Analysing The Conventional Arms Transfers To Developing Nations report For The Period 1994-2001
According to the conventional arms transfers report released in 2002, the United States had the largest share of both new contracts and deliveries to the world for at least 8 years in a row. In a calendar year 2001, U.S. arms manufacturers made new agreements worth $12.1 billion and delivered $9.7 billion worth of arms, capturing 45% of both markets.
The United States’ closest competitor, Russia, came in a distant second with $5.8 billion in new contracts and $3.6 billion in arms deliveries.
The four European exporters combined France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy only totaled $4.5 billion, and deliveries were only worth $5.1 billion.
While the report already shows the United States dominating the world arms market, it's statistics for the United States are actually on the low side.Data on new U.S. sales agreements only included government to government sales, leaving out potentially large commercial sales numbers because the State Department did not know which of the licenses it granted actually turned into signed contracts. Statistics on commercial sales deliveries were included, but the numbers were notoriously low because they were not systematically recorded.
The low figures in the global arms trade for 2001 was not the result of growing recognition of the dangers and wastefulness of the arms trade. Instead, it was probably caused by the global economic downturn in 2001. A similar dip in 1997 caused by Asia’s financial crisis was followed by a steep climb in sales over the next three years, climbing in $40 billion of sales in 2000.
The low numbers for 1997 and 2001 do show , however, that arms purchases are generally treated as luxury good and are therefore quickly dropped when financial times are hard.Indeed, weapons sales that governments call essential to “modernization” are often little more than expensive toys for generals seeking a boost in national or regional stature.
NEW PEOPLE MAGAZINE
ISSUE: November-December 2002
Comments
Post a Comment