UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged world governments on September 24, 2010 to end the "long inertia" at the Geneva disarmament talks and free up much of the money spent on arms for use (in) alleviating hunger, disease and other ills in impoverished nations.
The remarks of the UN Secretary General during the 65th session of the UNO undoubtedly reflect the aspirations of the overwhelming majority of inhabitants of this earth that has now become weary of governments' bizarre expenditure on weapons and indulgence in creating war hysteria. Ban Ki-moon noted with great concern that in the past decade, world military spending had risen by 50 percent to more than $1.5 trillion. "Imagine what we could do if we devoted these resources to poverty reduction, climate change mitigation, food security, global health and other global development challenges," he aptly observed.
Sadly, utilisation of enormous resources on purchase of arms by countries like us is the main cause for poverty. On global level, the many woes faced by the humanity at large are due to arms race, conflicts and wars. The dream of a conflict-free globe cannot be realised without first creating weaponless world. The collosal resources wasted on arms, as suggested by the UN Secretary General, could have been deployed to solve many problems presently causing world-wide conflicts, disturbances, commotions, cataclysms and turbulences.
The UN Secretary General in his speech said:
-- Warfare and use of arms are the principal causes for widespread poverty.
-- Waste produced from these factories is the reason behind deteriorating climatic conditions.
-- The humungous amount of money involved in the race for arms does not allow the much needed food security.
-- Resources diverted to spreading physical and biological destruction scouring off nutritional empowerment of this earth's inhabitants, has only led to ill health and endemic diseases.
-- Deliberate induction of regional conflicts to perpetuate the business of arms' companies patronised by leading countries of the world has given rise to global development challenges that are now threatening world peace and order.
Sometimes it pinches you deeply why "world leaders" (sic) act belatedly-besides half heartedly on vital issues like disarmament and elimination of nuclear stockpiles. One wonders at the naivety of all those, including the Secretary General, who are now sermonising before those very people whom they should have prevented from unleashing a reign of terror that forced the world to raise military spending by 50 percent. Instead of nipping the evil in the bud, requests are being made to tame the wild animal that has now grown to a disproportionate size. On the one hand, peace negotiations are taking place in different parts of the globe and on the other, new and more refined warfare technologies are being developed whereby it appears that the whole world is heading in two opposite directions at tremendous speed culminating in nothing but disaster.
According to analyses by many experts, the real purpose of Obama's 10 day trip to India, Indonesia and, among other stops, a luncheon in Russia, was the sale of weapons for Lockheed Martin, Boeing and other major defence and mid-level weapons industry dealers. William Hartung, expert at the Arms and Security Initiative New America Foundation, while speaking of the weapons sales Obama has been advancing in the Asian arena observed, "There is no question, it's big business." According to arms business insiders and Hartung, in 1973, $10.1 billion in weapons, by today's standards, including hundreds of supersonic aircraft and helicopters, were sold to Iran. In 2006 the defence industry sold planes to Turkey - 30 F-16s and related equipment for what would now cost 3.2 billion dollars. In 2003 the U.S. weapons industry sold to Poland - 48 F-16 fighting falcon combat jets for what would cost $4.2 billion today.
Although Pakistan is considered by US as partner in fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda, but Obama, by selling weapons to India has shown the real intentions in this region-containment of China is the top priority for them and not fighting the militants. In fact, the US wants forces of obscurantism around China to threaten it in the same way as it did to erstwhile USSR.
In the midst of tense situation involving disputed territory of Kashmir between two neighbouring States, Obama decided to take sides by selling billions of dollars' worth of weapons to India. This gesture is rather insulting to the government of Pakistan, since Obama repeatedly sends drones into Pakistan territory to kill what he believes to be terrorists but in the process, kills many Pakistani civilians. This makes it very difficult for the Pakistani government to keep a firm lid on internal turmoil as recently-just during three weeks' time-there were five suicide bombings killing more than 100 people. This has become routine in Pakistan.
Many wonder why Obama would exacerbate tension in this area when the United States has an ongoing war in Afghanistan and needs the support of Pakistan. He, however, has not even attempted that Afghanistan, Pakistan and India meet to try to resolve their problems. The answer is clear: he, like his predecessors, only wants to promote the interests of US war industry. For hawks in Pentagon, war is a business bonanza-they act on behalf of powerful arms manufacturers' lobby that plays a vital role in shaping military strategy of America.
The United States has just signed a deal, related to sale of arms worth US $60 billion, with Saudi Arabia -the biggest single arms deals in the history of America. In retaliation Iran has decided to buy more weapons. China, India and Pakistan are also buying arms valuing billions of dollars from the so-called champions of democracy and peace.
According to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO)-the non-partisan investigative arm of the US Congress-about US $40 billion in arms transfers were authorised to the six Gulf countries between 2005 and 2009, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE as the largest recipients. According to Pieter Wezeman, senior researcher in the Arms Transfers Programme at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), "Iran still uses US-supplied equipment as part of the backbone of its armed forces."
Natalie J Goldring, a senior fellow with the Center for Peace and Security Studies in the Edmund A Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, says that perpetuating the arms race cycle in the Gulf region has numerous risks. "One continuing issue is the stability of the Saudi Kingdom. If the government falls, we risk adversaries gaining access to sophisticated US weaponry," she observes. This was the case in Iran after the fall of Shah. He was given the best possible weaponry of the time by USA that was later became a strength for anti-US regime.
It is strange that those who are creating the most hype about peace and democratic values are the ones who are the biggest suppliers of arms and ammunition. They say that where there is demand there is supply but in the case of demand for ammunition, artificial demand is deliberately created-10 years Iraq-Iran war (both countries purchased their armaments from the USA), Iraq's conflict with Kuwait, war against terrorism-to name a few.
Amazingly, the terrorists at war with USA and Nato forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere are also getting the same weaponry that is available to the troops combating them. In other words, all the hot beds of armed disputes around the globe have become, in fact, testing grounds for modern artillery. Besides, a lot is spoken about satellite coverage. The Americans claim that anything below or above the earth is within their surveillance range and yet they are forced to bombard heavily to reach a handful of terrorists and yet not able to get their hands on the most sought-after Osama Bin Laden.
According to a report published in 2005 from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, countries around the world have spent $162 on weapons for each person alive. The US alone spent 47 percent of this total - partly due to the war on Iraq. Defence is the only industry in Britain where research and development by private companies gets direct public funding from the government. If the so-called highly civilised nations and flag-bearers of humanity are bent upon vying for the top slot of world power then who would pay attention to UNO's preaching on maintaining equilibrium in defence expenditure?
Instead of telling other nations to stop armed aggressions and spending taxpayers' money on purchase of killer weapons, why no attempt is being made to shut down the actual sources of arms production? With closure of these death factories in USA, Russia, France, UK and Israel, the natural outcome would be a sharp decline in armed conflicts, expenditure on purchase and increase in spending on human needs, welfare and development. It is more than obvious that this turn-around situation would result in a much better, healthier, peaceful and safer world for our future generations.
What would be the answer if a referendum is held for the peoples of this world asking the question "Given a choice, what would you go for, peace or arms?" Certainly everybody wants peace, but it cannot be attained unless the forces of destruction-war industry and their promoters-are defeated. The intellectuals, members of human rights and civil liberties organisations, journalists, analysts, and lawyers- in fact every citizen of the world-will have to unite to wage a struggle against Late Neo-Colonialists. Acting as proxy of manufacturers of deadly weapons of destruction they are bent upon to force the nations to conflicts, wars, killings, misery, hunger and instability.
(The writers, tax lawyers, are Adjunct Professors at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS))
Comments
Comments are closed.