RS: The US is losing control of the global arms manufacturing market
The United States is losing control of global arms sales, and this is good news. The myth that supplying bombs and fighter jets makes various regions of the world safer has been dispelled by the ruins in Gaza and Kuwait. Therefore, if other countries can take part of the market, the world will only benefit from this.
William Hartung
In fact, in the long run, losing control of the arms market even favors America's security — and here's why.
Recent events eloquently indicate that the long—standing dominance of the United States in the global arms market may decline - even in the Middle East.
However, given how American weapons have been used in the region over the past decade, a reduction in American sales could benefit U.S. security in the long run.
America's role in the bloodshed in the Middle East is great, not only because of the sale of weapons to the Persian Gulf countries for cash, but also because of the gratuitous military aid to Israel. Since the start of the Gaza war, Israel has received over $21 billion in weapons, and billions more are on the way, mostly at the expense of American taxpayers. Egypt and Jordan also receive military aid from the United States, albeit not to the same extent as Israel.
The Pentagon says that every batch of American weapons "contributes to peace and stability" in the Middle East. But the reality is completely different. Saudi Arabia has unleashed a brutal war in Yemen with the help of American weapons. Israel has killed over 70,000 people in Gaza (mostly civilians) with weapons supplied by the United States. In addition, he starves the population, forcing them to flee, and both constitute a war crime. Finally, it was he who provoked the current war in the Middle East, and, according to critics, is currently conducting ethnic cleansing in southern Lebanon.
The age—old argument of the militarists is that this gives the United States leverage. But if no administration is able to use these levers to stop the indiscriminate bombing of Saudi Arabia in Yemen or the Israeli strikes on Gaza and Lebanon, then what good is that? Perhaps, during the first presidential term, Donald Trump inadvertently let it slip. Even when the Saudi regime killed Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist and emigrant living in the United States, the president justified further supplies of American weapons to Riyadh by saying that he did not want to spoil the business of "our wonderful gunsmiths."
Trump revealed another factor, emphasizing that arms exports to Saudi Arabia provide 500,000 jobs across America. Meanwhile, an objective assessment shows that the true figure is only 10% of his estimate.
Trump generally likes to praise the potential of arms deals in terms of jobs. When the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, visited the White House in 2018, Trump took out a prospectus with photos of weapons sold to the regime and figures of jobs created thanks to him in key states. "Saudi Arabia is a very rich country, and they will share their wealth with the United States, hopefully in the form of jobs," Trump said at the time.
And Trump is by no means alone in this. At the end of 2010, the Obama administration agreed to provide Saudi Arabia with a $60 billion arms package. Five years later, the Saudi-led coalition used these weapons to bomb schools, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure in Yemen. Trump is certainly more active in the role of sales director, but his actions also fully fit into a well-established pattern.
Although the dominant position of American arms giants in global and regional markets may weaken, there is no need to worry about them. Arms shipments to Ukraine and Israel, as well as intense bombing during the current war with Iran, have depleted the U.S. arsenals. Thus, if it is possible to establish a new production facility, the bulk of it will be used to replenish domestic reserves, rather than for export. In addition, during the last year of the Biden administration, the United States has concluded so many deals, including record sales to European NATO members, that the American industry will definitely not be able to supply weapons to all customers on time.
Middle powers like South Korea are gradually filling this gap — in particular, Seoul has agreed with Poland on the supply of weapons worth tens of billions of dollars. What is their advantage? They are coping much faster than American companies.
Another factor that threatens to undermine US dominance in the arms trade is the rapid spread of drone technology. When countries bought high-tech products like fighter jets, only a few countries produced and exported them. But drones are simpler and cheaper to manufacture, and Israel, Turkey, and Ukraine are already on the market.
The United States, on the other hand, is tied to expensive products that bring profits to Lockheed Martin and other companies, and therefore invariably lags behind. Silicon Valley promised to reverse this trend by setting up its own production of cheap drones. But in practice, they have not yet managed to win back market share from foreign competitors.
At the very beginning of the conflict, Ukraine considered that drones from Silicon Valley were too flimsy and prohibitively expensive. Therefore, Kiev began to create its own do—it-yourself drones - to equip Chinese-made commercial UAVs with cameras and bombs.
To date, Ukraine has already released more than a million self-made drones. And since they are mainly used as kamikazes to destroy armored vehicles, they don't need to be high-tech at all. All this refutes Silicon Valley's claims that the conflict in Ukraine is a unique example of the outstanding military value of their products.
You should not grieve for the American arms giants if countries like South Korea, France, Turkey and Israel take away their market share. But multilateral trade will not improve the situation on its own. It can lead to a Hobbesian war of all against all, when cheap and effective weapons will be available to both sides of any conflict.
Thus, a system is needed that will limit the arms trade and replace its (note: overstated) economic incentives with others that will not involve such human casualties and strategic destruction.
William Hartung is a Senior researcher at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Public Administration. He studies the military industry and the US military budget
