THE TRADE IN ARMAMENTS

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32252, 21 March 1970, Page 4

THE TRADE IN ARMAMENTS

The War Business. By George Thayer. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 373 pp. Bibliography and Index. Since 1945 there have been 55 wars of significant size, duration and intensity throughout the world. There have been literally hundreds of smaller outbreaks of violence. Only the existence of nuclear weapons and the threat they pose makes these incidents seem small. Some recent wars, by the standards of the past, have been very large indeed. Yet in some of the most violent—the Nigerian civil war, the Arab-Israeli wars—the participants have little or no capacity to produce their own weapons. They have depended on “foreign aid” and the international sale of armaments, a trade which recognises few frontiers and is confined to no particular ideology. It is this trade which George Thayer sets out to explore in depth in “The War Business.” He appears to succeed remarkably well. There are detailed case studies, much supporting evidence, a gallery of the men involved (from the most obnoxious profiteers to the most puritanical patriots). Yet it is hard to determine how successful the author has really been. This is a trade which, by its nature, must often remain secret. For some of his most startling statements Mr Thayer can give no source, for he has had the confidence of people who dare not allow themselves to be named. Fortunately, this is not a polemical book. It eschews the hysteria which usually accompanies a discussion of “trafficking in arms.” Mr Thayer offers a sober appraisal with a solidly authentic ring; his only message is that more awareness of the size and influence of the arms trade should persuade governments and peoples that it must be more controlled than at present; that as far as possible arms-producing countries ought to co-operate to deny access to arms for would-be belligerents. Mr Thayer’s weakness is that he does, not make clear enough the awful

dilemma which some arms-producing countries must face. How far is a government permitted, morally, to deny access to the weapons by which another country, under threat, might defend itself? There has been little sympathy outside the Arab world for the French Government’s ban on arms sales to Israel when that country’s enemies already possess the capacity to make full-scale war. This dilemma suggests that the control of arms is only a factor in reducing the tensions of the world —it is by no means a universal panacea. There is every reason, however, to attempt to hold a balance of arms in such situations, once something like equality has been achieved. Otherwise, there can only be more and more miniature arms races; and more and more violence as States are tempted to use their “new toys” in a pre-emptive strike against a presumed enemy. Any control must involve agreement between East and West. The client States of the super-Powers must not be free to ask and receive almost unlimited assistance to arm themselves simply because of the threat posed by “the other side.” This could well become the great disarmament issue of the years ahead. The nuclear Powers have learnt to live with their weapons and not use them: the real risk of war, including world war, comes now from States of the “second tank” and even smaller.

The lead in limiting arms sales must come from the United States, which produces and distributes more weapons of war than any other nation. There is no sense in waiting until conditions of mutual trust make limits on arms sales appear practicable. The arms must be limited before much trust can arise. But a lead from America in limiting the spread of armaments could generate a moral pressure which would force other States to follow.

There is no guarantee of success, but, as Mr Thayer says: “If America does .not do it soon, it may be too late for everyone.”