The annual report on international weapons sales issued by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, typically gets tucked into the back pages of newspapers and is quickly forgotten. It merits more attention.
The United States typically leads the list of the world’s biggest arms exporters. The typical buyer nations, by contrast, are generally developing nations that could use their money much better by providing improved services for health, education and employment assistance to their hard-pressed citizens.
The United States captured 39 percent of the market for arms purchases last year. Of $57.5 billion in total global arms sales to other countries in 2009, for example, U.S. sales totaled $22.6 billion, of which $17.4 billion was to developing countries. Russia, a distant second, signed deals worth $10.4 billion. France was third, with $7.4 billion in sales.
Having the United States routinely as the leader in international arms sales, of course, is seen as a wonderful thing by American defense contractors. They make billions of dollars annually by supplying their services to the Pentagon, and they rake in billions more by selling to governments and private contractors overseas.
That extra business abroad helps keep America’s defense-industry capacity capable of handling Washington’s weapons’ needs even in periods of recession, when U.S. demands for arms and assorted weapons systems and related gear declines. Last year was such a year around the world; arms sales abroad by U.S. companies were $15 billion short of the $38.1 billion in U.S. sales recorded in 2008 (in constant 2009 dollar values). Still, the export business gave American defense contractors a marginal cushion to keep their plants busy.
One question about the arms sales business turns on whether many of the customers are good customers for the United States and other westerns nations to be supplying. Some of the world biggest arms purchasers of arms are countries that are not particularly secure allies. Think Algeria, China, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Venezuela, Pakistan. Others buyers – i.e., Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, India – may be more politically secure, but some are also industrial competitors whose weapons purchases may help them build their own capacity.
Washington often does place restrictions on access to technology in arms sales, and frequently restricts sales of its highest technology products to countries with which its continuing diplomatic relationships are vital, even crucial. Saudi Arabia, however, has virtually forced the United States military off its soil to keep its Islamic extremists content, yet it regularly demands Washington’s most high-tech weapons systems, particularly in fighter aircraft.
Such concerns raise gnawing questions about the efficacy of the arms sales business, even if – or, perhaps, because – the United States remains the biggest, richest player. Most troubling is whether the business helps secure a peaceful world, or makes it more insecure.
That is apparently a hard question to answer, especially for the governments involved. If it were otherwise, the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, a multilateral project intended to be a regulatory guide for all nations, buyers and sellers, would not be still stalled – unless, of course, the money is most important.