No other legitimate business is as corrupt as the arms trade. That the obvious needs to be said again is only because of two more scandals that have surfaced, both involving murder, and still the countries that are responsible for 90 percent of the world's arms sales continue to allow their arms companies to do their dirty business with only minimal controls and interference.
First, on March 19, came the suicide of a former Belgium government minister who for 10 years had been awaiting trial for the murder of a former deputy prime minister, Andre Cools. Cools, it has been suspected, was killed to prevent him denouncing the illegal sale of documents to an arms manufacturer. It was an offshoot of the same long-running scandal that brought down the Belgian secretary-general of NATO over alleged bribes paid to the Socialist Party by Agusta, the Italian helicopter group, and Dassault, the French plane maker.
Then two days later a furore erupted in Taiwan over a government report alleging that France betrayed Taiwan's confidence by passing top-secret information to China about the sale of French frigates to Taiwan. The allegations now coursing through Taiwan's outspoken press have many layers: from evidence that prominent political figures in Beijing were paid to mute their protest over the deal to suggestions that the decision to buy the frigates from French company Thomson-CSF instead of from South Korea was influenced by payoffs. Already former foreign minister of France, Roland Dumas, has been convicted of taking money improperly from his lover, who, working as an arms lobbyist, tried to get him to drop his objections to the frigate sale.
But this is not all. A captain in the Taiwan navy, Yin Ching-feng (
The whole arms industry is as seedy as it comes and its recent history of malfeasance alone is enough to fill volumes. Also linked to the dealings of arms companies or their lobbyists were the deaths of an investigative British journalist in Chile and Swedish prime minister Olof Palme.
Shortly after the death of Palme, allegations swirled through the Swedish and Indian media about the arms manufacturer Bofors paying bribes to senior Indian government officials, including then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. Although it has proved impossible for Indian investigators to make all the connections -- and we may never know exactly what went on or whether Palme was implicated even in an indirect way -- it still leaves a nasty taste in many Swedish mouths today.
Fourteen years ago, not long after Palme's murder, I interviewed his successor, Ingvar Carlsson, and some of the top officials charged with regulating arms sales. All came out with the same mantra: "We need exports as our arms manufacturers couldn't make it otherwise." It seemed then, as it does today, that nothing, not even murder, could shake the deep political foundations of the arms business. And this is as true for the US or the UK and France as it is for Sweden.
The economic commentator of the Financial Times, Samuel Brittan, who has spent a distinguished journalistic career puncturing the economic posturing of Western governments, has now joined battle with the arms industry.
"The supposedly clinching argument," he writes, "is that if Britain does not sell arms to odious dictatorships, the orders would go instead to other countries that will take the jobs instead."
This, he believes, is bogus economics. There is no great lump of labor engaged in making specific products like arms. Jobs are constantly changing in any advanced capitalist economy. In Britain alone well over 3 million people leave the unemployment registry each year, well over half to new jobs or training for new jobs. In comparison, Britain's arms exports employ a mere 130,000 workers. Even if arms, as they do, often provide a high marginal return, the resources involved can still be shifted to other exports.
Yet in country after country the arms exporters give the appearance of holding their governments by the tail. Despite early promises, Prime Minister Tony Blair has delayed for years the introduction of legislation to overhaul Britain's arms exports. While Canada has suggested a ban on arms sales to any "non-state actors" like rebel groups, terrorists and crime syndicates, the George W. Bush administration has resisted a blanket prohibition, fearing that it would impinge on future efforts to provide covert military aid in foreign conflicts. Ironically, one example that used to be given was the "successful" role in aiding the resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Need one say more?
Jonathan Power is a freelance columnist based in London.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS