DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A statement from The Transnational

On top of all the global problems we must solve as soon as possible comes the Corona. This statement argues that the priorities of the world are – well, perverse; everything the UN does amounts to 3% of the global military expenditures.


TFF’s Board suggests that all countries reduce their military by 50% immediately. That would save about US$ 1000 billion. And that that huge sum should be re-allocated to solve the problems we had and the socio-economic consequences of the Corona pandemic.


That would also – finally – be a step to prove that governments are willing to implement a policy for true disarmament and move towards human and common security for the common good.


In a civilised world, this should be common sense.
If you do not want to read the whole argument, just scroll down and sign this statement.

“We’ve likely only seen the beginnings of the worldwide economic consequences of the Coronavirus. For those who want to see, there are forecasts of a deep economic crisis written on all the walls.

Before the Corona, the world faced huge problems that – among other resources – require funds to solve: huge sums. Think the 17 UN Development Goals, think technological innovation; think the global climate/warming crisis; think the rebuilding of war-torn countries and think the reduction towards zero and repatriation of the world’s 80 million displaced people.

And think funds to convert the present military systems towards another, less costly way of creating security. We have just experienced how the outdated non-human security has deprived us of the needed resources when the Corona hit. Recklessly, virtually all governments had ignored a predictable civilian challenge but wasted billions of taxpayer money on weapons and war.

The Corona should be a wake-up call.

So we ask: Where are the funds going to come from to solve humanity’s most urgent problems before they become too big to solve? 

It seems that most governments believe that the annual world military expenditures – ranging around US$ 2000 billion, the highest ever – can be maintained. Some even believe their national expenditures must increase substantially.

The same governments believe that the world’s most important organisation of which they are all members – the United Nations and its organisations – can do what it must on a regular budget of US$ 3 billion and total annual expenditures of US$ 50-60 billion. That is 3 per cent of the costs of global militarism.

Those are the priorities of our world. It’s not sustainable in Corona times – if it ever were. It is ethically indefensible too. And it produces neither security nor peace.

Perhaps the incomprehensible sum of US$ 2000 billion would be justified if the world experienced solid defence and security as well as trust, cooperation and peace.
But the fact is that there are more tension, hatred, dominance attempts, new kinds of wars added to old ones and much more terrorism than before the US-led Global War on Terror.

Furthermore, one country after the other has been destroyed since the end of the First Cold War in 1989-90. It has been possible thanks to a systematic violation of international law, including in particular the UN Charter.

(Statement continued on the right column)

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Statement continued from the left column)

Imagine that every country in the world would reduce its military expenditures by at least 50%. Then we would have US$ 1000 billion.

Is it a large or small sum?

It’s equivalent to what China in 2013 put behind the Belt and Road Initiative, BRI – a cooperative effort around infrastructure, fast physical and digital communication, sea and land transport, education and cultural exchange, and much more. Today it involves around 80 countries, some on all continents and it is open to everyone.

The philosophy behind it is, at least theoretically, one of peace. It dates back to the Panchsheel Treaty of 1954, the five principles of peaceful coexistence.

Beyond doubt, this is the largest and most positive cooperation project in today’s world. It is the project that will give birth to – if it has not already? – a new multi-polar world order based more on cooperation than confrontation.

There is, therefore, no doubt that a substantial conversion of, say, US$ 1000 billion from the military to the solution of humanity’s common problems would provide a desperately needed boost for the common good.
(This argument does not rest on any assumption that money is the primary tool to solve problems; that takes lots of non-material qualities. But with economies falling apart at a moment when all economies need funds for” rebooting humanity,” this is a straightforward thing to do with a rather large bang for the buck).

Additionally, lots of human and other resources, knowledge, experience and equipment today operated by the military could be converted and put to civilian tasks.
Such a conversion would boost employment – as there exists no documentation for the often-stated assertion that military investments boost employment more than civilian investments. It is, rather, comparatively wasteful.

It’s time for more global cooperation and less confrontation

Ours is not the time for more militarism, warfare and antagonism. The net effect of military investments is suffering, destruction (of lives, capital and property) and unavoidable environmental destruction.
 
Furthermore, every military dollar stands in the way of precisely  that global cooperation without which we are doomed. And it is not matched by a security or peace effect.

Time is up for those who strut about and try to master others by violence or the threat of it. Militarism and warfare are now as outdated and indefensible as is slavery, absolute monarchy, dictatorship, child labour, rape and discrimination. These are phenomena we have decided, in the name of civilisation, to abolish or condemn.

If you feel we cannot, very quickly, reduce or abolish militarism, nuclearism and warfare but should uphold at least some self-defensive military capacity, that should be discussed. It’s in line with Article 51 of the UN Charter.

That would mean much more dis-armament than the suggested 50% and it would mean trans-armament toward a new way of handling our unavoidable conflicts, create security in diversity and with defensive military and civilian means, and – thereby – realise the peaceful future which 99% of citizens around the world strongly desire.
 
There are, indeed, alternatives. But minds, as well as other resources, need to be liberated before it’s too late.

So, to begin with: Reduce everybody’s military expenditures equally much, say 50%. And see the marvellous positive results – politically, economically and in terms of peace. Then move on.

A better world is possible. And the Corona is a benign wake-up call compared with World War III.

We need to use the Corona crisis constructively.

In this 11th hour, humanity’s situation makes it abundantly clear to us that it is either cooperation and coexistence or destruction and no existence.”

TFF’s Board
Annette Schiffmann
Thore Vestby
Jan Oberg
Christina Spännar, co-founder

Almost 400 TFF Associates and friends of the foundation have already endorsed this statement – see them all further down. They are some of the most peace competent and concerned citizens in the world. 

You can trust their judgement, and now it is your turn!

Click here and scroll to bottom to sign.

Thanks a lot!

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Sales of arms and military services by the sector’s largest 25 companies totalled US$361 billion in 2019, 8.5 per cent more than in 2018. The largest companies have a geographically diverse international presence. This is according to new data released today [December 7] by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Photo: Flickr/Robert Sullivan

New data from SIPRI’s Arms Industry Database shows that arms sales by the world’s 25 largest arms-producing and military services companies (arms companies) totalled US$361 billion in 2019. This represents an 8.5 per cent increase in real terms over the arms sales of the top 25 arms companies in 2018.

US companies still dominate, Middle East represented in top 25 for the first time

In 2019 the top five arms companies were all based in the United States: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics. These five together registered $166 billion in annual arms sales. In total, 12 US companies appear in the top 25 for 2019, accounting for 61 per cent of the combined arms sales of the top 25.

For the first time, a Middle Eastern firm appears in the top 25 ranking. EDGE, based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), was created in 2019 from the merger of more than 25 smaller companies. It ranks at number 22 and accounted for 1.3 per cent of total arms sales of the top 25.

‘EDGE is a good illustration of how the combination of high national demand for military products and services with a desire to become less dependent on foreign suppliers is driving the growth of arms companies in the Middle East,’ said Pieter Wezeman, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme.

Another newcomer in the top 25 in 2019 was L3Harris Technologies (ranked 10th). It was created through the merger of two US companies that were both in the top 25 in 2018: Harris Corporation and L3 Technologies.

Chinese arms companies’ sales increase, Russian companies’ sales fall

The top 25 also includes four Chinese companies. Three are in the top 10: Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC; ranked 6th), China Electronics Technology Group Corporation (CETC; ranked 8th) and China North Industries Group Corporation (NORINCO; ranked 9th). The combined revenue of the four Chinese companies in the top 25—which also include China South Industries Group Corporation (CSGC; ranked 24th)—grew by 4.8 per cent between 2018 and 2019.

Reflecting on the rise in the arms sales of Chinese companies, SIPRI Senior Researcher Nan Tian said: ‘Chinese arms companies are benefiting from military modernization programmes for the People’s Liberation Army.’

(Article continued on the right column)

(Click here for a version of this article in French or here for a version in Spanish.)

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Article continued from the left column)

The revenues of the two Russian companies in the top 25—Almaz-Antey and United Shipbuilding—both decreased between 2018 and 2019, by a combined total of $634 million. A third Russian company, United Aircraft, lost $1.3 billion in sales and dropped out of the top 25 in 2019.

Alexandra Kuimova, Researcher at SIPRI, said: ‘Domestic competition and reduced government spending on fleet modernization were two of the main challenges for United Shipbuilding in 2019.’

Other notable developments and trends in the top 25

After the USA, China accounted for the second largest share of 2019 arms sales by the top 25 arms companies, at 16 per cent. The six West European companies together accounted for 18 per cent. The two Russian companies in the ranking accounted for 3.9 per cent.

Nineteen of the top 25 arms companies increased their arms sales in 2019 compared with 2018. The largest absolute increase in arms revenue was registered by Lockheed Martin: $5.1 billion, equivalent to 11 per cent in real terms.

The largest percentage increase in annual arms sales—105 per cent—was reported by French producer Dassault Aviation Group. ‘A sharp rise in export deliveries of Rafale combat aircraft pushed Dassault Aviation into the top 25 arms companies for the first time,’ says Lucie Béraud-Sudreau, Director of the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme.

Mapping shows Global South becoming integrated into global arms industry

The report also looks at the international presence of the 15 largest arms companies in 2019. These companies are present in a total of 49 countries, through majority-owned subsidiaries, joint ventures and research facilities.

With a global presence spanning 24 countries each, Thales and Airbus are the two most internationalized companies—followed closely by Boeing (21 countries), Leonardo (21 countries) and Lockheed Martin (19 countries).

The United Kingdom, Australia, the USA, Canada and Germany host the largest numbers of these foreign entities. Outside the arms industry hubs of North America and Western Europe, the largest numbers of entities of foreign companies are hosted by Australia (38), Saudi Arabia (24), India (13), Singapore (11), the UAE (11) and Brazil (10).

Alexandra Marksteiner of the SIPRI Arms and  Military  Expenditure Programme said: ‘There are many reasons why arms companies might want to establish themselves overseas,  including better access to growing markets, collaborative weapon programmes, or policies in the host countries tying arms purchases to technology transfers.’

Of the 49 countries hosting foreign entities of the top 15 arms companies, 17 are in low- and middle-income countries. ‘Countries in the Global South seeking to jump-start their arms production programmes have welcomed foreign arms companies as a means to benefit from technology transfers,’ said Diego Lopes da Silva, Researcher at SIPRI.

Siemon Wezeman, Senior Researcher at SIPRI, said: ‘The Chinese and Russian arms companies in the top 15 have only a limited international presence. Sanctions against Russian firms and government-mandated limits on acquisitions by Chinese firms seem to have played a role in constraining their global presence.’

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from World Beyond War

Peter Kuznick answered the following questions from Mohamed Elmaazi of Sputnik Radio and agreed to let World BEYOND War publish the text.

1) What’s the significance of Honduras being the latest country to join the UN’s Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons?

What a remarkable and ironic development, especially after the U.S. had been pressuring the previous 49 signers to withdraw their approvals. It is so fitting that Honduras, the original “banana republic,” pushed it over the edge–a delicious fuck you to a century of U.S. exploitation and bullying.

Peter Kuznick on Sputnik

2) Is it possibly a bit of a distraction to focus on countries that have no nuclear capability?

Not really. This treaty represents the moral voice of humanity. It may not have a universal enforcement mechanism, but it clearly states that the people of this planet abhor the power-hungry, annihilation-threatening madness of the nine nuclear powers. The symbolic significance can not be overstated.

3) There already is a Treaty on Nuclear Non-Proliferation which came into force in 1970 and which has been nearly every country on the planet is a party to. Is the NPT being lived up to?

The NPT has been lived up to to a surprising extent by the non-nuclear powers. It is amazing that more countries have not gone the nuclear path. The world is fortunate that more haven’t made that leap at a time when, according to El Baradei, at least 40 countries have the technological capability of doing so. The ones who are guilty of violating it are the five original signatories–the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, and France. They have completely ignored Article 6, which requires the nations possessing nuclear arsenals to reduce and eliminate those arsenals. The total number of nuclear weapons may have been cut from an absolutely insane 70,000 to a slightly less insane 13,500, but that is still enough to end life on the planet many times over.

4) If it isn’t, what good will yet another treaty, such as the one Honduras just joined, be in such an environment?

The NPT didn’t make possession, development, transportation, and threat to use nuclear weapons illegal. The new treaty does and explicitly so. This is a major symbolic leap. While it won’t put the leaders of the nuclear weapons states on trial by the International Criminal Court, it will put pressure on them to heed global sentiment as has been the case with chemical weapons, land mines, and other treaties. If the U.S. wasn’t concerned about the effect of this pressure, why did it make such an effort to block the treaty’s ratification? As Eisenhower and Dulles both stated during the 1950s, it was the global nuclear taboo that stopped them from using nuclear weapons on several occasions. Global moral pressure can constrain bad actors and sometimes even force them to become good actors.

In 2002 the US administration of George W Bush Jr withdrew from the ABM treaty. The Trump Administration withdrew from the INF Treaty in 2019 and there are questions as to whether the New START treaty will be renewed before it expires in 2021. Both the ABM and the INF treaties were signed between the US and Soviet Union to reduce the risk of nuclear war.

(Continued in right column)

(Continued from left column)

5) Explain the consequences of the US withdrawal from key nuclear controls treaties such as the ABM and the INF treaty.

The consequences of U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty were enormous. On the one hand, it allowed the U.S. to continue with implementation of its still unproven and costly missile defense systems. On the other, it induced the Russians to begin research and development of their own countermeasures. As a result of those efforts, on March 1, 2018, in his State of the Nation address, Vladimir Putin announced that the Russians had now developed five new nuclear weapons, all of which can circumvent U.S. missile defense systems. Hence, abrogation of the ABM Treaty gave the U.S. a false sense of security and by putting Russia in a vulnerable position, it sparked Russian innovation that has put the U.S. in a weakened position. Overall, this has only made the world more dangerous. Abrogation of the INF Treaty has similarly resulted in introduction of more dangerous missiles that can potentially destabilize relations. This is what happens when shortsighted, advantage-seeking hawks make policy and not responsible statesmen.

6) Why do you think the US has been moving away from these nuclear arms control treaties that it originally signed with the Soviet Union? Have they not been serving their purpose?

The Trump administration policymakers do not want to see the U.S. constrained by international treaties. They believe the U.S. can and will win an arms race. Trump has said so repeatedly. In 2016, he declared, “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.” This past May, Trump’s chief arms control negotiator, Marshall Billingslea, similarly stated, “We can spend Russia and China into oblivion in order to win a new nuclear arms race.” They are both insane and should be taken away by the men in white coats. In 1986, during the previous arms race before Gorbachev, with a little late help from Reagan, injected some sanity into the world, the nuclear powers had accumulated approximately 70,000 nuclear weapons, equivalent to some 1.5 million Hiroshima bombs. Do we really want to get back to that? Sting sang a powerful song in the 1980s with the lyrics, “I hope the Russians love their children too.” We were lucky that they did. I don’t think Trump is capable of loving anyone other than himself and he has a straight line to the nuclear button with no one standing in his way.

7) What is New START Treaty and how does it fit into all of this?

The New START Treaty limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 and also limits the number of launch vehicles. Because of technicalities, the number of weapons is actually higher. It is all that is left of the nuclear arms control architecture that has taken decades to erect. It is all that stands in the way of nuclear anarchy and the new arms race I was just talking about. It is set to expire on February 5. From Trump’s first day in office, Putin has been trying to get Trump to extend it unconditionally for five years as the treaty allows. Trump disparaged the treaty and established impossible conditions for its renewal. Now, desperate for a foreign policy victory on the eve of the election, he has tried to negotiate its extension. But Putin refuses to accept the terms that Trump and Billingslea are proposing, making one wonder just how firmly Putin really is in Trump’s corner.

8) Where would you like to see policy makers go from here, in particular among major nuclear powers?

First, they need to extend the New START Treaty for five years, as Biden has promised he will do. Second, they need to reinstitute the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) and the INF Treaty. Third, they need to take all weapons off hair-trigger alert. Fourth, they need to get rid of all ICBMs, which are the most vulnerable part of the arsenal and require immediate launch if an incoming missile is detected as has happened numerous times only to be found to be false alarms. Fifth, they need to change command and control to insure that other responsible leaders have to sign off besides just the president before nuclear weapons are ever used. Sixth, they need to reduce arsenals below the threshold for nuclear winter. Seventh, they need to join the TPNW and abolish nuclear weapons entirely. Eighth, they need to take the money they’ve been wasting on weapons of annihilation and invest them in areas that will uplift humanity and improve people’s lives. I can give them lots of suggestions of where to begin if they want to listen.
 
Peter Kuznick is Professor of History at American University, and author of Beyond the Laboratory: Scientists As Political Activists in 1930s America, co-author with Akira Kimura of  Rethinking the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Japanese and American Perspectives, co-author with Yuki Tanaka of Nuclear Power and Hiroshima: The Truth Behind the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Power, and co-editor with James Gilbert of Rethinking Cold War Culture. In 1995, he founded American University’s Nuclear Studies Institute, which he directs. In 2003, Kuznick organized a group of scholars, writers, artists, clergy, and activists to protest the Smithsonian’s celebratory display of the Enola Gay. He and filmmaker Oliver Stone co-authored the 12 part Showtime documentary film series and book both titled The Untold History of the United States.