South Asia and the international arms trade

Tom Lansford

South Asia remains one of the mostvolatile regions of the world. Continued arms sales and weaponstransfers only exacerbate both ongoing and potential conflicts in the area.
However, significant declines in the overall volume and profits of the globaldefence industry have increased domestic pressure on national governments toexpand their market-share and continue arms sales to regions in conflict. Since1985, the overall total of global purchases of major weapons systems has declined byhalf. Concurrently, the sale of small arms and light weapons has increased.
South Asia provides an example of the correlation between aggressive new mar-keting strategies by defence companies and heightened support for arms sales as acomponent of foreign policy by the major arms producing nations, including theUnited States, Russia and the large Western European states.

The revived arms trade in South Asia

The twin nuclear tests by Pakistan and India in 1998 and the subsequent military coup in Pakistan led to significant sanc-tions against both states in terms of arms and weapons. Although the United Statesand the major Western European states imposed restrictions on sales to the twocountries, both governments were still able to purchase arms and ammunition.
    India continued to be supplied by Russia, while Pakistan was able to continue topurchase Chinese weaponry. Tensions over the disputed territory of Kashmir havecreated the world's largest minefield as a buffer between the two states, even as con-ventional ground forces and paramilitary groups undertake incursions and engagein small scale combat on a regular basis.
    In the aftermath of the 11 Septemberattacks on the United States, the major restrictions against both states weredropped. This action marked a transition in US policy away from efforts to contain thespread of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in the region to open militarysupport for a country--Pakistan--that had been the subject of sanctions because of itsnuclear programme, the military coup, and its support for international terrorism.
    For instance, although the United States enacted Section 508 of the 2001Foreign Operations Appropriations Act-- which bans the sale or transfer of weaponryto nations where the legal government has been overthrown--the Bush adminis-tration authorised $100 million in military aid for Pakistan that same year. Thisaid included the transfer of six AH-64 Apache helicopters and other high-techequipment, such as night-fighting gear and advanced communications equip-ment. The administration also provided $47 million for the Northern Alliance topurchase Soviet-era weaponry from Russia.
    Russia has also signed contracts to sellits advanced attack helicopter, the Mi-16, to Pakistan, while continuing to upgradeIndian military capabilities, including intermediate range missiles and compo-nents of an anti-missile defence system. By 2001, India had become the thirdlargest importer of weaponry behind China and Taiwan and has increased its armsimports by 50 percent from the 1990s.
    After declining through the mid--andlate--1990s, South Asia once again imports conventional military equipmentworth more than one billion US dollars per year. From 1993 to 2002, militaryexpenditures in the region increased by 44 percent. Pakistan continues to spend morethan $2 billion per year and India spends more than $15 billion (or approximatelyone-sixth of the nation's budget). On a comparative basis, the Stockholm Interna-tional Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) points out that India now ranks thirdbehind the US and China in terms of defence expenditures as a percentage ofpurchasing power parity rates.

The impact on the region

One further unfortunate result of the 2001 Al Qaeda attacks is that this sub-stantial increase in the amount, sophistication and diversity of arms and weaponscontinues to expand dramatically even as tensions between Pakistan and Indiaremain heightened.
    The flow of arms into the region con-tinues at two levels. First, on a state level, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan each seekto acquire ever more sophisticated military technology. Besides raising tensionson both sides of the border, this tendency also suggests that there will be continuedproliferation of weaponry.
    As the United States discovered as aresult of its efforts to use arms transfers to achieve policy goals in Iraq andAfghanistan, sophisticated arms are often resold to other states. Under a licensingdeal, India will begin the domestic production of the T-90 tank and the governmenthas indicated that it intends to try to sell the weapons system abroad. Various offi-cials in the India government, including the defence minister, George Fernandes,have stated that the government seeks to increase its military exports from the cur-rent level of $20.7 million to $200 million.
    Government spending on expensivemilitary equipment and the defence industrial complex undermines domesticand international efforts to improve quality of life. For instance, India ranked 127out of 175 nations in the 2003 UN Human Development Index, a declinefrom 115 in 2001. Meanwhile Pakistan ranked 144, a decline from 127 in 2001.

Talibanisation

Second, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan, there is thriving trade in illegal,or often quasi-legal, small arms and light weapons. Repeated studies by interna-tional groups such as the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research hasdemonstrated clear links between the international trade in small arms and var-ious forms of crime, including narco-trafficking and terrorism. Particularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the ease with which people canacquire weapons, including rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles, hasfuelled ongoing internal strife. In Afghanistan, large stockpiles of arms haveallowed regional warlords to reassert themselves in the wake of the fall of theTaliban regime.
International peacekeeping forces, nowunder the auspices of NATO, can only maintain order in the region around Kabuland must rely on the goodwill of un-elected warlords to perpetuate a fragile peace.
In Pakistan, the influx of small arms and light weapons along the border regionhas created an area that is essentially outside the control of the central government.In these renegade provinces, the combination of ready weaponry and religiousextremism has created new havens for terrorist groups and worsened the growing"Talibanisation" of the sub-state groups opposed to the central government forreligious reasons, rather than because the Islamabad regime is undemocratic.

The need for new policies

Central to any effort to reduce tensions in the region is the resolution of the Kashmirissue. However, major powers around the world, including the United States, theEuropean Union and Russia, have thus far been reluctant to attempt to mediate inthe conflict for fear of alienating either Pakistan or India. What is most needed isthe attention of the major powers either through the UN Security Council orthrough an ad hoc "contact group" such as that developed during the Balkan crisis.
Concurrently, the United States needs to expand its non-military aid to theregion. Already a significant opportunity has been missed in Afghanistan wheresubstantial reconstruction aid in the aftermath of the fall of the Taliban could havespurred economic growth and diluted the power of regional warlords.
Likewise the Bush administration's cancelling of $1 billion in Pakistani debtwas a positive step. However, the administration's current plan which providesabout $600 million annually for aid to the country is evenly divided betweeneconomic and military aid. The major arms exporting nations of the world needto re-evaluate their policy priorities and emphasise economic aid over arms trans-fers and weapons sales, even though domestic arms manufacturers will be likelyto oppose such actions.

Tom Lansford is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Southern Mississippi, in Long Beach, Mississippi, USA.