I posted this comment over at IEB, and am cross-posting it here

As a regular reader of your blog, I know that the issue of (American) arms sales to developing countries (Pakistan and India) is close to your heart. Looking only at the effect of the actions, your conclusions are logical and reasonable.

What I think your analysis should also consider is the centrality of the security dilemma and the fundamental nature of international relations. Realists like Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz and Mearshiemer will argue that conflict is inevitable in international relations. That’s what our own Vishnugupta aka Kautilya said two thousand years before Morgenthau. Realism does not present an optimistic view of the world, yet, offers the most accurate account of the affairs between states.

What this means is that it’s not America’s fault. If the Americans did not, the Russians will. If not the Russians, then the Israelis, Chinese etc. That’s how the North Korean missiles ended up in Pakistan. That’s how Pakistani nukes ended up in nasty places. Btw, Pakistan is becoming an exporter of conventional arms now (they had a very successful convention called IDEAS 2006 in Karachi recently). I don’t have numbers, but in terms of lethality (as opposed to high-tech) I would not be surprised if such things as landmines, AK-47s etc are claiming more lives than F-16s and bunker busters at the hands of developing countries.

States, therefore, have reasons to go to war. Your argument is that American foreign policy (through the sale of arms) is impoverishing the developing world. But American foreign policy too is driven by calculations of its own legitimate geopolitical interests. The sale of weapons becomes necessary in the pursuit of those interests. If I’m an American, I would care more for my own national interest rather than the well-being of some third world country. This does not, however, mean that all American foreign policies positions are well designed (there is no insurance against errors of judgement or plain old stupidity). One consequence of America’s pursuit of its own interest is an unfortunate arms race somewhere else in the world. But in all likelihood, that arms race would have occured even if America didn’t export the stuff.

—

While generals and politicians generally are the actors who ’start’ wars, I’m not so sure that ordinary Joes don’t believe it is necessary. It really depends on the nature of the war—if it’s a defensive war (eg in Kargil 1999-2000) you’ll find strong public opinion in favour of war. Wars of choice are a different matter.

While on this topic, please see my recent post on the future of war.

The issue of whether such an arms race benefits anyone is a different question altogether.

The film has a lengthy part showing how Aficans mess up themselves by buying these weapons. At that time, I did not think about us.

… but once joined, when to sto{p}

There have been several times that this game could have been put to a stop.
In 65, in 71…
Winning matters!
Who ever said it doesn’t is a damn loser.
A fundamental realization has to take place in india. Religion Matters.
Its Jihaad. Better take the jihaad to jihaadis. Its their wish to be a shahid and be with hooris and we should help them in doing so.
PS The arms going to pakistan is not only from US its from every one who sells arm.
Pakistan currently has more functional russian equipment than american.
Blaming america for all the problems is in fashion.
But thats a game that only impotents play.

If the other guy is gonna buy, I am always afraid & to get rid, go & buy it.

The way to win the Dollar-Auction game is not to play it all, but once joined, when to sto.
Wonder, where’s the end.

If you are alluding to Mark Twain’s work this should read “Tom” not “Sam”.

On a serious note the wepons industry is the symptom and not the disease. In fact i am not sure if there is a disease. It is in the nature of the species to conduct internecine genocide and as with all things natural there is a fractal element in human behavior.This is what allows us to see symmentry in local, continental and global conflicts. While this does not condone the behavior (we are after all a self proclaimed sentient species) i dont see to many paths out. Our social evolution has not kept up with our technological evolution. Till this balance is achieved (it can either be that we evolve a higher social concience or sink to a lower technology level) war and mass death are inevitable. My money is on sinking to a lower population and technology level. But then i was always the pessimist (realist?)

Atanu’s response: No, I really mean “Sam” as in Samuel L Clemens and not “Tom” as in Tom Sawyer, the character created by Sam writing as Mark Twain. If you read the post from which the excerpt is taken, it would be clear.

Culling the species? Yes, it is part of the evolutionary story of life on earth.