Arms Build Up or Development: Is There a Compromise?

Media channels have related that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is about to conclude an agreement with the United States of America on a large arms deal focusing mostly upon aircraft. Its value is said to be more than $60 billion over the coming years, assuming that the U.S. Congress agrees and that the Jewish lobby, including the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, finishes drafting the conditions it will impose on this agreement as it has on others in the past.

To put it simply, this means that the Kingdom will have expended over the past two decades around $100 billion dollars to buy weapons, with most of that going to purchase air defenses, aircraft and related equipment. If we add that number to what has already been purchased by all the countries of the Persian Gulf, estimated at $40 billion, the number comes to the point of being truly incredible in the full meaning of the word. The total defense spending of the Gulf countries would exceed $140 billion. Such an amount ages our children prematurely and renders efforts to promote economic development moot in the face of such large amounts of money being directed elsewhere.

In light of this unprecedented military expenditure, a question immediately comes to mind regarding the issue of sustainable development in the Kingdom and the fate of such efforts not only in Saudi Arabia but in the whole of the Arabian Peninsula. For if we want to put it more precisely, the numbers we have just alluded to are merely the amount of money expended on arms purchases from the United States. While large, these figures do not encompass the military budgets of these countries, nor their actual military expenditures that have exceeded hundreds of billions of dollars. To put it very simply, we are talking about trillions of dollars devoted to military expenditures by the states of the Arabian Peninsula, and their leadership in this regard is none other than the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The problem is that the Kingdom spends hard currency when it buys American arms, despite the fact that these armaments are meant to serve both long and short term American interests. On the other hand, Israel does not pay a single penny for the American weapons Israel uses to serve its own interests first. Israel gets its weapons as part of annual military assistance grants from the U.S. Beyond that, it chooses and specifies the quality, amount and content of weapons and equipment, as well as the extent and conditions of the arms agreements. In addition, it participates in training exercises with the U.S. military. Other countries that buy American arms do not have a voice in these areas. It is worth remembering that Egypt and Jordan are also given annual American military aid, but these countries are given much lower amounts than Israel.

As an observer who is not an expert in economics, budget expenditures and the spending habits of government, it is clear as day that the issue does not require an expert for us to know that military expenditures are, at least for the one who pays for them, an economically unfruitful way of directing money. Indeed, they are positively wasteful. Spending money to buy weapons does not employ any workers, does not help markets and adds nothing to the national economy. Such an expense is about as useful as throwing money in a trash can and then lighting it on fire. Maybe the best proof of this is that the U.S. dollar was not devalued even in the darkest hours of the Great Depression and other economic crises, whereas it was devalued twice during the Vietnam War, according to the official account.

Whereas buying weapons is wasteful for a country like Saudi Arabia, the opposite is true economically in the case of weapons manufacturing by a country such as the U.S. After the state of economic crisis that the U.S. and the West have endured, weapons factories in the U.S. got to the point of increasing their output. This lessened unemployment in the labor market, returned a portion of the petrodollars to the U.S., and helped American manufacturing in the face of European and Russian competition, which lead gradually to their stagnation as the factories of Boeing and Lockheed came to dominate the field of aerial weapons systems. Their investment, technology, progress and influence have grown in the region and beyond.

The big questions that cry out for answers are: Why this obsession with armaments, and what is the goal? Is it the danger of Iran as the American and Israeli media repeat day and night? Is it the Iranian nuclear danger as the Arab and Western media insist? Is it the Shiite matter, or if you like, the Shiite threat? Is it the Persian menace and the imminent return of the empire of Cyrus? Is it the danger of international terrorism, especially in the wake of the events of September 11 and the explosions that occurred after it, especially those that happened in the Kingdom itself and those in Europe? Is it for the sake of earning commissions and brokerage fees, as has been the case with the agreements on British weapons in the past?

After Saddam’s tyrannical and ultimately failed invasion of Kuwait, the return of the status quo in early 1991 was at the hands of mostly American forces. From there, the invasion of Iraq by Bush, Jr., and the neoconservative gang has directed the entire region because it is in the American fist and is held by stranglehold. The U.S. does not allow any other power to become involved in the affairs of the region, and at the same time, does not allow any power within the region to form any kind of impediment or delay to its plans. All of this is in connivance and coordination with the rest of the West, which makes do with the crumbs from America’s table. It is clear that Congress with its lobbies, and especially the Jewish lobby, facilitates the conditions on the ground for American domination, so that Israel can benefit from it, maintain its occupation and wrap up its settlement-building efforts.

The strategy of great defense outlays and armaments efforts troubles even the amateur economist. This is the case especially with regard to the Kingdom, which has not yet reached the economic level of a country like Israel, which not only has higher incomes but also a national network of social benefits. The Kingdom is extensive, and its various regions are in need of true development in every field of economic activity, including manufacturing, agriculture and administration, each a thousand times more than it needs weapons. Excessive military investment does not lead to true development of any kind. All of these weapons, regardless of their current level of sophistication and power, will be obsolete garbage within five years. Science, especially military science, is always developing these days. It does not stop developing in a given year or any period of time, nor with a given form, model, type or concept. The only benefit that will be derived from having these weapons at that time will be to sell them for scrap metal, because by that time, their yearly upkeep will outstrip their military usefulness.

The creation of imaginary enemies is a strategy that imperialist powers have employed for a long time under the heading of the phrase “divide and rule.” Without simplifying or generalizing things, it is possible to say that the Kingdom’s interests are different from those of the Iranians. Still, the remarkable thing is the harmony that generally prevails. The disparate interests of these states lead to confrontation sometimes, but nothing to merit this massive military build-up. It is as though the Kingdom is building up its defenses against mythical chimeras or griffons. Countries that are next to each other ought to be left alone to get along peacefully and amicably, whereas countries far away ought to be dealt with according to the twentieth century “Stimpson Doctrine.”

The best way to rule, and the one that is closest to the people, is sustainable development and not military build-up. The latter is the leading cause of foreign interventions, bloodshed, internal and external convulsions, and the creation of a military caste within a state, whereas development encourages feelings of security, stability, a comfortable lifestyle and a flourishing society. Development is more durable and long-lasting than an arms build-up, which creates a class that does not perform work with the exception of soldiering. It entails expenditures that are not conducive to economic growth but are wasteful. Development is a wager, but it is one that places trust in the people and their happiness, whereas the idea of a weapons build-up is characterized by oppression, destruction and the hooting of death owls* crying out for vengeance.

*Translator’s Note: Arabs used to believe that the spirit of a murdered man continues to wail and weep until his death is avenged. They believed that a bird that they called “al Sada” (or the death-owl) would continue to hoot over the grave of a slain man whose death had not been avenged. The bird would continue to hoot endlessly until the slain man’s death was avenged.