skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Japan to Become The Newest, Most Voracious Arms Buyer , Germany among biggest sellers...
The Philippines would support Japan dropping its pacifist
constitution to become a fully fledged military force and act as a balance
against a rising China, a government spokesman said Monday.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Foreign Secretary
Albert del Rosario said the Philippines would strongly support a rearmed Japan
-- its World War II foe -- as a counterweight to what it sees as Chinese
provocation.
"We are looking for balancing factors in the region and
Japan could be a significant balancing factor," he told the paper amid growing
tensions over the South China Sea, almost all of which is claimed by
China.
Foreign department spokesman Raul Hernandez confirmed the
government's view that Japan should upgrade its military from a self defence
force so that it has more freedom to operate in the region.
"(Del Rosario) said we are in favour of Japan's gaining
strength," Hernandez told AFP.
Japan occupied the Philippines for more than three years
from December 1941, during which suspected guerrillas were tortured and
executed, and some local women forced into prostitution to serve the occupying
army.
The war claimed at least a million civilian Philippine
lives, according to historians.
The newspaper interview comes shortly before a general
election in Japan where the front-runner, opposition leader Shinzo Abe, has said
he wants to revise the country's pacifist constitution, imposed by the US after
the war.
China claims most of the South China Sea, including waters
close to the shores of its neighbours. These areas include major sea lanes and
are believed to hold vast mineral and oil resources.
China's claim is contested by the Philippines as well as
Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam, which have overlapping claims to some or
all of those same areas.
In April, Chinese patrol vessels prevented the Philippine
Navy from arresting a group of Chinese fishermen at the Scarborough Shoal, which
is close to the main Philippine island of Luzon and which Manila says is part of
its territory.
Manila says China has continued to station patrol vessels in
the area even after the Philippines withdrew its vessels and called for a
peaceful resolution to the dispute according to international law.
Earlier this month, the Philippines asked China to clarify
press reports Chinese authorities had authorised its forces to interdict ships
entering what Beijing considers its territorial waters.
China and Japan are also in dispute over islands in the East
China Sea that are controlled by Tokyo.
STOCKHOLM
(IDN) - Germany is among the world’s largest arms exporters, though estimates of
the magnitude of the country’s arms sales and of its ranking among arms traders
differ. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Germany was the fifth largest exporter
of major conventional weapons in 2011 behind the USA, Russia, France and
China.
The
U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the other hand ranks the country
as the sixth largest arms exporter. The CRS estimates the financial value of
German arms deliveries in 2011 at $1.6 billion (in 2011 U.S. dollars), or
approximately 4 per cent of global arms exports. This ranked Germany behind the
USA, Russia, the UK, France and Italy.
The
CRS annual report Conventional Arms Transfers
to Developing Nations 2004-2011 aims to assist the U.S. Congress "in its
oversight role of assessing how the current nature of the international weapons
trade might affect U.S. national interests". The report provides the estimated
financial value of arms export agreements and deliveries from the largest arms
exporters to all regions of the world in constant and current U.S. dollars for
the previous eight calendar years.
The
CRS report covers transfers to governments of "all categories of weapons and
ammunition, military spare parts, military construction, military assistance and
training programs, and all associated services". This definition is much broader
than SIPRI’s, according to the organisation's latest fact sheet titled Measuring international
arms transfers.
For
data on U.S. arms export agreements and deliveries, the CRS report relies on
information on government-to-government Foreign Military Sales (FMS). On the
sources of data for non-U.S. countries, the CRS simply states that "Statistics
for foreign countries are based upon estimated selling prices", although it is
believed that the CRS draws on classified U.S. Government sources.
The
SIPRI fact sheet authors Paul Holtom, Mark Bromley and Verena Simmel are of the
view that CRS figures for non-U.S. arms exporters are often lower than official
government financial values for export licences granted and arms
exports.
SIPRI
has identified 34 states that have provided official data on the financial value
of their "arms exports", "licences for arms exports" or "arms export agreements"
to the public for at least 6 years in the period 2001–2010 and for which the
average of the reported values exceeds $10 million. This official data can be
provided either in a national report on arms exports, another type of government
report, a press release or via an attributed or unattributed quote in a media
report.
The
SIPRI researchers say that public announcements on the financial value of states’
arms exports cannot be easily compared due to differences in the definitions of
"arms" used and the fact that many states provide information only on the
financial value of either proposed arms exports or completed deliveries.
Information on the value of proposed arms exports and completed deliveries of
arms refer to different activities, and so should not be directly compared, they
add.
States use
different methods for collecting and reporting information on the financial value
of proposed arms exports or completed deliveries. Data on proposed arms exports
can be based on the value of either arms export agreements concluded or export
licences issued, which represent two different data sets. Data on deliveries of
arms can be based on data provided by the national customs authorities or
company reporting on export licences used, which again represent two different
data sets.
CRS
data not sufficiently detailed
The
CRS estimated the financial value of German arms deliveries in 2011 to be $1.6
billion (in 2011 U.S. dollars), or approximately 4 per cent of global arms
exports. This ranked Germany as the sixth largest exporter of major conventional
weapons in 2011, behind the USA, Russia, the UK, France and Italy.
The
SPRI fact sheet authors note that the CRS data is not sufficiently detailed to
gain an understanding of which deliveries account for the stated value of German
arms exports. The CRS report includes tables detailing the numbers of weapon
systems delivered, but these are aggregated over 3-year periods and by weapon
category and region, rather than weapon description and destination. Further,
there is no separate entry for German exports.
According to
the CRS, the financial value of German arms transfer agreements concluded in 2011
totalled $100 million (in current U.S. dollars), or 0.1 per cent of the global
total value of arms transfer agreements, ranking Germany as the 7th largest
supplier listed by CRS.
There
is insufficient open source information in the SIPRI Arms Transfers Database on
the financial value of arms transfer agreements concluded by Germany in 2011 to
corroborate this figure. However, comparisons between CRS data on arms transfer
agreements and publicly reported information on the value of signed arms export
contracts in previous years indicates a tendency for CRS to underestimate the
financial value of arms transfer agreements for states other than the
USA.
For
example, the 2007 CRS report stated that the financial value of Germany’s arms
export agreements with developing countries in 2006 was $1.9 billion, based on
an agreement with Brazil for licensed production of a Type ILK214 submarine and
the upgrading of existing Type 209 submarines, and from an Israeli order for two
Type 800 Dolphin class submarines.
However,
according to available open sources, the Brazil deal was worth approximately
$1.6 billion and the Israel deal was worth $1 billion. This gives a combined
value of at least $2.6 billion – $700 million more than the CRS estimate –
without taking into account other agreements concluded by Germany in
2006.
German
national report
The
German Government has published a national report on military equipment exports
(Rüstungsexportbericht) every year since 1999. The report provides information
on (a) the financial value of export licences granted and completed deliveries of
"war weapons" (Kriegswaffen); and (b) the financial value of export licences
granted for military equipment as defined in the German national control list
(i.e. which includes both war weapons and other military equipment that requires
an export licence).
Thus,
German official data on the financial value of arms export deliveries does not
include the value of the many items on the German national control list that are
not categorised as war weapons.
The
reported financial value of German deliveries of war weapons in 2011 was €1.3
billion ($1.65 billion), compared to €2.1 billion ($2.8 billion) in 2010. SIPRI
argues: Several major suppliers have not yet provided the financial value of
their arms deliveries in 2011, and so a comparison of the German Government’s
official financial value with its peers cannot be made for 2011. In 2010, in
terms of the financial value of deliveries of military equipment, Germany ranked
as the fourth largest arms exporter behind the USA, Russia and
France.
However, in
this case the German data is based solely on reporting on war weapons, which is
a narrower range of items than those covered by the U.S., Russian and French
data. In addition, such major exporters as China, Israel and the United Kingdom
do not provide information on the financial value of their arms
deliveries.
Precisely,
against this backdrop, SIPRI goes beyond the financial value and estimates the
volume of German arms exports in 2011 at 1.2 billion TIV (trend-indicator
value), or 4 per cent of global arms exports, down from 2.5 billion TIV in 2010
(10 per cent of the world total). TIV is a unique pricing system the SIPRI has
developed to measure the volume of deliveries of major conventional weapons and
components.
The
major recipients of German arms exports in 2011 were Brunei Darussalam
(accounting for 16 per cent of exports), USA (11 per cent), Singapore (7 per
cent), Spain (7 per cent) and Taiwan (6 per cent).
Tanks
and armoured vehicles represented 26 per cent of the volume of German major
conventional weapons exports in 2011, with ships accounting for 22 per cent,
engines 20 per cent, and missiles 15 per cent.
The
TIV of an item being delivered is intended to reflect its military capability
rather than its financial value. This common unit can be used to measure trends
in the flow of arms between particular countries and regions over time – in
effect, a military capability price index.
Therefore,
SIPRI says, it is important to ensure that the pricing system remains consistent
across both the weapon systems covered and over time, and that any changes
introduced are backdated.
Weapons that
have previously been used by another armed force (i.e. surplus weapons) are
given a value equal to 40 per cent of that of a new weapon. Used weapons that
have been significantly refurbished or modified by the supplier before delivery
are given a value of 66 per cent of the value when new.
The
overall volume of arms exports from a particular state in any given year is then
calculated by adding together the TIVs for the weapons and components delivered.
Since year-on-year deliveries can fluctuate, SIPRI uses 5-year moving averages to
provide a more stable measure for trends in international arms
transfers.
The
SIPRI TIV neither reflects the actual price paid for weapons nor represents
current dollar values for arms transfers. The TIV is therefore not comparable
directly with gross national product (GNP), gross domestic product (GDP),
military expenditure, sales values or the financial value of arms export
licences.
No comments:
Post a Comment