THE TRANSFER OF WEALTH FROM THE SOUTH TO THE NORTH/109come France, Britain, Germany, Russia (whose sales have been on
the decline since the collapse of the USSR) and China. These
economic giants all have public sector companies or MNCs in the
arms trade, constantly on the lookout to conquer new markets.
While companies in other sectors are being privatised one after the
other, the arms industry is quite happy to remain under state control.
Private arms manufacturers also derive tremendous advantages
from the military and economic power of their respective states,
which help them find customers for their killing machines.
Developing countries account for about 15 per cent of global arms
purchases. While this in no way justifies such spending, it is
important to keep in mind given the share of the world's population
(80 per cent) that lives in developing countries.
Contrary to what many in the North often hear and think, Third
World countries are not the world's main spenders on arms.
It is significant that 'countries that devote major spending to the
military (more than four per cent of GNP) receive about twice as
much ODA per capita as those whose arms spending is less (between
two and four per cent of GNP)' (UNDP, 1992).
In its 1994 report, the UNDP returns to this subject: 'Assistance
more frequently goes to strategic allies than to poor countries. ...
Until 1986, donor countries provided on average five times more
in bilateral aid to countries with high arms spending than to those
whose arms spending was low.
In 1992, [high arms spenders] were still receiving two-and-a-
half times more aid per capita than [low arms spenders]. (UNDP,
1994)Israel, for example, an American strategic ally in the Middle East,
receives SI76 in US aid for each poor person while Bangladesh
receives only SI.70.
The authors of the 1994 UNDP report draw attention to the double
standards of the industrialised countries' governments:
Some donors argue that discrimination against countries with
high military spending would violate their national sovereignty.
This is a surprising argument given that donors are not so
reluctant to violate national sovereignty in a large number of other
government policy fields.