Arms in the Third World Countries

Ninety-three countries in the Third World are receiving arms from abroad. In 1974, 57 percent of these nations devoted over 10 percent of their government budgets to military expenditures, 30 percent spent over 20 percent, and 25 percent spent over 25 percent of their budgets on the military. Since then, not only the amounts of military expenditures but also their shares of national income and government budgets have increased greatly. In Africa the annual growth of military expenditures increased from 8 percent in the five-year period before 1973 to 15 percent in the five-year period following that year. The biggest increases and the largest amounts spent on the military have been in the Middle East. There total arms expenditures approximately equal those of the rest of the Third World put together. Middle Eastern military expenditures were about 11 percent of regional GNP in 1973 and 17 percent in 1975. In 1974 military expenditures as a percentage of GNP were 32 percent in Israel, 23 percent in Egypt, 14 to 15 percent in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan, and 9 percent in Iran. In 1977 military expenditures were $7.9 billion (or 24 percent of the government budget) in Iran, $7.5 billion in Saudi Arabia, $4.4 billion (or 37 percent of the budget) in Egypt, and $4.3 billion (or 35 percent of the budget) in Israel.

The same pattern of military expenditures, albeit on a lesser scale, is apparent elsewhere: Since South Vietnam's Fall World's Arms Salesmen Find Southeast Asia a Big Market

The non-Communist nations of Southeast Asia, all strengthening their military forces in the wake of South Vietnam's defeat, have become a big market for international arms salesmen . . . [with] concluded or pending deals that total about $1.1 billion. . . . The forces are being strengthened far less for any external threat than to counter local insurgencies. . . . Cash deals exceed military aid to the area for the first time. The biggest arms purchaser may be Thailand. . .

Mary Kaldor argues that high levels of military spending . . . can be partly explained by the direct role of the armed forces in the allocation of resources, absorbing surplus product created in the countryside and mobilizing its expenditure in towns. . . . The benefits accrue to small groups in towns and the metropolis. . . . Whereas military expenditure previously consisted largely of expenditure of foreign exchange and could be seen as a method of channelling resources from the periphery to the metropolis, now the bourgeoisie can claim a larger share of the surplus product and military expenditure can also be seen as a method of channelling resources from countryside to town. Military expenditure is paid largely out of surplus generated in the countryside but it is spent in the metropolis and the towns. . . . This is the role that the industrial army plays in the allocation of resources. It is a role that is not peculiar to arms expenditure.