War Games: making a buck out of other people’s bad luck

July 20, 2009 17:21

By Georgie Fenwicke

In 1917, on the eve of America entering the First World War, socialist revolutionary Emma Goldman wrote an article called “The Promoters of War Mania.” Published in Mother Earth, a journal best known for its radical and anarchic content, the article outlines her opposition to World War One. The short essay argues that war only reaps benefits for the Morgans and Rockefellers of the world, and that the power to stop the Great War still lies with the American people: “It is no exaggeration when I say that the war would have been at an end long ago had the US financiers been prevented from investing billions in war loans and had the American munitions clique and food speculators not been given the opportunity to supply warring Europe with the means to keep up the slaughter.” Full of powerful, predominantly socialist rhetoric, Goldman points towards the workers as the great mediums of change and choice. Since this article was published, the world has changed dramatically, both for Goldman, who was eventually deported back to Russia for her incendiary ideas, and the rest of us, who have born witness to hundreds of other conflicts since then. But how much has the power shifted away from the “munitions clique” of Goldman's time? Has the world actually changed that much?

Military economy

Apparently not, with global spending in the military and defence industries at record highs. In June of this year, BBC Business reporter Jorn Madslien reported that “Global military spending rose four percent in 2008 to a record $USD1464 billion – up 45 percent since 1999.” Contributing largely to this is the increasingly downplayed War in Iraq and new offences in Afghanistan. American military spending in 2008 alone was $603 billion, while Europe spent $320 billion.

Despite a worldwide recession, the outlook for the aerospace and defence industries is better than ever. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has recently published data on annual military spending which clearly defines it as an ongoing growth market as many governments consider defence expenditure a good way to create employment and fend off the social turmoil of recessionary uncertainties. Madslien reported that “some $USD2.4 trillion or 4.4 percent of the global economy” is dependent on the defence sector.

Tony Kempster, a member of the Executive Committee of Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT), says, “Ironically, the main arms suppliers are four of the five of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.” Of the top 100 weapons manufacturers, 61 percent of the total quantity of weapons was produced by 44 US companies, with 32 West European companies contributing a further 31 percent. Companies such as American Boeing (the same company that brought you the B-17 bombers and commercial airplanes such as 747s), BAE Systems, and Lockheed Martin, the Netherlands’ EADS and Italy’s Finmeccanica have felt little effect from the international recession, while those in seemingly more respectable professions find themselves without a job.

While military spending seems to have a positive effect on the economic outlook of those Western nations who count active defence industries towards their GDPs, the real losers are the emerging economies of Africa, the Middle East, South-East Asia, and South America. A Professor of Economics at the University of Natal, Geoff Harris outlines that the net effect of military expenditure on a country's growth rates is a reduction in economic growth, via a fall in savings and investment, as well as social spending. Kempster says that it also “has a negative effect on social spending programmes and increases in human suffering” in developing countries.

In fact, recent estimates from SIPRI outline that 20 percent of the developing world's debt can be attributed to arms procurement. From AK-47s to small range missiles and North Korea's dabble in nuclear warheads (which they are currently building themselves), the number of arms supplied to developing states has increased dramatically. The end of the Cold War and the rather slow and unprofitable decade of the 1990s saw “desperate” arms manufacturers coming “to rely more on sales to the developing world and on the opening-up of new markets in the emerging economies.” In 1990, developing countries represented 50 percent of the international trade of conventional arms; today, they represent around 80 percent. It was Nicholas Cage who pointed out in Lord of War that the AK-47 is the most popular weapon in the world, Russia's biggest export before Vodka, and represents both Mozambique and Zimbabwe on their flags and coats of arms. Now, with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, humanitarian crises in the Sudan and Congo, a political coup in Honduras and Fiji, and a bustling drug trade throughout Europe, Australia and the Americas, munitions are more popular than ever. But that doesn't seem to have stopped the defence sector diversifying into the more hands-on arm of the military industry that is mercenary forces.

Those who are mercenary are merciful ...

Mercenary forces, while not an original concept as they date back at least as far as Roman times, have experienced a surge in popularity over recent decades. After decades – if not centuries – of autocratic colonial rule, the people of many Asian and African countries have been at a loss over what to with their newly decolonised political and economic systems. Despite being largely rich in resources, the wealth of these young nation states was not immediately spread evenly across the population, but was instead gobbled up by a ruling elite. In Uganda under Idi Amin, Zaire under Mobutu, and Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, the state apparatus increasingly becomes a vehicle for personal acquisition.

Many private defence contractors see such states as growth markets. These independent military men play upon the fears and suspicions of narcissistic political dictators to outsource state functions such as the military, and control over resources such as diamonds and oil. By creating these “virtual states” where economies are unstable, disease is rife, and the middle class non-existent, the ruling elite is able to maintain an iron grip over its terrified population. With its rule unquestioned and final, the select few are able to continue stripping the wealth of the countryside from their own countrymen with the aid of foreign independent military firms. However, these firms do not merely benefit the ruling dictators; naturally they cater to many Western interests. Professor of Political Economy and Economics at the University of Texas Lloyd J. Dumas points out that “ privatising foreign and defence policy in this way allows Western governments to disavow responsibility for the casualties of either side as well as the military excesses of private companies who implement government policy.” After all, who did you think was buying the oil and diamonds?

Mercenary firms originate in many countries, all of which are considered developed. Some noteworthy companies include MPRI, which is based in the United States and was recommended by the US State department to the Croatian forces in former Yugoslavia to provide military training; Sandline, a British firm, is renowned for helping Britain achieve its foreign policy objectives; and Executive Outcomes (EO), which is more of a co-operative between South Africa, Britain, and, surprisingly, Canada. To use another cinematic example, Blood Diamond is largely based on the civil unrest that defines much of Sierra Leone's recent past. The troop of soldiers to which Leonardo DiCaprio's character was formerly beholden is based on EO, which interestingly enough also boasts its own mini air force. While many commentators credited EO with bringing about the defeat of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), it was just six months after signing the peace agreement that the Sierra Leonian military actually joined forces to overthrow the new government as peace and a stable democracy threatened the economic interests of both parties. Despite this, EO still received payments of gold and diamonds.

Although EO has reportedly closed down its operations, other firms are still operating in international conflict zones. Currently, the war-ravaged Middle East and the suffering and starvation of millions of Iraqi and Afghan civilians have proven to be an incredibly profitable environment for the likes of defence contractors Blackwater and Rockwell. Despite being paid hundreds of millions of dollars, these firms have not been the most subtle or effective of operatives, favouring a more guns-blazing, cowboy attitude to the task at hand. Guardian reporter Jeremy Scahill outlined in 2007 that a “pattern is emerging from the Congressional investigation into Blackwater: the state department urging the company to pay what amounts to hush money to victims' families while facilitating the return of contractors involved in deadly incidents for which not a single one has faced prosecution.” Since then, numerous other reports into the misdemeanours of Blackwater have surfaced; notably, rapes, shootings, and attacks on civilians by Blackwater operatives. In around 80 percent of cases, Blackwater operatives fired first.

While it goes without saying that war is a dangerous business and with it inevitably comes some collateral damage, what of those soldiers employed by aid agencies? Take the example of Somalia. Currently one of the most dangerous places on Earth and home base to many a swashbuckling pirate, several aid agencies attempting to work in the increasingly unstable region have unwittingly become some of the largest employers in the country. In a population of around 9.5 million, where unemployment is a low priority compared to simply surviving, these agencies employ around 15 000 to 20 000 soldiers to keep convoys of food and supplies safe from the ever-present threat of looters. However, this arrangement has also necessitated an increase in the demand for arms and munitions, which benefit those who they are trying to protect themselves against. As Dumas explains, “Actors in conflicts have become adept at manipulating the political economy of aid in order to gain economic rewards or to finance military campaigns.”

Little old New Zealand

Thus far, New Zealand has been pretty well behaved. We give aid to those in need, though we could probably give more; we refused to take part in Bush's war against Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq; and, of course, we are nuclear free. Overall, we are considered a rather peace-loving and unbiased actor on the international stage. Even Harvey Keitel thinks so.
Wait ... strike that, reverse it (by an eighth). While New Zealand is largely considered a rather neutral state in international affairs, one of our largest companies, Rakon, freely admits that a tenth of its work is military-based. A New Zealand-based manufacturer of frequency timing solutions and temperature compensated crystal oscillators, Rakon controls around 60 percent of the global market in crystals for GPS systems. The company has never denied that they supply products for military applications, instead bypassing the legal export requirement by explaining that they have no influence or little knowledge of the end use of the product. However, the firm does list Rockwell International Corporation (a subsidiary of Boeing after its merger in 1996) among its clients. Rockwell is known for production of missiles and military aircraft and the space shuttle Enterprise.

Back to the future

While vast capital reserves are being invested into personnel, munitions, and mercenary soldiers, increasingly, many defence and aerospace companies are putting their resources towards the advancement of weaponry and the more effective brainwashing of soldiers.

As New Scientist reporter Michael Marshall points out in his timeline of weapons technology, over the last fifty years, the world has seen the creation of the atomic bomb, the taser, and more recently, a gun that fires a million rounds per minute. This year, a US government report has also advocated using neuroscience to enhance soldiers’ abilities. While the report recommends the employment of ethicists to clarify the more questionable aspects of the findings, it also predicts that “Within five years, biomarkers might be used to assess how well a soldier's brain is functioning, and within ten years, it should be possible to predict how individuals are likely to respond to environmental stresses like extreme heat and cold, or endurance exercises.” The report also advises the use of drugs to combat such illnesses as post-traumatic stress disorder and empathy, which in battle is seen as a bad thing. It is hoped that this result will be achieved by inhibiting the drug oxytocin.

While those at the US National Academy of Sciences have advocated investing in the military potential of neuroscience, those at Boeing and BAE Systems have other ideas, which do not always involve the use of man power. In fact, according to Datamonitor, personnel expenditure currently accounts for less than 40 percent of global defence spending, and as hi-tech machinery continues to reduce the need for actual soldiers, this proportion is shrinking further. With the introduction of unmanned surveillance drones and guided missile systems, war is becoming increasingly impersonal. As the military capability of industrialised nations such as America, Israel, Britain, and Australia far exceed their developing counterparts, those on the wrong side of the weapons industry are left to fight the drones themselves, and as a last wall of defence, blow themselves up. Falling short of conflict with Western armies, those in the developing world still have around 100 million AK-47s in circulation with which to fight among themselves. Phew.