No one deals in arms as a necessity. Arms are more of an extreme want, perhaps even an addiction. They are a status symbol and a way to keep up with the Joneses across the border. And that’s because if Mr Jones has a gun and knows that I don’t, he’ll come over to my house and make it his. If that’s paranoia talking, then it comes from historical precedence when countries knocked on each other’s front doors asking to borrow sugar… and if possible, the rest of the premises as well, never mind the original residents. Look, if everyone respected each other’s rights to property, there would be no need for arms at all. But as long as one neighbour has a gun, so must everyone else. Today, borders are more secure than ever, making it more difficult for Mr Jones to be a visitor bearing arms. Opportunist that he is, he might as well make a quick buck by making more and selling them instead to all his neighbours. The result is the same: personal enrichment–without the mess.
Besides, it’s a bit optimistic to propose that there are greater levels of international cooperation now. Although countries are more open to dialogue as equals today, they are still just as likely to strike a better deal at best, or if things don’t go their way, just strike fast, strike hard. Although open conflict has decreased significantly, a few very visible hotspots that could still spill over into as yet unaffected areas such as Ukraine and Gaza, and the somewhat erratic posturing of the United States while giving the impression of withdrawing from global leadership still keep the global arms trade consistent in an increasingly uncertain political future for the countries of the world.
Suppose we entertained the idealistic scenario in which we did achieve a level of demilitarized international cooperation. Would we stop buying arms? The thing with international cooperation is that it is predicated on the concept of “nation” and how the different nations can view each other as equals. Nations are recognised by other nations respecting their sovereign borders that protect the resources, and the cultures of the people residing within them. It is said that good fences make good neighbours, and good fences are buttressed with good weapons on both sides. As weapons need maintenance and worn out and obsolete parts replaced, and the occasional upgrade would be nice too, such requirements will keep the arms trade going, despite all the lovely cooperation going around. Ironic that weapons development, too, is one of the ways nations cooperate with each other. The Typhoon Eurofighter, for example, is quite celebrated as a weapons concept put together through the collaboration of several European countries including the UK, France and Germany.
Distasteful as it is, weapons are a definitive human thing. Having little by way of natural biological defences, I grant it was necessary for our ancestors to make the best use of our opposable thumbs and pick up sticks and rocks to fend off predators. Yet I contend that it was overkill for us to turn that small advantage into the military industrial complex it has evolved into and its market which commands so much of the world’s economy today. And even in this new era of increased global cooperation, given how complex and fragile our political relationships still are, the arms trade is less of a necessity but more of an inevitability we made for ourselves.
(578 words)
Inspired by Singapore-Cambridge GCE ‘A’ Level H1 General Paper (Paper 1) 2020 Question #7
Author’s note: I’m considering this essay to be a work-in-progress. I’ll fix it. Promise.