Liberty and ammo for all

The world today is an incredibly unstable and dangerous place. With armed conflict plaguing Africa and much of the Middle East and political unrest in many regions, it seems reasonable that the more powerful and stable nations would take the lead, doing all things possible to keep the world’s problems from erupting into a doomsday scenario of some kind. That would be the rational thing to do. \nBut then again, the world is not rational.\nAccording to a study released Monday by the Congressional Research Service, the United States is not doing itself any favors on that front. The leaders of the free world were the leading suppliers of arms – guns, not the ones on your torso – to the so-called “developing world” in 2006. \nThe United States sold over $10 billion worth of weaponry to developing nations, which accounted for 35.8 percent of such arms sales. \nOf course, we aren’t the only ones at fault here – we’re the top arms supplier to developing nations, but not the only one. Russia and Great Britain sold $8.1 billion and $3.1 billion worth of weaponry, respectively.\nPresident Bush has said he wants to make America and the world safer. He has said the reasons for many of his policies – including the Iraq war – are centered on reaching that goal. \nWhy, then, are we selling so much weaponry to the developing world? Handing out missiles and guns doesn’t exactly make the world a safer place.\nWhy is this a bad idea? Well, take a look at some of the numbers to find an example. The top buyer in these arms deals last year was Pakistan, with $5.1 billion in purchases. The second-highest buyer was India, with $3.5 billion. India and Pakistan share a border and don’t particularly like one another. They both have nuclear weapons. With the weapons sold to them by the United States and others, the two could start a conventional war that could possibly escalate to nuclear strikes. That scenario is far from assured, but it’s possible. Sounds like a bad idea to me.\nIn addition, some of the nations receiving arms have less than savory characters. Take, for example, the deals between the United States and Pakistan. Pakistan bought piles of weapons from the United States, but the nation’s human rights record is shaky at best. According to Amnesty International, the nation has arbitrarily detained people suspected to links to terrorist groups, activists and journalists. Violence against women is widespread, and religious minorities can be charged with “blasphemy.” Though Pakistan can help us fight al-Qaeda, the country has a bit too much baggage for us to arm them eagerly.\nThe world is dangerous now, as it always has been. Nations like the United States and Great Britain should not contribute to that danger by selling arms in this volume to developing countries. We’re living in a powder keg, and the last thing we need is more matches lying around.