Lord of War (2005), starring Nicolas Cage as Yuri Orlov, depicts an illegal arms dealer whose career commenced in the US before he began operating globally. The film was inspired by the true stories of several international arms smugglers. Despite Orlov being an illicit trafficker, the narrative effectively highlights how the substantial surplus of weaponry following the Cold War, particularly from the former Soviet bloc, flooded the global market, and how major nations (including the US) frequently permitted dealers like Orlov to operate for the sake of geopolitical advantage. The film is a satire which shows that illegal arms dealers often become the 'scapegoats' for the realpolitik interests of the great powers.The prevailing sentiment among critics regarding the ongoing Israel-Palestine ceasefire is one of deep fragility and scepticism, primarily because the truce fails to address the underlying structural issues of the conflict. While the cessation of major hostilities and the return of some hostages have been acknowledged as positive steps, many observers assert that the agreement merely constitutes a temporary pause, not a conclusive end to the violence, especially since both sides have been quick to accuse the other of violations, severely testing the deal's durability.International humanitarian and human rights organisations, in their collective assessment, have been vociferous and explicit in demanding that states like the United States immediately cease all weapons transfers to the government of Israel to prevent further complicity in potential international crimes. These groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, insist that such arms transfers, encompassing munitions, components, and parts, must be halted because there exists an overriding and clear risk that these weapons will be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law against Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Furthermore, they adamantly call upon the US Congress and the Trump Administration to impose an immediate suspension of lethal military aid as long as Israel's actions, such as the severe and arbitrary obstruction of humanitarian aid and the continued high civilian death toll, suggest a blatant disregard for international and US legal obligations, thus rendering any assurances provided by the Israeli government as entirely non-credible. Finally, many experts highlight that this imperative to implement a full arms embargo is significantly heightened by the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) ruling, which found a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza, compelling all states to use every reasonable means at their disposal to prevent such acts.By the way, why do critics mention the US arms trade? Because the United States undoubtedly derives significant financial benefit from the global arms trade, a phenomenon deeply embedded in both its governmental operations and the private sector. It is a well-established fact that American defence contractors, such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, consistently top the international rankings for arms sales, generating staggering revenues that directly enrich their shareholders and executives. The US government's enormous defence budget, which is the largest in the world, acts as the primary client for these businesses, securing their profitability through massive procurement contracts for equipment. Furthermore, the State Department's authorisation of vast foreign military sales to allies generates revenue for the national coffers through associated fees and taxes, cementing the nation's role as the world's foremost arms exporter. Therefore, both the state's budget and its business elites are intricately linked to, and profit handsomely from, the continual transaction of weaponry.The dominance of the United States in the international arms market is absolutely staggering, commanding a profoundly significant share of global arms exports. According to recent data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) for the period between 2020 and 2024, the United States accounted for a formidable 43 per cent of all global arms exports, a figure which solidifies its position as the undisputed premier supplier of major conventional weaponry worldwide. This astonishing market share is more than four times that of the next largest exporter, France, and represents a notable increase in American market control over the preceding five-year period. This unprecedented volume of sales sees the US delivering major armaments to over 100 countries globally, with Saudi Arabia being the largest single recipient of these exports, followed by Ukraine and then Japan, demonstrating the vast and varied reach of the American defence industry.Understanding the context behind the United States' dominance in the global arms trade requires looking at its history, particularly from the mid-20th century onwards, and identifying the multifaceted factors that underpin this immense commercial and political enterprise.The foundation for the United States' current dominance was firmly laid in the aftermath of World War II, and its leadership status became solidified throughout the Cold War (roughly 1947–1991).During World War II, the US became known as the "Arsenal of Democracy," a country capable of mass-producing advanced and high-quality military equipment on an unprecedented scale. Following 1945, the subsequent geopolitical rivalry with the Soviet Union transformed this massive industrial capability into a long-term foreign policy instrument, notably through programmes like the Lend-Lease Act initially, and later through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system. While the US and the Soviet Union competed for the title of the largest exporter during the Cold War era, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to the significant decline of Russian arms exports, subsequently leaving the United States as the uncontested and dominant global arms merchant from the post-Cold War period to the present day.The reasons the United States maintains its unparalleled position as the top arms exporter are rooted in a combination of strategic, political, and economic imperatives:First, Geopolitical Strategy and Alliances: Arms sales serve as a paramount tool of US foreign policy, allowing Washington to fortify its extensive network of global alliances (such as NATO, and key partnerships in Asia and the Middle East). By supplying advanced weapons, the US directly supports the military readiness of allied nations, ensuring interoperability—meaning their equipment can easily work alongside US forces—thereby extending American influence and ensuring its geopolitical interests are protected worldwide.Second, Unmatched Technological Superiority: The US defence industry is consistently at the forefront of military innovation, producing some of the world's most sophisticated and technologically advanced platforms, such as the F-35 stealth fighter and various precision-guided missile systems. This technological edge creates high demand among nations that seek to modernise their militaries with superior capabilities that often cannot be matched by competitors.Third, Economic Sustenance of the Defence Industry (The Profit Motive): Arms exports are vital to the health of the vast American military-industrial complex. Foreign sales provide US defence contractors with massive revenue streams, which in turn support high-skilled domestic jobs and fund the costly research and development required to keep the US military technologically ahead. Simply put, selling abroad helps to keep domestic production lines open and lowers the per-unit cost of weapons for the US military itself.Fourth, Security Commitments and Dependence: When a country purchases a major weapons system from the US, it often enters into a decades-long relationship that includes maintenance, spare parts, training, and upgrades. This arrangement creates a long-term security dependency on the US, making it difficult for the purchasing nation to switch suppliers, effectively locking them into the American sphere of influence.
In the case of Israel-Palestine, the United States unequivocally supplies weapons and security assistance to Israel; in fact, it acts as the nation's primary and most crucial source of military technology. This long-standing relationship is formally enshrined through a system of military grants and sales, predominantly channelled via the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) programme. This FMF funding, which is subject to a long-term, ten-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two countries, requires Israel to largely procure US-manufactured defence articles and services through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system. This arrangement ensures Israel receives access to some of the world's most advanced military hardware, including cutting-edge fighter aircraft and precision-guided munitions, which is a foundational element of the US commitment to maintaining Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge (QME) in the Middle East region.Israel's method of payment for most of its substantial military procurements from the United States is unique and primarily relies upon grant money provided directly by the US government, meaning the arms are generally not paid for using loans or Israeli national debt. This aid is channelled through the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) programme, which effectively gives Israel the required funds—currently set at $3.3 billion annually under the existing Memorandum of Understanding—to purchase US defence articles and services through the Foreign Military Sales system. Furthermore, Israel benefits from a unique provision called "Cash Flow Financing," allowing it to finance large, multi-year purchases, such as high-cost fighter jets, by essentially committing its future annual grant allocations as payment collateral. Historically, Israel was also permitted to convert a portion of this US grant money into Israeli currency for procurement from its own domestic defence industry, although this specific allowance is being gradually phased out under the current MOU. Crucially, the US is by far the largest single supplier of advanced weaponry; whilst Israel maintains a robust domestic defence industry and does engage in limited trade with other nations, the vast majority of its high-end systems and financing is derived from the American security relationship.The Foreign Military Financing (FMF) programme, particularly the substantial grant provided to Israel, yields several significant strategic, economic, and military benefits for the United States, extending far beyond a simple act of aid. Strategically, this investment ensures the presence of a powerful and technologically sophisticated ally in a highly volatile region, effectively offloading the burden of regional stability onto a capable partner who shares many common security interests, without requiring the deployment of large numbers of US ground troops. Economically, the vast majority of this grant money is mandated to be spent on US-manufactured defence articles and services, which acts as a powerful stimulus for the American defence industrial base; this practice supports tens of thousands of highly skilled American jobs, boosts US exports, and helps lower the unit costs of advanced weapons systems like fighter jets for the US military itself by keeping production lines running efficiently. Furthermore, this cooperation promotes military interoperability, allowing the US and Israeli forces to train, communicate, and operate seamlessly together, while the joint development of cutting-edge defence technologies, such as missile defence systems, provides the US military with access to battle-tested innovations.
[Bagian 6]Besides the United States, which undeniably maintains the dominant share of global arms exports, there are several other major nations whose arms industries significantly shape international security dynamics. Based on recent data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), two of the most prominent exporters are France and Russia.
France has solidified its position as one of the world's largest arms exporters, often ranking second globally in recent years, demonstrating a substantial and consistent rise in its share of the international market. French participation in this trade is driven primarily by two interconnected factors: economic necessity and the pursuit of strategic autonomy. Economically, large-scale arms exports are crucial for maintaining the viability and high technological readiness of France's domestic defence industrial base, as the national military's procurement alone would not sustain the complex research, development, and production costs, especially for major platforms like the Rafale fighter jet. Strategically, arms sales allow Paris to cultivate deep, long-term political and military partnerships with key nations, particularly in the Middle East and Asia, thereby projecting French influence and ensuring its geopolitical voice remains strong without relying solely on multilateral alliances.
Historically, the second-largest exporter, Russia, remains a major global player, though its share has recently declined due to the war in Ukraine and subsequent Western sanctions. Russia’s involvement in the arms trade is fundamentally rooted in economic diversification and the projection of geopolitical influence. Economically, arms sales remain one of Russia's most significant sources of foreign currency revenue outside of its energy exports, and they help to maintain the substantial military-industrial complex inherited from the Soviet era. Geopolitically, Russia uses arms transfers to maintain ties with former Soviet states and establish crucial partnerships with nations whose defence sectors rely on Russian equipment, such as India and various African and Middle Eastern states, thereby securing a global presence and challenging the dominance of Western military alliances.
Germany, as a major European industrial power, occupies a unique and often contradictory position in the global arms trade, frequently balancing its economic interests against its historically strict and ethically driven export policies, particularly when compared to other NATO allies. The primary motive for German arms exports is traditionally economic, specifically the need to sustain its highly advanced domestic defence industry and participate in collaborative European defence projects, which require export permissions to remain viable. However, German policy often imposes stringent political criteria, historically attempting to avoid transferring weapons to conflict zones or to regimes with documented human rights abuses, although this posture has recently become more flexible and pragmatic in response to current geopolitical crises, such as the conflict in Ukraine and shifting security alliances in the Middle East.Conversely, China's increasing role as a significant global arms supplier is driven primarily by strategic political objectives aimed at broadening its global influence, particularly across the Global South. China offers an attractive alternative to Western suppliers by marketing affordable, robust, and increasingly sophisticated military hardware—including popular drone and air-defence systems—often with the explicit benefit of imposing no political conditionality or human rights vetting on the recipient nation's domestic affairs. This approach allows Beijing to secure strategic partnerships, gain access to vital resources, and challenge the established dominance of the United States and Russia, thereby advancing its long-term aspiration of becoming a rival global military and political power.The rising prominence of South Korea and Turkey represents a significant disruption to the conventional, historically oligopolistic structure of the global arms trade, shifting market dynamics beyond the traditional dominance of the United States, Russia, and European powers. Both nations are driven by a dual motive: national security, self-sufficiency and economic viability.South Korea has rapidly ascended to become a major global exporter, primarily motivated by the need to sustain a massive domestic defence industry essential for countering the pervasive threat from North Korea. The enormous cost of developing advanced systems requires Seoul to sell internationally to achieve economies of scale and keep its production lines financially solvent. Their success is built on offering high-quality, advanced weapon platforms, such as tanks, artillery, and naval vessels, that are NATO-compatible yet often more affordable and delivered faster than Western alternatives, making them highly attractive to European countries modernising their arsenals and nations in Asia.Turkiye, meanwhile, has strategically focused on developing indigenous, technologically disruptive capabilities, most famously its Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs), like the Bayraktar TB2. Turkey's main motivation is a determination to eliminate its dependence on foreign suppliers who have, in the past, imposed arms embargoes or political restrictions during Turkish military operations. By offering battle-tested, relatively inexpensive, and high-impact technology without the political conditionality imposed by Western governments, Ankara has effectively carved out a niche in the global market, particularly securing influence and partnerships across the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia.In essence, these two emerging suppliers are actively providing a much-needed diversification option for nations—especially those in the Global South and secondary NATO states—who seek to modernise their forces without being locked into the high costs and political scrutiny associated with traditional suppliers.The status of the world's largest arms importer has recently shifted dramatically due to escalating geopolitical conflict. According to the latest comprehensive data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) covering the period between 2020 and 2024, Ukraine emerged as the single largest importer of major arms globally. This astonishing change saw Ukraine’s share of global arms imports spike to 8.8 per cent, an increase of nearly one hundred times compared to the preceding five-year period, primarily reflecting the massive influx of military aid supplied by Western nations, led by the United States, following the full-scale invasion by Russia. Following Ukraine, the other major importers in the world are typically nations with a focus on regional security concerns, including India and countries in the Middle East, such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia. However, the import volume for these traditional buyers has seen varying trends recently.
The Global Politics of Arms Sales by Andrew J. Pierre (1982, Princeton University Press) analyses the rationales that drive major powers, including the US, to engage in arms sales. It systematically breaks down the motivations into the very categories mentioned: gaining influence, enhancing security for allies, and reaping economic benefits. Pierre's analysis clearly demonstrates how arms sales transitioned from being primarily a commercial transaction to a central pillar of foreign policy, allowing the US to exercise power and secure long-term dependency from clients.The fundamental argument advanced by Andrew J. Pierre's analysis definitively positions the United States' Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system as the crucial mechanism deliberately established to transform military technology into enduring political and economic leverage following the Second World War. The primary strategic necessity for this highly centralised, government-to-government system was the geopolitical competition of the Cold War, allowing Washington to solidify its global alliance networks and execute its containment strategy by ensuring interoperability among allied forces. Furthermore, the FMS model functions by creating a profound and deliberate technological dependency on the US, committing recipient nations to long-term logistical support, maintenance, training, and subsequent upgrade cycles that can span decades. This comprehensive, protracted relationship ensures that military sales provide robust economic sustenance for the US defence industrial base while simultaneously furnishing the US government with powerful, continuous political leverage over the foreign and domestic policy choices of its client states, far exceeding the transactional influence of mere commercial sales.Pierre extensively names both major suppliers and key recipient nations, as his entire analysis is fundamentally based on dissecting the actual geopolitical flows of weaponry during and immediately preceding the Cold War era. While the United States is meticulously detailed as the central supplier, other significant traditional arms exporters such as the Soviet Union, France, and the United Kingdom are frequently discussed to illustrate the nature of global competition and their respective spheres of influence. The study also highlights emerging suppliers, including China and West Germany (before reunification), though their influence was generally considered secondary to the dominant powers at the time.
Crucially, the book names numerous recipient nations across various geopolitical regions to demonstrate the strategic impact of arms transfers. Examples of key recipients frequently mentioned would include major allies and client states in the Middle East (such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt), critical confrontation states in Asia (like South Korea), and countries in South America and Africa, where the US and the Soviet Union competed directly for influence. The inclusion of these specific nation-to-nation transfers is essential to Pierre's core thesis that arms sales were, first and foremost, instruments of foreign policy and diplomatic leverage, rather than purely commercial transactions.
The trade in arms is a double-edged sword when assessing regional stability, frequently exacerbating existing tensions and fuelling protracted conflicts rather than acting as a deterrent. The ready availability of weaponry, particularly in regions already prone to instability, directly enables and escalates military conflicts, as seen acutely in areas like the Middle East or Eastern Europe. When major powers supply sophisticated arms to various opposing factions or rivals within a region, it inevitably prompts an arms race, where each nation feels compelled to purchase more weapons simply to maintain a relative balance of power, thereby increasing the overall risk of conflict. Furthermore, the immense financial drain of military spending, often prioritised by vulnerable countries, actively diverts crucial resources away from poverty alleviation, healthcare, and educational development, subsequently undermining long-term socio-economic stability. A significant concern is also the leakage of legally exported weapons into the illicit or 'black' market, where they fall into the hands of non-state actors such as terrorist groups or organised crime syndicates, directly threatening civilian security and state sovereignty. Essentially, while arms sales are often framed as promoting security, in practice, unregulated global arms transfers frequently serve to increase instability, intensify human rights abuses, and deepen humanitarian crises.
The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is the primary instrument created by the United Nations (UN) to address the unregulated trade in conventional arms. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly in April 2013 and entered into force in December 2014. The scope of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is broad, encompassing eight distinct categories of conventional weapons, which are typically based on those established by the UN Register of Conventional Arms. These categories cover all major combat systems used in conventional warfare, including battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, and missiles and missile launchers. Crucially, the final category is dedicated to Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), which are recognised as being widely proliferated and playing a disproportionately large role in regional instability and human rights abuses, despite their smaller size. Specifically, Small Arms generally refer to man-portable weapons intended for individual use, such as assault rifles, submachine guns, revolvers, and light machine guns. In contrast, Light Weapons are usually designed for use by a crew of two or three people or are designed to fire an explosive projectile, examples of which include heavy machine guns, portable anti-tank guns, man-portable missile systems, and mortars. Moreover, the Treaty's reach extends beyond the weapons themselves, requiring states to also establish control systems to regulate the export of related ammunition/munitions and the parts and components specifically designed for these eight categories of conventional arms.
The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) serves as a critical mechanism in the international effort to curb illicit arms trading and alleviate humanitarian crises by embedding robust legal and ethical controls into the conventional arms transfer process. The Treaty’s primary method is to mandate that all States Parties conduct a rigorous, good-faith risk assessment before authorising any export of conventional weapons. Crucially, this assessment is not purely commercial; States are legally obliged to deny an export authorisation if there is an overriding risk that the arms could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law, severe breaches of human rights law, acts of terrorism, or gender-based violence. Furthermore, the ATT directly tackles the issue of illicit trade and the resultant humanitarian suffering by requiring States Parties to establish comprehensive national control systems and actively take measures, in accordance with Article 11, to prevent the diversion of arms from the legal market to unauthorised end-users, which is the link often fuelling armed groups and conflict zones. By promoting transparency through mandatory annual reporting of arms exports and imports and fostering international cooperation, the ATT aims to raise accountability and ensure that weapons do not fall into the hands of perpetrators who would exploit them to perpetuate violence and human displacement.
From a Social Justice perspective, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) represents a vital moral and legal instrument designed to challenge systemic global inequalities perpetuated by the unregulated flow of weapons. The core injustice addressed is the disproportionate suffering inflicted upon civilians, particularly the most vulnerable and marginalised populations—women, children, and those in conflict-affected regions—who bear the brunt of armed violence facilitated by irresponsible arms transfers. The ATT seeks to rectify this by embedding humanitarian and human rights concerns as mandatory legal criteria for arms exports, effectively prioritising the protection of people over purely commercial profit or political expediency. Crucially, the Treaty explicitly includes gender-based violence (GBV) as a risk factor that must be assessed, recognising that weapon transfers often exacerbate existing power imbalances and increase specific threats to women and girls. Therefore, the Treaty is fundamentally an attempt at justice, aiming to reduce armed conflict, limit human suffering, and uphold the fundamental right of all people to live in security, free from the threat of weaponry diverted to the hands that violate international law.
From a general social justice perspective, the continued large-scale arms trade to conflict-affected regions—particularly the provision of weapons from major exporting nations like the United States to Israel—is fundamentally viewed as a systemic driver of inequality and injustice, rather than simply a geopolitical tool. This critique posits that such commerce is not ethically neutral, as it actively contributes to the perpetuation of violence and the resulting humanitarian crisis, thereby deepening the marginalisation and suffering of the most vulnerable populations, namely Palestinian civilians. The core injustice lies in the fact that exporting states effectively prioritise economic and geopolitical interests—often defined by the profits of arms manufacturers and military-industrial complexes—over their moral and legal obligations to uphold human rights and prevent mass atrocities.Furthermore, social justice advocates argue that this trade undermines the concept of rule of law and accountability, creating a profound sense of impunity for states that are alleged to have committed serious violations of international humanitarian law; by continuing to supply the means of warfare despite overwhelming evidence of civilian casualties and human rights abuses, the exporting nation risks being seen as complicit in, or at least enabling, these international crimes. This system is also criticised for its racialised and gendered dimensions, as the use of high-tech weaponry, largely supplied by Western nations, disproportionately impacts women, children, and minority groups within the targeted population, leading to massive displacement, loss of livelihoods, and the destruction of essential civilian infrastructure like hospitals and schools. Therefore, from this viewpoint, the call for an immediate and comprehensive arms embargo against all parties to the conflict is not merely a political demand, but an ethical imperative necessary to dismantle a system that sustains colonial violence, profits from human suffering, and ultimately ensures that any political 'peace' remains hollow and temporary.The single most crucial message the public needs to understand about the global arms trade is that it is a systemic, profit-driven engine that perpetuates conflict, human suffering, and global instability, rather than acting as a neutral instrument for security.The primary point is that the massive, largely unregulated, and often corrupt flow of conventional weapons—ranging from fighter jets and missiles to small arms and light weapons—escalates and prolongs violence across the world. When major powers, or their defence corporations, continue to supply weapons to conflict zones, they are effectively investing in the continuation of war. This perverse economic model ensures that the short-term financial gains of arms manufacturers are prioritised over the long-term human security and sustainable development of recipient nations.Furthermore, the public must realise that the costs are borne disproportionately by the most vulnerable: the arms trade directly contributes to massive human rights abuses, including war crimes and the displacement of millions of civilians, with women and children often suffering the most severe and specific consequences. It also acts as a major economic burden, diverting vast national resources away from essential human development sectors like healthcare, education, and poverty reduction, thereby hindering the attainment of global development goals.In essence, the message is one of profound moral and ethical contradiction: the system that generates instruments of mass destruction remains largely self-regulating and highly profitable, and until citizens demand full transparency, strict accountability, and ethical coherence from their governments and corporations, the business of war will continue to undermine the possibility of lasting peace and social justice worldwide.
[Bagian 4]
