argue that the world’s major exporters of weapons are already doing that.

There is plenty of blame to go around. The historic role of Russia and Iran in supplying armaments to Syria has enabled the brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad to engage in a campaign of senseless slaughter that shows no signs of letting up.

The United States has poured tens of billions of dollars in weaponry into the Persian Gulf during the Obama administration, setting new records for arms dealing in the process. The bulk of the arms have gone to Saudi Arabia, which has used them to help put down the democracy movement in Bahrain, not to mention in its current bombing campaign in Yemen, which has already caused needless civilian deaths.

The United Kingdom has a decades-long role as a major arms supplier to the Saudi regime as well. And France is the primary arms supplier to Qatar, and has struck deals with the majority of Persian Gulf nations.

Arms corporations like BAE Systems, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin press their governments to secure these sales, but they appear to be pushing on an open door. It is now routine for presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers, and ministers of defense to lobby for their home nation’s arms suppliers during trips to the Middle East, all the while assuring us that their weapons are the ones that will bring stability, not stoke conflict.

But the truth is that no one can predict how a given weapons system will be used once it has been transferred – or where it will end up. The Islamic State (also known as ISIL or ISIS) has captured large quantities of U.S. weaponry that was originally given to Iraqi security forces. The Pentagon has acknowledged that $500 million in U.S. arms have gone missing in Yemen. And whatever their position on the war itself, none of Saudi Arabia’s diverse group of suppliers could have predicted its current intervention in Yemen – nor do they know where it will lead.

As difficult as it may be to accomplish, efforts should be made to curb, not accelerate, the flow of weapons to areas of conflict. Despite the fact that the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) entered into force in December 2014, the global weapons trade continues to rise.

The ATT calls for signatories to consider, before agreeing to sell weapons to a given country, factors such as whether the recipient nation is likely to commit genocide or major human rights abuses. It has been signed by 130 states, including major suppliers like the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. Key exporting nations like Russia and China, however, have yet to endorse the treaty.

If world leaders were to live up to the principles embodied in the ATT, it would be far easier to roll back the wars in the Middle East and create space for diplomatic initiatives to address the region’s complex security problems. That might be bad news for arms manufacturers, but it would be good news for the rest of us.

© The Mark News

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

8 Comments
Login to comment

The main problem here is that Saudi Arabia has all of these arms but is too cowardly or too feckless to take out its own trash in ISIS.

Key exporting nations like Russia and China, however, have yet to endorse the treaty.

No surprise there as they have genocides and human rights abuses at home they encourage.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The article could have been explained easily. The war product producers supply the wars and weapons at the highest profits possible and the people of the nations pay that price. It can be applied to any large business.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The late United States Marine Corps Major General Smedley D. Butler is perhaps most famous for his post-retirement speech titled “War is a Racket.” In the early 1930s, Butler presented the speech on a nationwide tour. It was so popular that he wrote a longer version as a small book that was published in 1935.

War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people.

Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

President of the United States (and five-star general during World War II) Dwight D. Eisenhower used the term Military Industrial Complex in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction... This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.

The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. 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. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

All we need is a "perfect storm" of the wrong people in the right place, the atom bombs are all fired, and human life ceases to exist. End of story. And this is not a future scenario, but could happen now. I say it will happen within the next 50 years. Was the universe a better place when or because there were humans? I really wonder.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Old News. Butler, "War is a Racket."

1935

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

So sad the obvious has to be stated over and over, and yet, still does not end wars founded on pure greed.

I promise you that within most of our lifetimes, America will engage in yet another war of greed, and once again there will be fools who truly believe there is a proper cause for the carnage, including the civilian carnage. Next to them will be various liars who know better, but stand to either profit financially or just plain love war.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

George W. Bush's wars based on lies was a jobs program? Maybe the people of the Middle East should thank him. For certain Dick Cheney's Halliburton does.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Money is what some call "Capitalism" isn't it! "Communism" or "Socialism" two words that are just words. The United States has used these terms as excuses for war. Why do we bully a small nation like Cuba? No nucs! not such a large military. Complain about North Korea, Laos (still Communist) but I liked it traveling there, Vietnam, El Salvador (people are hungry) just label them as all trying to row boats over from Asia and take over America... And now who do we do business with..... CHINA, the largest military Communist closed society in the world. Yes, for the green buck (dollar). I agree with kcJapan...Isn't the whole beginning of this Iraq/Syria mess started by G W. Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rove, and C. Rice? why aren't they in prison? Have we helped Iraq in their quest for freedom (word) democracy (word)... look at what's happening now. We should be proud we have helped out Iraq so much ha?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites