War industry
For instance, the Bush government’s missile defense program that is used as a pre-emptive, pro-active and unilateralist offensive system against what its neo-conservative groups call regimes possessing nuclear weapons such as China, Russia, North Korea and, Iran in the Middle East, has been giving enormous profits to nuclear arms manufacturers whose interests are represented right within the government. The missile defense program reveals the role of corporate and institutional interests in developing modern nuclear technology and weapons – including a new generation of lower-yield nuclear weapons and long-range conventional strike systems – as a major part of U.S. military strategy.
The Bush administration’s new nuclear doctrine under its Nuclear Posture Review[1] replaces the previous doctrine of “deterrence” with “unilateral-assured destruction, American style.”[2] This new, pro-active and offensive missile program guarantees continuing and lucrative defense contracts to corporate war industries giving impetus to the Bush administration’s early decision to pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Some of the major corporate beneficiaries of projects clinched from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) in the new missile defense program are: Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, Raytheon, Bechtel, and the University of California which runs the Los Alamos and Livermore nuclear weapons laboratories.
It has been easy for these corporate weapons and systems manufacturers to secure multi-billion projects considering that their interests are well-entrenched in the Bush administration with the presence, as of 2002, of 32 key cabinet officials or major policy makers who, before they were appointed in government, had significant financial ties to the arms industry (as compared with 21 appointees with ties to the energy industry) including Vice President Dick Cheney.[3] These arms manufacturers including their trading partners and powerful lobby groups have also contributed huge campaign funds to their patrons in the U.S. Congress’ House and Senate armed services committees who are also major advocates for nuclear weapons and missile defense programs.
World’s largest arms market
Under the regime of the “war against terrorism,” the Asia Pacific region most especially East Asia and Southeast Asia has become the world’s largest market for arms overtaking the Near East, with the U.S. as the biggest arms exporter. During the period 2002-2005, Asia Pacific accounted for nearly half – or $43.6 billion – of all arms transfer agreements made with the developing world. Four countries in East Asia – China, South Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia – were among the top arms importers together with India and Pakistan.[4]
The U.S. has been the single largest arms supplier to the region that remains a big market for the U.S. weapons industry. From 1998-2005, it delivered more than $21 billion worth of arms to the region or 35 percent of all U.S. arms exports in the world. Clearly, the recent interests in arms exports have been driven by economic considerations alongside military-strategic reasons (alliance-building, interoperability, geopolitical, etc.).[5]
Imperialist-driven market globalization has also resulted in weapons globalization, with the U.S. dominating the global arms market.[6] In fact since the 1970s, arms transfers have been a primary instrument of U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. uses arms exports and joint military exercises to gain access to overseas bases and to establish the infrastructure and interoperability necessary for U.S. intervention.[7] Other strategic rationales include preserving the defense industrial base (said to employ many Americans) and maintaining “regional stability” favorable for U.S. trade and investment and other interests.
Most important, military assistance and training bring economic benefits to arms producers and traders. As Alexander Watson, former assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs said in reference to U.S. training programs in South America, “training programs bring certain economic benefits as well; they give Latin and Caribbean officials experience using American hardware, and thus can influence their future procurement decisions.”
Expansive military plans
Hyping about the alleged threats posed by “terrorist groups” as well as the military power ambitions of China and North Korea’s nuclear threats justifies expansive military plans in the region. This has been the underlying motive in the U.S.’ obstructionist policy against the reunification of the two Koreas and its silence on Pyongyang’s proposal regarding a non-aggression treaty with the U.S.[8] As the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) would put it, “Reunification threatens vital U.S. interests in Korea…the loss of the ROK as the sixth largest importer of U.S. arms.” American threats against China’s takeover of Taiwan by force also benefit the U.S. arms industry: Taiwan remains the biggest recipient of U.S. arms exports in East Asia.
In the case of Japan, the changing U.S.-Japan security alliance structure is becoming increasingly dependent on Japan’s military contribution for maintaining U.S. military objectives in East Asia and the Middle East. Tokyo is also under obligation to bear part of the costs of maintaining U.S. military facilities in Okinawa again to the benefit of the U.S. arms industry.[9]
The U.S. government foresees the need to tap Japanese industries for U.S. military purposes. With the help of U.S. nuclear technology, Japan has a stockpile of plutonium enough to manufacture 4,000 nuclear warheads.[10]
An integrated defense system and the ‘invisible hand’
The present military pre-eminence in East Asia of U.S. imperialism and the objectives that it addresses is not only seen in the system of military bases, naval fleets, forward deployed forces, missile defense, arms sales and other projects and the pre-emptive wars of aggression that are launched every now and then. U.S. military supremacy is well-entrenched through a sophisticated system of decision-making and management that begins in the Pentagon and White House in Washington, DC, extends to the U.S. Pacific Command, diplomatic missions and other agencies.
