But military conflicts have always been big business: the balance sheet has remained in favour of the arms industry. Even the news of an impending war send stock markets soaring and oil prices zooming to new heights.

Perhaps the biggest single beneficiary is the US arms industry whose multi-million dollar contributions to political parties at election time have to be compensated before the party is out in the wilderness.

The only exceptions are the self-made billionaire politicians who spend mostly their own monies either to get elected to office or lose.

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New City, set a new record when he spent over $75.5 million on his election. John Corzine, a Democrat who was elected Senator for the state of New Jersey, spent $69 million.

And Ross Perot, who was a third-party candidate at one of the US presidential elections, invested $63.5 million- and lost. But the overwhelming majority of American politicians are virtual prisoners of big corporations and conglomerates which finance elections in the hope of getting back their returns one day. The arms industry-whose very survival depends on military conflicts throughout the world- is one of the strongest political lobbies in Washington.

In the war on Afghanistan, the US air force deployed over 6,000 satellite-guided bombs, far more than what was anticipated.

The Boeing Company, one of the world's biggest arms manufacturers, have now received increased orders helping to step up production, from 2,000 bombs a month to 2,800 a month.

The 1991 Gulf War cost about $61 billion, mostly underwritten by Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Since the US is planning a unilateral military attack on Iraq, the costs of the impending war is to be borne mostly by American taxpayers.

A study by the House Budget Committee Democrats released last week said that a war against Iraq could cost as much as $93 billion. And the added costs of humanitarian relief and post-war reconstruction of Iraq could push the figure to over $100 billion.

The staggering cost is far in excess of even the annual gross domestic product (GDP) of countries such as Egypt ($98.7 billion), Ireland ($93.6 billion), Singapore ($92.3 billion), Malaysia ($89.7 billion) and the Philippines ($74.7 billion). The beating of war drums has also caused jitters in the world oil market.

The price of a barrel of crude oil, which averaged around $23 last year, has moved up to about $30. Sheikh Zaki el-Yamani, a former head of the Organisation for Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), warned last week that the price of oil could triple to about $100 a barrel if war breaks out in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, there is a sharp division of opinion both in and outside the US over the justification for military action against Iraq.

Last week, the warning also came from former US Vice President Al Gore who said that a new war in the Middle East could "severely damage" the US war on global terrorism and "weaken" American leadership in the world.

Even the UN Security Council has been dragging its feet refusing to give President George W. Bush a blank cheque for a war on Iraq. Only British Prime Minister Tony Blair is standing by Bush - right or wrong. If the US anticipates strong opposition to its proposed resolution against Iraq, it is very unlikely to risk a veto before the Security Council. So the horse-trading has begun behind closed doors. France, China, and Russia, who wield veto powers along with the US and Britain, have come under intense American pressure.

The next few weeks will determine whether these countries will stand firm or sell-out to the United States.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster