Double Standards and
Weapons of Mass Distortion
HE
age of scientific and technological revolution has
abridged national boundaries to make the world a global
village. There has been phenomenal development in
Information Technology. Multimedia and cyberspace have
progressed at a speed that leaves the Industrial
Revolution a forgotten past. Humankind has witnessed the
mysteries of space exploration and has explored the
seabed to discover the amazing existence of other
species. Commensurate with the pace of development, new
techniques and scientific methods have been invented to
destroy human life. The world’s helpless and poor are in
the forefront to bear the brunt, as if they are the
‘untouchable caste’ of humankind.
Exuberance in the
construction industry has culminated in the towering
structures that touch the edge of clouds, but
nevertheless carry a blurred view of the state of
affairs on the ground. In this age and time, when the
developed world cannot even what life
would be like without hygienic clean drinking water and
electricity, some parts of the world are yet to enjoy
these ‘luxuries’. The poor and destitute of the world
live by the light of candles and kerosene lamps and have
access only to polluted drinking water, as if these
amenities are an exclusive privilege of the ‘chosen
caste’ of humankind. Only a day’s total black-out in
eastern United States and Canada created havoc,
resulting in multi-million dollar losses. Whereas such
black-outs are a daily occurrence in the poor countries.
Governments that are not
capable enough of providing the basic necessities of
life to their own nationals are more than capable of
spending millions on stockpiling heavy arms and arsenal.
These governments have already ransomed several
generations of their nation by investing scarce
resources in arms and ammunitions. They abuse the human
rights of their own people for personal,
tribal and dynastic dominance.
In the last fifty years, the continents of Asia and Africa
have been torn apart by civil wars. The home-grown
dictators, with the support of one world power or another,
have wasted and splurged the wealth of their nation on
weaponry for no other reason than to fight each other. It is
not that the policy-makers are ignorant or illiterate. They
are normally educated and well trained in the civilized
West.
Arms contracts are an easy
prey for the totalitarian regimes in the ‘Third World’ and
elsewhere to enrich themselves, their family members and
their friends by earning hefty commissions. Some of them do
survive to witness their own downfall and disgrace and
others leave the menace as a legacy for posterity. Five
members of the Security Council manufacture and supply over
90 percent of the world’s arms. Therefore, boisterous claims
emanating from these countries in the name of ‘freedom’ and
‘democracy’ are viewed in the ‘Third World’ with scepticism.
In the scramble for arms, several scenarios emerge.
Manufacturers, who are able to attract heavy investments,
are keen to keep the industry buoyant. Their objective cannot be
realized if there is no market for deadly weapons.
Investments of billions of dollars cannot be seen to dwindle
to the point of erosion of capital as this may cause
strangleholds in the national economy. Therefore,
manufacturers of weapons, with their majority shareholders
sitting in the seats of political power, are prone to preach
that no moral issues should dictate their policy of supply.
It is in their best interest to create new markets around
the globe, test the effectiveness of new products on the
battlefields, and find the means of disposing of their
obsolete lethal stocks.
From the viewpoint of the
recipients too, arms have to be brought into use rather than
be left to rust in the vagaries of harsh weather conditions.
Deadly weapons are supplied in the form of foreign aid,
commercial deals or on the black market, depending on how
desperate the situation is. Political interest and prospects
of profiteering are the main determining factors. The
suppliers are assured of guaranteed ongoing demand from
unrepresentative and autocratic regimes that face the
constant fear of an uprising from their own people.
When these weapons fall into
the wrong hands, they nurture an unjust political system.
This situation has been responsible for the cruelty and
suffering of the people around the globe during the last
century. Discords and disputes are instigated and proxies
are appointed to fuel the fire of war. The market booms when
unscrupulous suppliers end up supplying weapons to both the
warring factions….
Human life is being slowly
but surely destroyed with conventional weapons. In the
‘Third World’ countries, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and
genocides have recurred with the perpetual use of these
weapons. Charley Reese has posted a very interesting article
on the web [1] in which he illustrates how the United
States has supported, befriended and financed genocidal
tyrannical dictators in modern history....
Eisenhower, the late
President of the United States has said: “Every gun that is
made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies
in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are
not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world
in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the
sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the
hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in
any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity
hanging on a cross of iron." [2]
The latter years were to
prove that it was humanity as a whole that was persecuted
through arms deals, as envisaged by President Eisenhower.
But his appeal fell on deaf ears. The end of the Cold War
was not seen as a blessing in disguise, but rather a curse
for arms producers. The demand for arms slumped. After
almost half a century, nations felt a breeze of
tranquillity,
but arms manufacturers started suffering from insomnia.
Hence, the lobbyists started pressurizing the politicians.
New markets had to be explored and the focus had to shift to
the developing countries, especially the Middle East. In the
words of President Clinton, “…our share of Global
Conventional Arms agreements rose from 17 percent in 1988 to
70 percent in 1993…”[3] He said that “unelected governments”
were interested in placing large orders “to ensure
stability”. President Clinton promised the “spectacular
growth” of arms contracts and his Administration started
working meticulously towards that goal…
_________________________________________________________
[1] Charley Reese, “A Rousing Good Book”,
King Features Syndicate,
[2] Dr Francis Macnab, “Ordinary Magic – Good Outcomes in spite of Bleak Prospects”.
http://www.stmichaels.org.au/magic.htm
[3]“CTBT – A Psychological Profile”,
www.friends.org.pk
Copyright ©
Zap-Critique Books
