The Lords of Evil. The arms trade moves on the global stage, huge interests in the economic and political. A complex world in which, despite the limits imposed by the laws of the states, controls lacking at the international level. And where backroom deals and corruption thrive easily
Some experts from the universities of Zurich and Bern have expressed their criticism of the Swiss legislation on the export of war material, noting in particular a lack of transparency of end use. A provoke this reaction was mainly the decision to lift the ban on exports of military equipment to Qatar. A ban decided after the discovery that ammunition manufactured by the Swiss company RUAG, initially destined for a country in the Persian Gulf, were later made to transit to Libya. Final recipients rebels fighting the Gaddafi regime. A fact that violate Swiss law on arms trade, in many places very restrictive. You can not, in fact, sell arms to countries involved in armed conflict, a prohibition extended to cases where there is a high risk that exported arms are transferred to a "final recipient side." The law excludes from the sale then the countries that violate "a serious and systematic human rights" and those in which there is a strong likelihood of use of weapons against the civilian population. In short, the Swiss law on arms exports is certainly very stiff, even if it is not so easy to control all the way down the final destination of what you are selling, even in full compliance with current legislation. In 2011, for example, were provided with the consent of the Federal Council, the United Arab Emirates 25 unarmed trainer aircraft Pilatus PC-21. An order of 500 million francs, which has made the Middle Eastern country's biggest trading partner of the Swiss Confederation in the military. A deal that puts some question, however, because the United Arab Emirates are not exactly a democratic state where human rights, as required by our legislation have been complied with to the end. All this makes us understand how the universe of the arms trade is extremely complex and it is not always so easy to decide what is the legal way and what is not. Not to mention the enormous economic and political interests that feed this area, explains Francesco Vignarca coordinator of the Italian Network for Disarmament Affairs (www.disarmo.org) and author of the book The Economics army (Altreconomia, 2011).
Dr. Vignarca, what is the turnover of the arms industry in the world?
"Globally, the various states, to maintain their armies, move approximately 1.7 trillion dollars each year. A figure that has increased significantly in the last ten years, although in 2011, for the first time in a decade, there has been a lull. In this figure does not come only weapons, but also everything you need in an army - uniforms, petrol - but certainly the purchase of weapons systems is one of the most consistent. A striking aspect is that the arms trade continues to operate, has not experienced the crisis in other sectors. Also because it has moved towards new shores "(3).
Which countries?
"Today we are the largest buyers in the Asian countries because they have more money available: India, Pakistan, China itself and then throughout the Middle East. Not only have money, but they are all in the most "hot" in the world. An analysis conducted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has highlighted how India has become the first in the world for the import of arms (4). Budget problems have forced the other hand, European countries and even the United States to make cuts on military spending. "
What are the major producing countries?
"The production of armaments is always firmly in the hands of the Western countries, the United States, Great Britain. The first twenty-producing industries in the world are, in fact, Westerners. Do you think that just a few years ago more than 80% of the weapons manufactured and sold in the world came from the five countries of the Security Council of the United Nations; This means that whoever has the ball politician has also over the production and trade of armaments. "
Allacciandomi to what he says, then ask how the arms industry and politics are linked. Influence each other or one of them dominates the other actors?
"Historically, states have always had control over industry production of armaments. Today, however, the production of large groups of weapons are not more companies of medium size, almost in control state, but have become international giants that operate on different markets. They are the ones to influence the policies of the states using both a lawful means of pressure, and to those offenses and trying to make sure that their products are purchased gunsmiths. I should mention, in fact, that the arms trade accounts for about 2% of the world total, but is responsible for 45% of corruption in the planet and this is not a matter to be underestimated. The national industries gunsmith put pressure on their governments to be advertised in countries where your product can be purchased. We are thus witnessing the scandal of seeing government officials and ministers, who would have to build the structure of the defense, to go around the exhibitions of weapons to make the salesmen. "
But it is not the job of governments to favor companies that offer work and maybe even innovation to their country?
"First of all, the fact that the war is an industry that provides jobs and economic returns is just an excuse. In Italy, two major industries such as Finmeccanica and Alenia Aermacchi have made enormous pressure on governments to purchase U.S. F35 fighter jets. Before the batch comprised 131 aircraft, now reduced to 90. Estimated expenditure of € 10 billion for the purchase, 30 for the maintenance of aircraft in their life cycle. As a counterpart was told that it is guaranteed 10,000 jobs. Now the calculation is reduced to 2,500 jobs. Now, she would spend 40 billion euro for just 2,500 jobs? I do not think a great deal. As well as when it is said that the war industry returns a large economic return, it says an exaggeration. In Switzerland, the export of war material reached the figure, in 2011, about 870 million Swiss francs. That is only 0.4% of gross domestic product. Let's say that behind the arms market there are returns of prestige, in a sense, especially strategic and economic advantage of the system are not in-country but who does business. This type of industries aim to sell, to bill and together to show that the company sells. In this sense, it is clear that senior managers (...) you to those companies aims to force the government to directly buy and make purchases from other carrier because then there is a direct return in terms of prestige, power, and also remuneration for management. "
From the point of view of return technological experimentation and research of the military have a positive effect on the industry calendar?
"A relapse technology certainly exists. The exact question but it would be: "It is the most effective way to have the same impact? ". Now, when it comes to innovation linked to the military, he usually cites the case of the Internet. The network was born in the fifties and sixties by a military trial, but it has become what it is today and that allows us to work better because in the mid-eighties CERN in Geneva, which is an institution not military but civilian research , has taken over and turned it into the WorldWideWeb. First with the original network you could not even to exchange files or it was done inefficiently. So the point is: if the same investments made available to the military sector were immediately been given to an institution such as CERN or at least to a research institution open, free, the Internet would have been better developed, and before inmaniera more transparent, clear? At the end of course, in front of a large mass of investment, military research also gives some benefit to industry civil. But the game, that is the economic cost, is worth the candle? ".
Each country has its own legislation on the arms trade. But there is a strong control on this market or the rules are made to be circumvented?
"Switzerland has a restrictive national legislation and controls that work, so that is put at the top level of transparency by all analysts. The problem, however, are not national laws. The problem is that these laws are limited by the lack of international legislation applies to all. Based only on national legislation, in fact, no longer works. Worked before, when everyone had as a reference model-France, for which the state directly controlled the armaments industries. With the direct control of the sales arms of the national companies have been sold on the basis of considerations related to strategic or political alliances. Today large companies that produce weapons are big conglomerates who do what they want and operate at a supranational level. So the fact that there is no international legislation incorporating national legislation becomes a problem. For this you are looking for with the international campaign Control Arms (www.controlarms.org) to formulate an international treaty on arms control to be discussed at the United Nations. So the same rules for all controls and equal for all. It can no longer happen, for example, that Finmeccanica, who knows that the British law regarding the export of weapons is less stringent than the Italian one, face to build the final piece of a product in the UK and export in accordance with the laws of England. This can happen today. If there are laws equal for all or a treaty at an international level, with the same controls, which I produce in Italy, France or Switzerland would not change things. "
First he told us that the arms trade is a major producer of corruption. How so?
"Why is not a true market: it is neither open nor transparent. Where there is transparency and control corruption is in some sense mitigated by the fact that there are other actors involved. It is a non-market in which a few big players in terms of production and purchase orders and are not made on the basis of how much good or how useful it is, but in relation to political agreements. In this context, it is easy to put pressure on those who must decide not only putting on the scales strategic reasons of political alliance between states, but also in black money. A market should be open, free, made from various competitors as the world armaments works with contracts and grants; Corruption can take the form of bribe or explicit recognition of compensation income, compensation is often also mentioned in the contracts of purchase and sale. A third possibility, even more insidious, is that in America they call the revolving door: the head of the Pentagon chooses certain weapons, is retiring and two years later he became president or CEO of the company that produces the weapon system purchased by him when he was at the Pentagon. Ultimately these fake market mechanisms lead to an increase in costs, subtract ultimately economic resources to state budgets, resources that could be used for areas such as health and education. Finally, do not just talking about large sums of money but also of "products" problematic. Sell helicopter gunships, machine guns or tanks is not to sell carrots or other goods. "
There is a legal trade of weapons and an illegal market, the so-called arms trafficking. The illegal sale that slice of the market is?
"First you have to take into account that according to estimates by the illegal arms trafficking represents only 5% of the weapons that are transferred around the world; 75% is the legal trade and the remaining approximately 20% is a gray trade, that begins legally and is then triangulated, in the ways I have explained before, illegally. So when we talk about illegal arms trafficking we are not addressing the big problem. There is the smuggling of weapons, there are supplies that can have a matte backgrounds. But behind the large orders, behind the big numbers, the ones that matter, there is always some government agency. "
TAKEN FROM The lords of war
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento