Showing posts with label Security council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Security council. Show all posts

Monday, July 6, 2015

The $18 Billion arms race helping to fuel Middle East conflict

Nothing much to say here (since, I've blogged quite a few times how members of the UN Security Council & developed countries sell weapons & arms to developing countries to keep destabilizing those regions).

The Middle East is destabilizing & turning into a war zone very rapidly, thanks to the developed countries' constant need to sell arms & ammunition to these countries, & when these weapons are used by these countries against each other or against their own public, we in the West decry how "uncivilized" these people in Middle East are.

Canada used to be considered a peaceful nation. Now, "the one Canadian deal alone – to supply Saudi Arabia with light armoured vehicles – will account for 20% of the military vehicles sold globally in years covered by the contract." That's how much Canada has changed in the global weapons market.

Why don't these developed countries sell green energy, for instance, to these developing countries? Wouldn't that be a much better investment to make the world a better place? That move alone, for instance, wouldn't create so many refugees, either, which in itself, is creating another migrant crisis in the developed countries of Europe.

Developed countries have so much modern technology in non-arms area that they could & can easily sell that technology hardware & software to developing countries & regions, & help improve lives for all. It does happen but compared to billions of weapons transactions, these transactions have not much scope & influence.

So, if we want peace in this world, the first step is to stop the developed countries to stop giving weapons to the madmen of developing countries. Who is willing to take this first step? (Per my answer, not even one developed country).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Middle East is plunging deeper into an arms race, with an estimated $18 billion expected to be spent on weapons this year, a development that experts warn is fuelling serious tension & conflict in the region.

Given the unprecedented levels of weapon sales by the west (including the US, Canada & the UK) to the mainly Sunni Gulf states, Vladimir Putin’s decision ... to allow the controversial delivery of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran ... seems likely to accelerate the proliferation.

That will see agreed arms sales to the top 5 purchasers in the region - Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Egypt & Iraq – surge this year to more than $18 billion, up from $12 billion last year. Among the systems being purchased are jet fighters, missiles, armoured vehicles, drones & helicopters.

The Russian declaration came only 2 days before Iraq’s prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, disclosed that he was seeking arms worth billions of dollars from Washington – with payment deferred – for the battle against Islamic State (Isis).

Last week France’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, disclosed progress in talks to sell Rafale fighter jets to the UAE, one of the Middle East’s biggest & most aggressive arms buyers.

With conflicts raging in Syria, Iraq, Libya & Yemen, & with Egypt also battling Islamist extremists in the Sinai, the signs that Russia is preparing to increase its own arms sales – & to the Gulf states’ biggest rival, Iran – are raising fears that tensions will be stoked further still. In particular, Saudi Arabia & Iran are facing off in the conflict in Yemen ... .

According to the New York Times, defence industry officials have notified Congress that they are expecting additional requests from Arab states fighting Isis – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan & Egypt – for thousands of new US-made weapons, including missiles & bombs, to rebuild depleted arms stockpiles.

Ironically, among the key weapons suppliers in the arms race are permanent members of the UN security council who have been at the centre of 2 unconventional arms control initiatives – disarming the Syrian government’s stockpiles of chemical weapons & negotiating for a deal on Iran’s nuclear programme.

The scale of the arms race was revealed this year in reports published by IHS Jane’s Global Defence Trade Report & the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri). They showed how Saudi Arabia had become the world’s largest importer of weapons & fourth largest military spender & that other Middle East states were sharply increasing their arms purchases.

Adding to the concern is the fact that the spending spree on arms comes against the background of a marked increase in military interventions by countries in the region since the Arab spring in 2011. Saudi Arabia has intervened in Bahrain (at the request of that kingdom’s ruler during the so-called Pearl revolution), in Yemen in 2009 & again in Yemen this year.

And among those concerned by Saudi’s new military assertiveness - on the back of its arms buying spree - was the Iraqi prime minister, Abadi. “The dangerous thing is, we don’t know what the Saudis want to do after [their intervention in Yemen],” Abadi told US reporters last week. “Is Iraq within their radar? That’s very, very dangerous. The idea that you intervene in another state unprovoked just for regional ambition is wrong. Saddam has done it before. See what it has done to the country.”

And if the Saudi intervention in Yemen has been overt, no less real has been the proxy conflict that has set Iran & the Gulf states against each other in Syria, where Tehran has backed the government of Bashar al-Assad with military assistance & weapons, & Gulf states have backed different rebel groups, including Islamist ones.

It’s crazy,” says Ben Moores, author of IHS Jane’s annual report on arms buying trends. “The one Canadian deal alone – to supply Saudi Arabia with light armoured vehicles – will account for 20% of the military vehicles sold globally in years covered by the contract. And this is just the thin edge of the wedge. Saudi has booked enough arms imports in 24 months for them to be worth $10 billion a year.”

While some countries, such as Kuwait, are in the process of modernisation, a key trend identified by Moores is how states are retooling to fight insurgency conflicts in the same way the US military has in Afghanistan & Iraq. “Look at UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt & Algeria. They were all countries that bought a lot of conventional arms in the past that are no use in a sectarian war or an insurgency.

If you look at what was bought at the recent Idex arms fair in Abu Dhabi, it was drones, high-end surveillance satellites, strategic transport aircraft for projecting power. One of the reasons Egypt went with its recent purchase of Rafale jets [from France] is because it wanted planes that could deliver precision-guided standoff weapons.”

And as Tobias Borck of the Royal United Services Institute points out, states in the Middle East are now more prepared to use the weapons they are buying. “[The] Saudi-led military operations in Yemen [are] the latest manifestation of Arab interventionism, a trend that has been gaining momentum in the Middle East since the uprisings of the Arab spring,” he says. “Middle Eastern countries appear to be increasingly willing to use their armed forces to protect & pursue their interests in crisis zones across the region.”

Referring to the inconsistent approach by key security council members towards arms control in the region, he adds: “There are a lot of different streams feeding into this arms race. On Syria’s chemical weapons & the Iranian nuclear programme, the 2 issues were ring fenced as pure arms control questions. When it comes to how we perceive our arms sales – whether they are British or US or whatever – it tends to be seen as a domestic economic issue – protecting our factories.

That neglects the regional political dimensions, with arms sales taking place with a lack of regard for that context & without long-term strategic awareness.”

Borck says that the scale of the arms being supplied to countries such as Saudi Arabia & the UAE by the west may also be acting as an incentive for Russia to get back into the Middle East – not least via arms sales to its old clients such as Iran – & may have been a motivating factor in the Kremlin’s decision to lift the ban on the delivery of the S-300 missile system.

Putin, defending the decision to supply the missiles during a call-in television show last week, cited Russia’s prerogative to pursue its own foreign policy initiatives & suggested that the missiles could represent “a deterrent factor in connection with the situation in Yemen”.

Omar Ashour, an expert on Middle East security issues at Exeter University, has sounded a further note of caution, this time over the intentions of the new Saudi-led Arab coalition, warning that its interventions are unlikely to contribute to stability. “The rise of Arab military coalitions raises serious concerns,” he wrote in a recent piece for Project Syndicate. “Such interventions were usually aimed at empowering a proxy political force over its military & political rivals, instead of averting humanitarian disaster or institutionalising a non-violent conflict-resolution mechanism following a war.”

Speaking to the Guardian last week, he added: “On top of that, the increases in arms sales are bound to be extremely destabilising. At the moment most of the interventions have been against softer targets – Saudi Arabia targeting guerrillas in Yemen; Egypt against Bedouin in Sinai; or strikes against ragtag armies in Libya. But if the ‘soft’ keeps being hit hard, they won’t remain soft. They will find their own patrons & proxies & hit back & it will lead to a vicious cycle.”

Pieter Wezeman, a senior researcher at Sipri, which maintains a database tracking arms contracts, raises another concern. “Something that doesn’t get mentioned is the complete lack of interest in arms control among the countries in the region. It is not in the minds of leaders & decision-makers, except for the need to arm to defeat any potential opponent.

There is already instability in the region on several levels. You have instability in Yemen, Syria & Iraq. There is instability between Iran & the Gulf states. What is important now is how the massive expansion of the armed forces of Saudi Arabia, UAE & Qatar will be seen as posing a clear threat to Iran.”

Borck adds a final warning: “If you are going for an ever bigger hammer, then the more desperate you are to make every problem a nail.”

Saturday, May 9, 2015

Government accused of allowing arms manufacturers to export in secret

In one of my previous blogs, I mentioned the fact that the most arms sales around the world are done by the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to, (surprise surprise), countries that are known around the world as authoritarian & perennial human rights abusers; South Asian, Middle Eastern, African, Central Asian, & Southeast Asian countries.

I further gave the analogy in that blog that how would the public feel if their municipal / regional police force starts selling arms & weapons to the general public. Wouldn't the deaths by gun increase, then? Anyone off the street will get a gun & start shooting around. Would the public; American, British, German, French, Canadian etc., feel safer then? I don't think they'd be feeling much safer then.

Ironically, this same public of these developed countries blame the people & religion of these authoritarian countries & label them as "terrorists" & say, we are all "civilized" here in the West.

The West is the biggest seller of these weapons. There was a great 2005 movie, "Lord of War" exploring this topic, too. The leaders have to peddle fear of the foreigners (xenophobia) to win elections because then, they can wage wars in foreign lands, under the pretense of those "barbarians" coming to destroy our freedoms & democracy. After all, those companies, like Lockheed Martin, BAE, Northrop Grumman etc. make products, hire labour, & need wars in foreign lands so their products can be used by their customers, domestic or foreign, in the field. No wars = no demand. No company would survive if its products are not in demand. That's business 101.

On top of that, since these companies heavily export to foreign countries, it further helps the current accounts of the "developed" countries. More sales / customer demand = positive increases in domestic GDP & international positive current accounts. That's economics 101.

Another point worth mentioning here is that the whole public of the West, knowingly or unknowingly, is complicit for the murders of thousands of people, both innocent & guilty, in those foreign lands. How? Everyone, or most of us in the West, pay taxes. Government takes those taxes (its income) & heavily subsidizes arms & weapons manufacturers. Many are also employees of these manufacturers.

Think of it this way, that if a person, who loves smoking pot / drugs but can't find them around him/her; can he/she ever become a drug addict?

Similarly, if the West stops providing high-tech arms & weapons to these authoritarian regimes around the world, then, how would those regimes commit human rights abuses or even wage wars against each other or (shockingly) try to kill Westerners? They wouldn't have weapons. And since they themselves are "uneducated barbarians," they won't be manufacturing such high-tech weapons themselves. They need weapons just like a drug addict needs drugs, & the West is ready to supply those "drugs" (weapons) to the "drug addicts" (authoritarian regimes).

So, if people want peace around the world, the solution is extremely simple. Get the governments in the West to stop supporting / actively selling weapons to the corrupt regimes around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Government is today accused by MPs of attempting to mask the scale of Britain’s arms trade by actively encouraging manufacturers to sell weaponry under an opaque procedure which keeps the value of exports out of the public domain.

Under a little-noticed shift in Britain’s policy governing sales of weapons & other sensitive equipment, exporters are being asked to seek “open” licences which allow multiple consignments to be sent to the same destinations abroad without the value of the goods being publicly declared.

The Parliamentary watchdog on arms sales strongly criticised the move, saying it will “inescapably reduce the transparency” of Britain’s arms exports & increase the risk that rules to halt inappropriate sales will be broken.

The annual report by the Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) reveals that the UK sold arms more than £5bn to countries on the Government’s own human rights black list & questions whether ministers are imposing adequate controls on weapons being sent to authoritarian regimes.

The Export Control Organisation (ECO), the Government agency which oversees the sale of military & “dual-use” goods abroad, recently admitted that it is encouraging exporters “where possible” to shift away from Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs), which approve a single consignment of controlled goods to be sent abroad within a two-year limit.

Instead, officials want companies to apply for Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs), which allow an uncapped number of consignments to named destinations over a five-year period without an obligation to immediately specify the “end user”.

While the value of SIELs is made public, the value of OEILs are not declared because their open-ended nature means their value cannot be calculated at the outset.

The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, which oversees the ECO, said its expects its policy to apply to “less sensitive goods” & all licences will continue to be judged against criteria designed to prevent inappropriate exports.

But figures obtained by The Independent show that the number of OEILs issued has increased in the last 5 years, reaching a peak of 2,001 in 2011, compared to 883 in 2009.

MPs said their concern about a growth in OEILs was deepened by figures which showed the Government has had to revoke or modify 99 of the licences since the start of the “Arab Spring” revolts in 2010 to destinations including Bahrain, Egypt, Libya as well as Russia since the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine.

Among the revocations were licences for missile technology to Russia & tear gas & CS grenades to Bahrain.

The report said the policy to encourage OIELs was “likely to increase the risk of breaches of the Government’s own arms export control policies” & a reduction in the ability of Parliament & the public to scrutinise the scale of exports of weaponry.

Sir John Stanley, the chairman of CAEC, said: “There will certainly be a significant loss of transparency from the switching policy given that the Government discloses the value of SIELs but not of OIELs.”

In an effort to improve accountability, the MPs called on ministers to disclose for the first time the value of arms which actually leave Britain under OIELs every quarter.

Campaigners said the MPs’ findings added to existing concerns that exports under OIELs were going unmonitored, especially to countries with ongoing human rights concerns including Thailand, Pakistan & Vietnam.

Andrew Smith, of the Campaign Against Arms Trade, said: “There is already a lack of transparency in the arms trade, & the growing use of OIELs is only making this worse. They allow arms companies & governments to sell even more weapons without having to make it public when they are doing so.”

The MPs said that their findings concerning exports to countries with poor human rights records, including Bahrain & 5 others which do not feature on the Government’s own black list, meant that Britain needed to be far stricter with its approvals & should now take the step of naming the “end user” - whether a state body or a private company - for all arms exports.

The Government said it would respond to the MPs’ report in due course. A spokesman said: “We rigorously examine every licence application on a case-by-case basis against internationally recognised criteria. Risks around human rights abuses are a key part of our assessment & we do not grant licences where there is a clear risk that it might be used for internal repression.”

Britain cleared the export of weaponry including parts for combat jets, tanks & targeting equipment to Israel at the height of its assault on Gaza last summer, a Parliamentary report reveals.

Details of 12 export licences show that the licences were worth more than £600,000. They included £330,000 of components for tanks sent to Israel via Germany & £95,000 of combat aircraft components dispatched via America.

MPs called on the Government to declare whether it believed the technology in the licences may have been used in “the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law” in Gaza.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Interactive Infographic tracks growth of world's WMDs over 70 years

Isn't it ironic that the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) are armed to the hilt with nuclear weapons? Is it a mere coincidence that largest suppliers of weapons around the world are also these same 5 permanent members of UNSC? (not in this article)
 
It's like the cops are not only armed to the hilt themselves with latest arms & ammunition but they also sell them to the public. Would you ever accept that if it were to happen in North America or Europe or, in fact, anywhere around the world? No, because it would be highly irresponsible of the police force. Then, are the leaders of all 5 permanent members of UNSC stupid?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are currently more than 16,300 nuclear weapons in the world – enough to kill everyone on the planet 100 times over.
... the US, UK, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, & North Korea. Between them, these nations possess 10,000 nuclear warheads, 4,100 of which are active.
 
The latest infographic uses data from the 'Nuclear Notebook', which since 1987 has tracked the number & type of the world's nuclear arsenals.
 
'I don't think people truly understand just how many of these weapons there are in the world,' said Rachel Bronson, executive director of the Bulletin, who publishes the notebook.
 
'The interactive is a way to see, immediately, who has nuclear weapons & when they got them, & how those numbers relate to each other. It is a startling experience, looking at those comparisons.' Russia & the US have most nuclear weapons, followed by the UK & France, according to the graphic.
 
Data for the US on the interactive map has been compiled using declassified documents from the US government, many of which were obtained using Freedom of Information requests. They combined this with figures from congressional hearings, specialty magazines, & confidential sources.
 
'Creating estimates for other nuclear-armed states can be more challenging because not all provide as much information as the US,' the authors write. For instance, Britain & France have published some information about their arsenals, but much is still unavailable.
 
For Russia & the remaining nuclear-armed, estimates rely on information from Western intelligence organisations, expert studies, news media reports, & satellite imagery.
 
Since the U.S unleashed the first nuclear bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki back in 1945 there have been a staggering 2056 nuclear tests recorded worldwide.
 
It took almost a year until the next substantial tests took place but by the mid-50s & 60s, nuclear experiments were being recorded across the globe on almost a monthly basis.
 
The threat of nuclear war that once hung over the world has eased since the Cold War amid sharp reductions in warheads but Russia & the US ... retain massively destructive nuclear arsenals.
 
Earlier this month, NATO officials said Russia's nuclear strategy appears to point to a lowering of the threshold for using nuclear weapons in any conflict.
 
Meanwhile, a separate report found that North Korea is poised to expand its nuclear program over the next 5 years & in a worst case scenario could possess 100 atomic arms by 2020.