U.S. Selling Billions in Weapons to Terrorist Groups: Merchants of Death?

 

 

 

 The growing militarization of the United States, the other great powers, and now mobilized nonstate terrorist groups has altered the global distribution of military capabilities. Part of the reason is that weapons production capabilities are more widespread than ever, with even Global South countries and terrorist organizations participating in the business of manufacturing modern aircraft, tanks, and small arms. Furthermore, a growing trend since the beginning of the Iraq War has been the increased use of private military services, which enhances a state's military capabilities by allowing the government to conduct operations with fewer troops than would otherwise be needed.

Trends in the Weapons Trade During the Cold War, many states sought to increase their security by purchasing arms produced by suppliers eagerly seeking allies as well as profits from exports. In 1961, the world arms trade was valued at $4 billion. Thereafter, the traffic in arms imports climbed rapidly and peaked in 1987 at $82 billion (U.S. ACDA, 1997, pp. 10, 100). The end of the Cold War did not end the arms trade, however. Since 1991 when the Cold War ended, and continuing throughout the era of global ter-rorism that began on 9/11, the total value of all international arms transfers through 2014 was over $611 billion and the volume of arms transfers each year continues to grow (SIPRI, 2015). There have been troubling trends in the global arms trade in recent years. Between 2010 and 2014, major weapons were imported by 153 countries. Overall, the major recipients of global arms shipments remain heavily concentrated in a subset of Global South arms purchasers. The top five arms recipients, which accounted for 33 percent of arms imports, included India, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates. The stream of weapons to these insecure and eager buyers with money to spend is not likely to end soon, and the short- and long-term consequences ofarms transfers to countries experiencing internal conflict is a concern. Nigeria and Cameroon purchased helicopters from Russia and China and armored vehicles from South Africa, China, Czech Republic and Ukraine to aid in the fight against Boko Haram. Likewise, in its efforts to combat ISIS/ISIL forces, Iraq sought large volumes of less-advanced major weapons from a vari-ety of suppliers including the United States, Russia, Germany, Bulgaria, and Iran (SIPRI, 2015). Along with the changing demands of arms importers, changes in the activities of arms sup-pliers are also important. During the Cold War, the superpowers dominated the arms export market. Between 1975 and 1989, the U.S.-Soviet share of global arms exports varied between one-half and three-fourths, and the United States alone had cornered 40 percent of the world arms export market when the Cold War ended (U.S. ACDA, 1997). In that period, the two superpowers together "supplied an estimated $325 billion worth of arms and ammunition to the Third World" (Klare, 1994, p. 139). In the post-9/1 I global war on terrorism, the United States increased its worldwide supply of weapons to countries that agreed to be partners in the "coalition of the willing" in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Interestingly, it is still the United States and Russia that dominate the arms export market, supplying 31 and 27 percent of all conventional weapons exports, respectively, between 2010 and 2014. Together with China, Germany, and France, these top five arms suppliers account for 74 percent of global arms exports (SIPRI, 2015). Although countries themselves are typically identified as global suppliers of arms, in some countries private companies are major producers of weapons and compete in the profitable arms marketplace (see Table 8.3). The 2013 arms sales of Lockheed Martin, an American-based company. were greater than the GDPs of ninety-four countries. The sales of weapons by the British-based BAE Systems (at $26.8 billion) exceed the baseline budget of the Marine Corps in 2013 by roughly $3 billion. Another development in the post—Cold War era, which has been likened to modern-day mercenaries, is the growth in companies that provide private military services for hire on the global market. The outsourcing of military-like activities enables governments to maintain their force structure for a lower cost than otherwise would be possible. However, relying on private contractors in war zones may compromise democratic accountability and the state's monopoly on the use of force, as well as raise issues about legal status (see "A Closer Look: Private Soldiers and the Conduct of War"). 

Above Table Listed Top World Arm Supplier List