Developing Countries and Trade

Global arms trade is an industry that is massive in the global arena as it is built on the foundation of having robust and continuing demand that is arising from the expenditure of military personnel. Moreover, this phenomenon includes new weapons systems procurement and refurbishment. Research shows that there are governments that spend more on military as compared to their infrastructure, health care, and development projects. Today, the proliferation of cheap weapons in countries like South Korea, Brazil, and Turkey that arms exporters consider as good. The occurrence of such an event sets to place America's dominance of the trade at a greater risk. For America producers, the repercussions will include grave economic situations if such arms exporters infiltrate the trade. Moreover, this will mean that Washington's global sway will encounter negative ramifications.

When the global arms market is flooded with relatively cheap and highly capable machinery systems, it is bound to increase the conflict profitability. In most cases, the conflict in question will be more high-tech, and this implies that the effects would be more devastating. In conceptualizing this trade, it is important to understand who produces, who buys and who benefits from the product. In the past three decades, the number of countries engaging in the production of weapon systems around the world has expanded significantly. For example, in Korea, they are producing lightweight fighter jets (T-50) and armored vehicles plus artillery systems. South Africa is also seen to be in the massive production of air-to-air missiles. From this survey, it is evident that many of the countries in the globe have managed to successful enter the market dealing with global arms. Nonetheless, the number of arms that these countries have handled on a global scale is relatively small, unlike the United States. Reports show that the 1% value of arms deliveries in the world for ten countries was registered between 2000 and 2014. Contrastingly, in the same period, America managed to export arms that were worth U.S.$110 billion, which captures nearly one-third of the global market (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2012). The West European exporters who comprise Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy combined accounted for around twenty-two percent. On average, China's global arms trade is only around five percent.

The dealers of armor are seen to be selling power regarding acquiring the authority to challenge a country's status quo, back a regime, and legitimacy lent to an idea by a gun. In this respect, it is evident that industries continue to enjoy substantial annual revenues that exceed the GDP of small countries. Guns in the world of today are power and legitimacy symbols that are highly prized, and this has led to businesses selling the product indiscriminately because they are aware of enormous influence it has to the society. As such, traders in arms are implicated of giving support to ever-growing lists of armed juntas, violent coups and the plots of terrorists.

Who is buying and why?

Surveys have shown that from 2003 to 2010, the largest transfer agreements made of arms were geared to be delivered to developing countries. The biggest supplier became the United States who claimed forty percent; Russia was at twenty percent while the largest buyer is India at $5.8 billion weapons agreement in 2010. Estimates continue to suggest that India is bound to spend $9.63 billion on these agreements and its exporter Russia will supply eighty percent of the arms in question (Kramnik, 2012).

All in all, the people who benefit from all this are governments and businesses. Here, we look at manufacturers and distributors of these weapons since direct financial profits are received. Contrastingly, those states engaging in the exportation of weapons also benefit from their sales, but their primary goal is politics. In essence, it is through their offer of cutting-edge weaponry selling that has typically communist and technologically seen underdeveloped countries purchase the weapons. For the U.S., exerting political advantage to developing countries is possible in an attempt to make them adopt a positive foreign policy and even incentivize on the continuance of good behavior. Therefore, global arms trade looks at gaining political capital exchange rather than money because the capital is geared towards attaining beneficial policy decisions. An example is the acquisition of favorable trade conditions offered to the country as a reward for their democratic movements.

Furthermore, the countries that receive the arms also obtain military advantage and at the same time, gain numerous secondary benefits. For developing countries, the purchase of the arms looks at strengthening their offensive and defensive capabilities. Secondarily, developing countries are in a position of transforming their massive purchase of arms into relationships that are politically enduring and thus, will encourage leniency. For instance, the Bahraini regime has continually abused the rights of their people, but the Obama administration made an agreement to continue selling them weapons and other anti-personnel equipment. The reason is that the country has been known to oppose any form of democratic protests openly (Koring, 2012).

The global arms trade is seen as either responsible or irresponsible and millions of people continue to suffer the direct and indirect consequences of the trade. For instance, thousands of people are left injured, killed, women are raped, while some are forced to flee their homes and live in conditions that expose them to constant weapon threat. Since there is no law regulating such an exercise, they have managed to fuel conflict, human rights abuses, and poverty among populations in the world. Such problems have been compounded by the increase in globalization activities for the arms trade as they are easily sourced from across the world. Moreover, the assembly and production of the arms are done globally with little government restrictions in place. Countries have developed significant national and regional controls even though this step is not enough to stop the widespread irresponsible transfer of arms experienced between countries. As such, an active and vigorous Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was delivered by Oxfam to help in saving people's lives. Besides, ATT was geared at preventing the abuses of human rights and protecting the livelihoods of different people around the globe.