Today I learnt that the United Nations Security Council (members: United States, Russia, Great Britain, France and China) supplied 86.7% of the world’s arms (guns not limbs) in 2004. I also learnt that between 1998 and 2001, the US, Great Britain and France earned more from selling arms than they gave in aid. I’m not sure what to do with these wonderful learnings. (Source: Richard F Grimmett, “CRS Report for Congress: Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1997–2004”, via Hope in Troubled Times by Bob Goudzwaard et al)
4 responses to “”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
take comfort in the fact that all of the above generally supply both sides of most conflicts. I am reminded of Pink Floyyd’s ‘Dogs of War’
Print that post out onto recyclable paper. Eat it. Poo it out into a bag. Take that to an embassy somewhere, light it on fire. Then watch and laugh as someone tries to stamp it out. Because… heh, they’ll be standing on poo.
Does NZ as a country have any regulations on weapons or developing of military technology? I remember my final year uni project was of vague interest to the military and my professor (without my knowledge or consent) arranged for a very serious fellow who apparently had links to the US military to come and see it… I suspect NZ universities take no stance on development of military technology because its probably quite a profitable collusion. Of course NZ universities really take no moral or ethical stance on anything…
Another point I found worthwhile in BG’s book was that developing countries are pushed behind in technology and forced to buy off wealthy countries because they developed the technology and own all the IP (copyrights, patents etc.). This makes it pretty difficult for them to get off first base.
I find international economics involving Western and 3rd world countries to be most depressing.