Indian Military Industrial Complex

Important Links

Indian Defense Review

The Military-Industrial Complex: Impacts on the Third World

by Prof. Aziz Choudry, GATT Watchdog and APRN

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=26283

We live and struggle in an era of blatantly militarized capitalism and the violence of capital. War, occupation, national security ideologies and repression of dissent –at home and abroad – make for booming business opportunities the world over. As pro-free market US journalist Thomas Friedman succinctly put it: “The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist – McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force and Marine Corps.”2

Militarized capitalism: The military-industrial complex in 2008

What is the military-industrial complex in 2008? Where is it? What does it look like? I am not even sure if the phrase, used so famously by former US president Dwight Eisenhower3 in 1961 is the best descriptor to encompass the many tentacles and facets of the war and security industry and the links and connections between capital and its political allies. Do terms like ‘defence industry’ and ‘arms trade’ adequately encompass the face of today’s war profiteers, whose devastating impacts can equally be found in the high-tech apartheid wall being built by Israel to seal off the West Bank and Gaza4, and its Western Hemispheric counterpart on the US-Mexico border5, in the computer flight simulation programs provided to US and British military by Canada’s CAE6, in private corporate mercenary armies like Blackwater, DynCorp and Aegis7 in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere8, in the outsourced intelligence, IT, interrogation and translation services of L-3/Titan9, in the massive military aid budgets which the US gives to the governments of Israel, Pakistan, Egypt and Colombia10, among others, and in the ‘hearts and minds’ operations of US Special Operations Forces based in the Philippines doing ‘humanitarian work’ – medical, dental and other social services, including infrastructure projects in many remote communities – services which should be the function of a government, in Mindanao11, as much as it is in weapons production and arms exports.

Like all transnational corporations, these companies enjoy both patronage and revolving door relationships with the highest echelons of governments and their armed forces, tax breaks, support for exports, and all kinds of other incentives which help them to focus firmly on their bottom line – profit. US administrations, regardless of their party allegiance, brim with politicians with investments and business interests in the defence industry and war profiteers, perhaps most vividly symbolized by Dick Cheney’s ties to Halliburton and its multi-billion-dollar contracts to provide construction, hospitality, and other services to the US military after the invasion of Iraq in 200312. But it is business as usual for US militarized capitalism. An April 2008 Centre for Responsive Politics report states that US Congress members invested US $196 million of their own money in companies that receive hundreds of millions of dollars a day from Pentagon contracts to provide goods and services to US armed forces, ranging from aircraft and weapons manufacturers to producers of medical supplies and soft drinks.13 To cite a couple of typical revolving door examples, General Dynamics board of directors includes an ex-Vice Chief of US Army staff, a former US Air Force General, a former Chief of Naval Operations in the US Navy, and a former Chief of Defence Procurement at the British Ministry of Defence14, while Canada’s CAE’s current and former executives include a former Canadian minister for international trade and former PM Mulroney’s head of staff15.

Hired Guns, Big Bucks, No Rules

Private armies hired by governments and companies are not new. The British East India company hired private mercenaries to fight proxy wars and gain control over India16. But the exponential growth and sophistication and globalization of private security industry contractors like Blackwater and DynCorp, both of which derive well over 90% of their business from US government contracts, is striking. If regular soldiers often literally get away with murder, how much more so for private mercenaries given the lack of any oversight of their activities, under no effective regulatory regimes, although they are contracted by governments and paid out of public funds. They operate with impunity and immunity. They recruit and deploy former military and police from around the world, some of them veterans of the most repressive military forces in the world17. On their website, Blackwater, whose contract with the US State Department was recently renewed18 despite outrage at one of many incidents in which their guards shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square, Baghdad, last September19, claim: “We treat others with the highest degree of dignity, equal opportunity and trust. We respect the cultures and beliefs of people around the world”20. On the ground, “Blackwater has no respect for the Iraqi people,” an Iraqi Interior Ministry official told a Washington Post reporter in 200721. “They consider Iraqis like animals, although actually I think they may have more respect for animals. We have seen what they do in the streets. When they’re not shooting, they’re throwing water bottles at people and calling them names. If you are terrifying a child or an elderly woman, or you are killing an innocent civilian who is riding in his car, isn’t that terrorism?”

All dollars, no sense

A February 2008 Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation report notes that, adjusted for inflation, the Pentagon budget for fiscal year (FY) 2009 is the largest since World War II – US $ 515.4 billion22: more even than during the Vietnam and Korean wars, or the peak of Reagan’s Cold War spending. The US spends more than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined, accounts for 48% of the world’s total military spending, 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran. The same report cites US Office of Management and Budget estimates that total annual funding for the Defense Department alone will grow to $546 billion by FY 2013 – a conservative estimate. Total Pentagon spending, not including funding for the Department of Energy or for actual combat operations for the period FY’09 through FY’13 will reach $2.6 trillion. Last year, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)23 estimated that world military expenditure in 2006 reached US $1204 billion – a 3.5 % increase in real terms since 2005, and a 37% increase over the 10-year period since 1997. In 2006, the 15 countries with the highest spending accounted for 83% of the world total.

While the US military-industrial complex and military spending dwarfs the rest of the world, it has had a multiplier effect on other countries, coupled with its military aid packages and global ‘security’ hysteria. Japan recently announced major military upgrades while, South Korea, China, and Russia have all increased military spending,24 2008 is a record year for Israeli defence spending25. By 2006, four of the world’s 100 top arms production firms were Israeli: Israel Aircraft Industries, Israel Military Industries, Elbit Systems and Rafael26. An October 2007 CBC report, based on customs data only on exports specifically for military use, found that between 2000 and 2006, Canada’s arms exports rose 3.5 times, during which time Canada, the world’s sixth-biggest supplier, exported CDN $3.6 billion in military goods. But there is little transparency on arms control, and the true picture of Canadian military exports is hard to track since the federal government has not released annual reports providing detailed information covering the years since 2002 to Parliament. A former subsidiary of Montreal-based SNC Lavalin, SNC Tec, for example, manufactures small arms ammunition for US military (SNC Tec was sold in 2006 to General Dynamics, after antiwar activists highlighted the Canadian corporate connection to bullets fired from US guns in Iraq)27.

A license to kill: The façade of arms control

Identifying and tracking the many tentacles of the weapons and agents of mass destruction is frustratingly difficult. For all of the criticisms of Third World governments’ secrecy and lack of transparency in terms of defence spending and military operations, so many loopholes exist in so-called First World countries with regard to arms control. For example, most military shipments from Canada to the US go untracked, since they do not require government permits because of a defence agreement signed between Ottawa and Washington in the 1940s. Some critics have noted that the export licencing requirements are so minimal that it is possible that some of that equipment moves to third parties28.

Some EU governments have undermined, bypassed or ignored national export criteria and the EU code of conduct on arms exports. Spain and other countries (including the US and Britain) have authorized transfers of equipment and other assistance to Colombia into the hands of state security forces and paramilitaries who have committed major human rights abuses. Italian-made small arms have also been shipped to countries in conflict or where violations of human rights occur, including Algeria, Colombia, Eritrea, Indonesia, India, Israel, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Sierra Leone.29 British activist and writer Mark Thomas30 illustrates how British high-tech company Radstone does not require a licence to export supplies the computer components comprising the “brains” of the Predator drone, an unmanned Aerial vehicle produced by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, which was used by the CIA to fire missile strikes at Yemen against Al-Qaeda suspects in 2002, and in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan in 2006, the latter attack killing possibly up to 25 people including 5 women and 5 children. British researcher Anna Stavrianakis31 argues that “[r]ather than acting to restrict arms exports, the guidelines against which arms export licence applications are assessed are vague and interpreted in such a way as to facilitate exports”. She continues, “the pro-export stance of successive UK governments, the close relationship they have with the arms industry, and the emphasis on military power as an indicator of prestige on the world stage, must all be challenged, as they form the parameters within which licensing occurs”.

According to a 2006 Amnesty International32 report, over 200 Chinese military trucks – normally running on US Cummins diesel engines – were shipped to Sudan in August 2005, despite a US arms embargo on both countries and the involvement of similar vehicles in killing and abducting civilians in Darfur. Chinese military hardware is shipped regularly to Burma, including the 2005 supply of 400 military trucks to Myanmar’s army. Chinese military exports went to Nepal in 2005 and early 2006, including a supply of Chinese-made rifles and grenades to Nepalese security forces, who were brutally repressing people’s movements. China is also implicated in the growing illicit trade in Chinese-made Norinco pistols in Australia, Malaysia, Thailand and particularly South Africa, often used for crimes like robbery and rape.

Militarized repression of dissent and imperialist globalization

Many governments, from the Philippines to India to Colombia, are waging overt or covert wars against resistance movements and government opponents, fostering a climate of fear in which arms and equipment are used for containing domestic dissent and security crackdowns against ‘enemies within’ – resistance movements of the poor, mobilizations of women, Indigenous Peoples, the landless, peasants, and workers, movements against free trade agreements and neoliberal reforms. Conflicts over land and inequitable access to resources are fuelled and exacerbated by the militarization of corporate activities such as mining, oil, gas, industrial farming and forestry industries. For example, a US District court judge has agreed that there is evidence showing that Chevron paid and equipped Nigerian military and police to shoot and torture protesters opposing the oil company’s activities in the Niger Delta region33. Freeport McMoran paid Indonesian military, police and private security forces who attacked local communities around its Grasberg gold and copper mine34. And let’s not forget how the founder and chief executive of Aegis, former British Army Lt. Col. Tim Spicer35 was also founder of Sandline, another mercenary company contracted by the Papua New Guinea government over a decade ago for US $36 million for an ill-fated attempt to put down an indigenous independence movement in Bougainville, which had shut down the huge copper mine at Panguna, owned by a subsidiary of Rio Tinto36. The military and the monetary, indeed.

As Uruguayan analyst/journalist Raul Zibechi notes, urban peripheries in Third World countries have also become war zones where states attempt to maintain order based on the establishment of a sort of ‘sanitary cordon’ to keep the poor isolated from ‘normal’ society37. Such militarized containment of the poor reflects political and economic elites’ fear of challenges to state power from poor urban movements. The systematic undermining of states’ capacities to provide for the welfare of their populations, coupled with the disproportionate percentage of national budget’s spent on the military militarization has fuelled poverty and conflict.

Kollsman, Inc. a New Hampshire-based subsidiary of Elbit, an Israeli firm involved with building the apartheid wall in occupied Palestine, was contracted by the Department of Homeland Security38 as part of a consortium that also includes Boeing subsidiary Boeing Integrated Defense Systems Unit to develop SBInet, a high-tech security system for the U.S.-Mexico (and US-Canada) borders, part of the Secure Border Initiative39. As New York-based activist groups Ad Hoc Coalition for Justice in the Middle East and Desis Rising Up & Moving (DRUM) put it, “Elbit will import Israeli military technology, tested on Palestinians, for use against poor immigrants here.”40

Militarization and enforceable free-market disciplines are tools to make countries ‘safe’ for foreign investors, at the expense of local communities’ rights to determine their own futures41. WTO agreements undermine social and environmental policies, but protect the war industry through a ‘security exception’ in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (Article XXI)42. The security exception states that a country cannot be stopped from taking any action it considers necessary to protect its essential security interests; actions ‘relating to the traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment (or) taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations’. While structural adjustment and trade and investment liberalization are being imposed throughout the Asia-Pacific region and beyond, health, education, and social budgets slashed, and support for most local industries or agriculture dismantled, corporate welfare and subsidies to defence industry, and high levels of military spending remains alive and well.

Capitalist killing machines get gender-sensitive makeover: Women resist

The burden of war, conflict, violence and militarized capitalism falls disproportionately on women. The impacts of women can be seen not only in conflict zones but through the proliferation of small arms and creeping militarization of communities and society at large, leading to more violence against women in domestic and community contexts, rapes, sexual violence, displacement and the exaltation of warrior masculinities. Women are more likely to become war refugees. Unsurprisingly then, it has also been women who have led resistance against militarization, war and violence, US military bases and the accompanying masculinization of broader society and social behaviour. It is usually women who pick up the pieces in communities ripped apart by war, violence and state repression. Cynthia Enloe notes that social workers who address issues of domestic violence “agree that military service is probably more conducive to violence at home than at any other occupation”.43 Meanwhile, we are subjected to constant claims that a primary goal of the US-led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is to liberate Afghani women. Commenting on this, Sunera Thobani notes, “one battle in the ideological war was to be waged on the terrain of gender relations, … rallying western populations around fantasies of saving Muslim women would be more effective than rallying them around the overtly imperialist policies of securing US control over oil and natural gas supplies.”44

Just as purported humanitarian concerns are wheeled out as justifications for thinly-veiled imperialist wars over resources45, military contractors and war profiteering corporations portray themselves as inclusive, socially progressive and gender-sensitive. On their corporate websites, these corporations’ core business is painted over with a cosmetic veneer that could cause us to forget that it is for war and killing people. For example, Pentagon contractors like Northrop Grumman boast of their “workforce diversity”46 and showcase their women executives. The Canadian and US defence industries have set up organizations like Women in Defence and Security (WiDS)47, signed memorandums of understanding with Canada’s Department of National Defence, and are affiliated with the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI)48, an industry-led association of more than 550 member firms in the defence and security industries in Canada to “promote the advancement of women leaders in defence and security professions across Canada”. Raytheon, the maker of “Bunker Buster” bombs, Tomahawk and Patriot missiles, lobbed at Afghanistan and Iraq49, causing many deaths proclaims: “Diversity at Raytheon is about inclusiveness — providing an atmosphere where everyone feels valued and empowered to perform at a peak level, regardless of the many ways people are different”50. Virginia-based Booz Allen Hamilton51, one of the biggest suppliers of technology and personnel to US government spy agencies like the CIA, NSA, Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), as well as the US Department of Defence and Department of Homeland Security (former CIA director R. James Woolsey is now a senior vice president of Booz Allen), also boasts how it is committed to diversity in the workforce “because we believe that diversity of backgrounds contributes to different ideas, which in turn drives better results for clients. To us, diversity means all the ways individuals differ from one another—race, gender, ethnicity, physical abilities, educational background, country of origin, age, sexual orientation, skills, income, marital status, parental status, religion, work experience, and military service”. Then there is Aegis Defence Services52 whose employees were caught on video randomly shooting automatic weapons at civilian cars in Baghdad’s airport road53, which claims “Our equal-opportunity policy emphasizes our aim to create a work environment that is inclusive and non-discriminatory, where all employees are empowered by their individuality and encouraged to use it in order to achieve success”. Greenwashing environmentally destructive corporations is despicable enough. Yet there is something particularly obscene about the ways in which these corporations hide behind such mission and values statements and commitments to “diversity”, complementing the claims of the militaries in Afghanistan to be liberating Afghani women.

Conclusion

Many NGOs campaign for instruments like a Global Arms Trade Treaty. But when we see the spectrum of industries and political actors which benefit from militarized capitalism, and the way in which the US, Israel, and other leading producers and users of cluster munitions refused to attend last month’s Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions which adopted an international treaty banning cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians54, it should be clear that we must go beyond these strategies to confront the system that underpins obscene profits for a few, at the expense of the many, through military contracting and war profiteering. That system is capitalism. Those of us who research must continue to expose and oppose militarization and the violence of capitalism in all its forms, in our communities, nationally and internationally. In doing so we need to support, build and sustain mass movements that understand the interconnectedness of war, neoliberal globalization, corporate profits, the repression of dissent, “peacekeeping”, “reconstruction”, the criminalization and militarization of immigration, violence against women, and colonialism.

NOTES

1 Gil Scott-Heron. Work For Peace. Taken from the album Spirits, TVT Records, 1994.

2 Thomas Friedman, 28 March 1999, New York Times Magazine, Manifesto for the fast world

3 http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/12/documents/eisenhower.speech/

4 See http://stopthewall.org

5 BBC News. US-Mexico ‘virtual fence’ ready. 23 February 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7260179.stm

6 www.cae.com

7 Jackie Northam. U.K. Firm awarded largest Iraq security contract. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14586525

8 For example, DynCorp’s employees in Colombia contracting to the US State Department in its so-called War on Drugs, have engaged as combatants in counterinsurgency operations against rebels (see http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia19.htm). A number of DynCorp employees and supervisors contracted to UN peacekeeping operations in the Balkans were involved with forced prostitution rings, including children. (see Kelly Patricia O’Meara. US: DynCorp Disgrace. Insight Magazine. 14 January 2002, http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11119 )

9 Pratap Chatterjee. Outsourcing Intelligence in Iraq: A report on L-3/Titan. CorpWatch. 29 April 2008. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15017; Titan, one of the civilian contractors employed by the Pentagon and whose employees were involved in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. See, for example, Peter Beaumont, Abu Ghraib abuse firms are rewarded. The Observer, 16 January 2005. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/16/usa.iraq

10 Center for Public Integrity. http://www.publicintegrity.org/militaryaid/

11 Roland Simbulan. U.S. Military Forces: Negotiated Subservience by an Illegitimate Government. Bulatlat. Vol. VIII, No. 5, March 2-8, 2008. http://www.bulatlat.com/2008/03/u-s-military-forces-negotiated-subservience-illegitimate-government

12 http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=15

13 http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/04/strategic-assets.html

14 http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/board.asp?symbol=GD

15 Richard Sanders. We Didn’t Really Say “No” to Missile Defence.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/MonitorIssues/2006/10/MonitorIssue1457/

16 Tim Spicer, Founder and CEO of Aegis, (which holds the largest single security contract in Iraq), who prefers the term ‘private military company’ to ‘mercenary’, approvingly cites this as historical model as a precedent for soldiers of fortune today. See Tim Spicer. (1999). An Unorthodox Soldier: Peace and War and the Sandline Affair. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing.

17 These include former Chilean, South African, Bosnian, Filipino, Salvadoran and Colombian soldiers and police. Bill Berkowitz. Mercenaries ‘R’ Us. AlterNet. 24 March 2004.http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/18193/; Danna Harman. Firms tap Latin Americans for Iraq. Christian Science Monitor, 3 March 2005.http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0303/p06s02-woam.html

18 James Risen. Iraq Contractor in Shooting Case makes comeback. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/world/middleeast/10blackwater.html?ref=middleeast

19 CNN. Blackwater incident witness: “It was hell”. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/02/blackwater.witness/index.html

20 Blackwater Worldwide. Company Core Values. http://www.blackwaterusa.com/company_profile/core_values.html

21 Steve Fainaru. Where Military Rules Don’t Apply. Washington Post. 20 September 2007. http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2008/international-reporting/works/fainaru05.html

22 Christopher Hellman and Travis Sharp Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation. Fiscal Year 2009 Pentagon Spending Request Briefing Book

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request/

23 http://yearbook2007.sipri.org/chap8

24 John Feffer. Asia’s Hidden Arms Race. 16 February 2008. http://www.alternet.org/story/77225/

25 Another record year for defence spending in 2008. Haaretz, 28 December 2007. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/939217.html

26 http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/POL34/006/2006/en/dom-POL340062006en.html

27 SNC Unloads its ammunition unit. Montreal Gazette. 24 February 2006. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/business/story.html?id=b1770c43-b9f8-4c6e-bef4-386f75347dd0

28 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). News In Depth: Arming The World. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arming-the-world/

29 Helen Hughes. Europe’s Deadly Business. Le Monde Diplomatique, 11 June 2006. http://mondediplo.com/2006/06/11armscontrol

30 Mark Thomas (2006). As used on the famous Nelson Mandela. Reading: Ebury Press.

31 Anna Stavrianakis (2008).The façade of arms control http://www.caat.org.uk/publications/government/facade-2008-02.php

32 Amnesty International. China: Sustaining conflict and human rights abuses. June 2006.

33 Constance Ikokwu. Chevron to Face Trial in U.S. Over Nigeria Killings. This Day (Lagos). 16 August 2007. http://allafrica.com/stories/200708160007.html

34 Down To Earth. (May 2003). Military protection funds exposed. http://dte.gn.apc.org/57Frp.htm

35 http://www.aegisworld.com/index.php/tim-spicer

36 Roger Moody. The Mercenary Miner. Multinational Monitor. June 1997 http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/mm0697.09.html

37 The Militarization of the World’s Urban Peripheries, Americas Policy Program Special Report (Washington, DC: Center for International Policy, http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4954

38 Kollsman, Inc. Kollsman to Participate in Homeland Security’s SBInet Program Boeing Team Member to Show Technologies at Border Management Summit, Oct. 23-25. Press release, 31 October 2006 http://www.kollsman.com/company/news/pr_10312006.asp

39 http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/sbinet/index.html

40 http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/11/78913.shtml

41 Aziz Choudry. (2003). War, Globalization and the WTO: Forever New Frontiers. Third World Network. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr151n.htm

42 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, art. XXI, Oct. 30, 1947, 61 Stat. A-ll, 55 U.N.T.S. 194

43 Cynthia Enloe. (1983). Does Khaki Become You? London: Pluto, p.87.

44 Sunera Thobani. (2007). Exalted subjects: Studies in the making of race and nation in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, p.218.

45 See, for example, Jean Bricmont. (2006). Humanitarian Imperialism: Using human rights to sell war. New York: Monthly Review Press, and Sherene Razack (2004). Dark Threats and White Knights: The Somalia Affair, peacekeeping and the new imperialism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

46 http://www.northropgrumman.com/diversity/workforce.html

47 www.wids.ca/

48 www.defenceandsecurity.ca/

49 http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=13

50 http://www.raytheon.com/diversity/

51 http://www.boozallen.com/careers/a_great_place_to_work/diversity

52 http://www.aegisworld.com

53 War On Want. Corporate mercenaries. http://www.waronwant.org/Corporate+Mercenaries+13275.twl

54 Christian Science Monitor, 30 May 2008. Global cluster-bomb ban draws moral line in the sand. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0530/p04s06-woeu.html

Military-industrial complex in India?

http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/2008/02/military-industrial-complex-in-india.html

.fullpost{display:inline;}”With private investment in defence, is there a risk of creating a military-industrial complex?” asks Businessworld in a survey. The select respondents, policy analysts and defence researchers, respond:

50% YES: With the growing interest of private players in defence, concerns regarding the creation of an influential lobby comprising the defence forces and the arms industry are surfacing. Some respondents believed that it is highly likely that such a lobby of the military forces and the industry might emerge, albeit in the distant future.

40% NO: Many respondents believed that after all these years of State control over defence without a justifiable level of advancement in the state of technology and an ever-burgeoning import bill, it is high time that the private sector stepped in. As for the possibility of the creation of a military-industrial complex, while some expressed faith in the integrity of senior defence officials, a few others said that even if such a power block is created at some point in the future, it won’t be able to wield much influence over the strategic decisions of the State that might endanger internal security or peace.

10% MAYBE: these respondents were of the view that a State-run MIC already exists in India. Another point that was brought up was that MICs emerge in countries with ‘expansionist’ agendas. India, on the other hand, is not as outwardly focused and is more concerned with protecting its territory.

This survey was prompted by the increased participation of private Indian Companies in the recent Defexpo (defence exhibition) held at Delhi, where companies like Tata Motors, Ashok Leyland, Larsen and Toubro, and Mahindra & Mahindra held their stalls.

Truck maker Ashok Leyland unveiled its the six-wheel drive Stallion 6×6 at the expo (with technology from Panhard of France). The Stallion has been developed specially for desert and semi-desert areas. It has a hydraulic hoist for self-loading and unloading of ammunition. Ashok Leyland also displayed the vehicle, FAT, which can move through deep sand and is for towing 155-mm artillery guns:

Tata Group lead the Indian private sector at the expo with 15 of its companies in diverse businesses such as combat vehicles, special materials, and teleco- mmunication. Tata Motors had its multi-axle vehicle — Tata 8×8, equipped with tiltable steering and tiltable cabin:

The Tata LSV will be of particular interest because it is a home-designed, home-made vehicle vying for army’s order for 8,400 light specialist vehicles for use by the mechanised division. 1.2 tonne-payload LSV can carry more men and material than the traditional 500 kg-payload Mahindra jeeps and Ordnance Factory Board’s Jongas.

Tata Advanced Systems Ltd, in alliance with Urban Aeronautics, unveiled a model of a rotorless Vertical Take Off & Landing aircraft (VTOL) to be used as a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle):

Tata LSV is facing competition from Mahindra’s Axe. The vehicle won a lot of admiration when it was shown at the January Auto Expoin Delhi. This is another home-designed, home-made vehicle, albeit it uses a Mercedes engine:

According to Brigadier (Retd) K.A. Hai, CEO of Mahindra Defence Systems, Axe has done rather well in army’s winter trials in the mountains of the north. He is hopeful that the vehicle would also pass muster in the desert of Rajasthan in the summer.

Mahindra will also introduce its new armoured vehicle, Marksman, and a military version of the Scorpio SUV at the expo. In fact, the company intends to replace its traditional jeeps with Scorpios as its standard transport vehicle for Indian army:

Meanwhile the government-owned BEL has signed a deal at the Defexpo:

Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL) has signed a “term sheet” and two MoUs (memoranda of understanding) with three Israeli defence companies at the DEFEXPO, the international army and navy equipment exposition, held in New Delhi between February 16 and 19. These arrangements will enable the Israeli companies to meet their offset requirements.

A release issued by the company said that its “term sheet” with Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd envisages the formation of a joint venture, which is to “encourage indigenous advanced technology capabilities of missile electronics and guidance technologies.” A BEL spokesperson explained that the “term sheet” provided for a “trial period” of one year. A review would then consider whether the joint venture would proceed.

BEL has also signed two MoUs, with Israel Aerospace Ltd-Malat., which will facilitate “joint working” in the area of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) systems. The public sector company is to “undertake product support”, apart from manufacturing and supplying the designated sub-systems. This arrangement is meant to help the Israeli entity meet its offset obligations.

The PSU also signed an MoU with Elisra for “joint working for various airborne electronic warfare programmes for Indian defence requirement.”

So instead of a “military-industrial complex”, we are likely to see healthy competition between private and public companies in the defence sector.

Consolidating India’s Military-Industrial complex

Dr Bhartendu Kumar Singh
Indian Defence Accounts Service
http://www.ipcs.org/whatsNewArticle11.jsp?action=showView&kValue=1866&status=article&mod=b

India?s military industrial complex (MIC) is poised for change. If recent decisions are any indication, private players will have new opportunities in defence production. The trade unions, on the other hand, have been sounding the alarm. Apparently, they are unhappy with the Kelkar Committee recommendations for opening defence production to the private sector and encouraging public-private partnership in this area. While the workers’ interests are of paramount concern, the larger national interests need to be discussed and debated.

India has an under-developed MIC. At present, it consists of 39 ordnance factories and 8 PSUs. Around 50 labs of the DRDO provide support. Together, they furnish defence goods worth Rs. 18,000 crore, mostly belonging to segment four of international defence market (replenishment goods). With a few exceptions, India does not produce strategic weapons belonging to segment one and two, a prerogative of First World military powers. The bulk production is in areas of low-to-medium technologies like small arms, anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns, mortars etc. The churning out of tanks and fighter jets through reverse engineering and licensed production has also not been a learning experience.

Until recently, defence was also treated as a holy cow, and no private investment was allowed, except for a peripheral role in the form of supplies of raw materials, components, and subsystems. The share of private sector in defence production is only Rs. 3,000 crore. While the top arms producing companies in the world are in the private sector, India does not have a single private firm worth mentioning. In the United States, private companies account for 80 percent of Pentagon’s purchases. Lockheed Martin Corporation, BAE Systems, the Boeing, the Northrop Grumman Corporation, and Alliance Techsystems are some of the well-known names that dominate, not only the American market, but also the global market. Even countries like Brazil and South Africa have private defence firms doing brisk business.

The lack of an indigenous MIC is a chink in India’s evolution as a great power. 70 percent of defence equipment, mostly of high value and high technology, come through imports. It is a leading arms importer and competes with China. Between 2000-2004, India spent $ 8.5 billion on arms imports, next only to China ($ 11.5 billion). India’s purchases have driven global arms sales, revitalizing the Russian and Israeli defence industries. However, not only is valuable foreign exchange being lost, but also jobs in the domestic market sphere. Technological vulnerability is an additional risk. For example, 70 percent of India’s arms imports are of Russian origin. They demand large amounts for spare part supplies. We have also been ignoring the Sino-Russian military relations. Russia supplies only 23 percent of its arms exports to India but almost double (45 percent) to China! its loyalties are, consequently, more strongly towards China that may translate into critical vulnerabilities for India.

Allowing private sector participation could be one of the ways to enhance India’s quest for self-reliance in defence production. India has a strong civilian manufacturing base and a mature private sector. There is enormous scope for aligning the manufacturing capabilities of the public and private sectors to boost defence production and reverse the one-way traffic in defence trade. It would also be a step towards consolidation and enlargement of the domestic MIC. Technology spillover, capital investment, joint ventures, and creation of jobs are additional benefits. In the long term, private sector has the capacity to ensure competitive prices for ammunitions and put lateral pressure on ordnance factories and defence PSUs to pull up their socks.

So, if the government is encouraging private investment in defence production, it is a welcome sign. While decisions on allowing 26 percent foreign investments, joint ventures, publication of defence procurement manuals for capital and revenue stores, and establishment of a production board, procurement board and acquisition council in the Defence Ministry are encouraging, more needs to be done. In particular, the private sector needs equality of opportunity for competing with state-led units.

Those who criticize private investments in defence should take note of private sector domination abroad- India?s imports from these firms- and under-performance of the state-led MIC in India. Witness, for example, the delay in LCA and Arjun projects that has added to Services’ fears. The huge set up of ordnance factories, while being ISO certified, has an export market of just Rs. 60 crores. The Nair Committee had earlier recommended corporatization and privatization of ordnance factories. Now that the Kelkar Committee has also recommended their corporatization and giving equal opportunities to the private sector, it needs to be seriously considered if we want a vibrant and proactive defence industry in India.

Views Expressed are Author’s Own

REJUVENATING INDIAN MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Guest Column-by Dr Vijay Sakhuja

In December 2004, during a naval display-cum-exercise off Mumbai, the Indian Defence Minister, Pranab Mukherjee remarked on the shortages in the strength of the civilian work force for the navy. The current strength is about 50,000 personnel and this work force meets the operational and administrative requirements of the navy by manning naval dockyards, repair facilities, armament depots as well as logistics and administrative units. The work force has contributed tremendously to the repair and maintenance of naval ships, submarines, aircrafts, naval armaments, weapons, work connected with administration, and logistic support. However, there has been a shortage of civilian workforce since 2001, essentially in the dockyards. The current low levels of workforce are a result of the government ban on new recruitment.

The ban has resulted in great stress on the repair and maintenance agencies who now contend with limited number of personnel with ever increasing size of the Indian navy. Added to this is the commissioning of the largest naval base at Karwar, which requires a very large human resource. Although the government has sanctioned the workforce, both technical and administrative, it will be recruited in stages as the naval base builds up. But the navy has planned to shift several warships to Karwar. Meanwhile, the Indian naval dockyards managers’ have their trays full with repair requisitions from the fleet.

The complicated nature of naval maintenance demands the attention of experts. Just as it takes many years of experience to command an aircraft carrier or a frontline destroyer, to keep up an uninterrupted maintenance support for the fleet, demand experts with years of experience. This can be achieved through domestic industry development. For instance, in the US, a headhunting agency is filling in the ranks of new high-tech workforce by employing former military officers. They base their arguments on the fact that this human resource provides sound and quality leaders with proven experience to high technology. Besides, it is also believed that there is the likelihood of a rapid hemorrhage of human talent as the best are competed away to other jobs.

Given the constraints of new recruitment and long training periods, there is a good point to the argument that the Indian navy should offload a part of the management of maintenance of its fleet to private institutions. In this

context, Krasny Marine Services Pvt. Ltd {KMS} fits the bill. KSM was established in 1995, under the self-employment of ex-servicemen scheme for rendering customized technical and logistic support to the Indian Navy, Indian Coast Guard, public sector Shipyards and Defence Research and Development Organisations. The agency is manned and managed exclusively by officers and technicians retired from the Indian Navy and defence shipyards. Thus it brings with it years of experience and domain knowledge to provide maintenance and logistic support for systems and equipments. In 1998, the KMS also established its avionics division at Goa for repair and servicing of Russian origin aircraft and became the first Indian company to be accredited by the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC). Today, the KMS has emerged as a true three dimensional service enterprise capable of handling large turnkey projects.
In this globalized world, the growing international mobility of inputs, such as humans, financial capital, and service industry, offers great opportunities for policy makers determined to develop domestic defence industry. Complex new industrial facilities are indeed very difficult to develop over short periods and may at times require foreign expertise and direct foreign investment. It is also true that orders for defence goods and services to be sourced locally or overseas depends solely on national decisions making body and also on the on economic aspects of policy. However, keeping in mind that the Indian naval leadership has already identified indigenisation as a force multiplier and to be pursued as a Key Result Area , it is important to understand that initiatives such as the KMS are essential to national defence and that they must be given a boost. This fit well into the concept of national security or the Fourth-Arm-of-Defence argument for investing in and maintaining a local defence industry. It is a strategic decision whether to have such industry or not, but economic arguments favour this approach and this route reduces dependence on foreign engineers.

There is always a key requirement among military establishments to have a dependable and an effective after sales service system. In the Russian context, the Government of Russia has passed a special decree for the formation of a service center as a Joint Venture Company Rosoboronservice India in March 2005. The agency provides a support avenue for various after sales service activities such as preventive maintenance, defect investigation, planned and emergency repairs, and even supply of spare parts.

Traditionally India’s military industrial complex has been the domain of public sector units and given the confidential nature of their activity, their performance has not been well scrutinized. Although, privatisation of the military industrial complex may not be panacea for the poor performance of the public sector units, it is desirable that the government must embark on a phased private programme for both procurement and service of the military hardware. Today, there is credible evidence to state that India’s military industrial complex can be rejuvenated by infusing the private enterprises like the Krasny Marine Services.

Dr Vijay Sakhuja is Senior Fellow Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.

(Dr Vijay Sakhuja is a corporate Risk Analyst and Research Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi . sakhuja.v@gmail.com)

Kelkar Committee

By Maj Gen (Retd) Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, PhD
Issue: Vol 22.3

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/?p=85

The Government of India set up a committee under Mr Vijay Kelkar to recommend measures to bring about improvements in defence acquisitions and production. It was given the following terms of reference:

• To examine the current procedures and recommend changes required in order to modify acquisition process on an approach based on a “product strategy”.

• To examine and recommend modalities of integration of the User, the Defence Ministry and the Indian Industry (both private and public) in the acquisition process.

• To examine and recommend changes so as to increase defence exports and incorporation of offsets in defence acquisition.

• To examine and make recommendations for appropriate changes to facilitate Defence Public Sector Undertakings and Ordnance Factories to assume the role of designer and integrator, enabling them to build consortium of industries.

The Committee commenced work in July 2004 and submitted its report in two parts in April 2005 and November 2005 respectively. The Government has accepted most of its recommendations. Major recommendations of the Committee are as follows:-

• The Government should evolve a 15 Year Long Term Plan for defence acquisitions and share it with the industry.

• Entry points for the private sector should be well identified and a policy should be evolved to promote participation of small and medium enterprises in defence production.

• Select private sector companies should be accredited as Raksha Udyog Ratna and treated at par with the public sector.

• There is a need to establish a professional acquisition agency, like the DGA of France.

• Defence research and development should be opened to the industry also.

• Decision making should be transparent and existing capacity should be fully utilised.

• All contracts of over Rs 300 crores must carry an offset obligation.

• Negative list for defence exports should be reviewed and an organisation should be established to promote defence exports.

• The Ordnance Factories should be corporatised.

• • The public sector should have greater freedom as regards forming of joint ventures and cross investment in foreign countries for obtaining technology.

The Government is seized of the above recommendations and has already constituted an expert committee under Mr NS Sisodia to recommend changes in the acquisition organisation.

September 1st, 2007.

Honeywell: Bolsters India’s Aerospace and Defence Capabilities

By IDR News Network
Issue: Vol. 23.4

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/?p=402

Honeywell is a leading provider of technology solutions for the global aerospace and defence industry. Honeywell has had operations in India for more than two decades and its contributions to Indian engineering, research and development, and manufacturing capabilities continue to expand.

Superior technology, products, solutions expertise and customer relationships make Honeywell one of the most valued names in aerospace. With its nose-to-tail and gate-to-gate integration capabilities, Honeywell consistently delivers innovation that meets the needs of its customers for higher performance, enhanced reliability and safety, and reduced costs.

The company develops and delivers leading-edge technologies, systems, products and services for commercial and military platforms, ranging from unmanned aircraft and jet fighters to commercial airliners, rotorcraft and the International Space Station. The company is a leading provider of aircraft and vehicle engines, integrated avionics systems, navigation and safety systems, and a diverse range of other technologies.

For almost half a century, Honeywell has produced turbofan, turboprop and turboshaft propulsion engines for military and commercial aircraft. With more than 120,000 fielded propulsion systems around the world and more than 1.6 billion service hours its engines have a long history of proven performance – and of providing operators with technologies for higher performance, enhanced reliability and reduced operating costs.

“Made in India” Honeywell Engines Used Worldwide

This year, Honeywell signed a landmark agreement with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) to manufacture the TPE331-10 engine in India.

The new agreement extends the long relationship between Honeywell and HAL, which dates back to 1984 when HAL began manufacturing an earlier version of the TPE331 engine for Indian Air Force and Coast Guard Dornier-228 aircraft.  Honeywell also provides technology and components for HAL aircraft including the Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter, Light Combat Aircraft, Intermediate Jet Trainer and Advanced Jet Trainer, IAF Hawk, Light Combat Helicopter.

Honeywell Engine Considered for Jaguar Update

Honeywell also is working with the Indian Air Force on a potential program to re-engine the IAF’s Jaguar strike aircraft with the F125IN turbofan engine. This specially designed model of the service-proven F125 engine was successfully demonstrated for the IAF in 2007.  If chosen by the IAF, the F125IN will have significant content produced in India.

The new engine will provide the IAF Jaguar fleet with a modern, reliable and safe propulsion system that will transform the capabilities, performance and safety of the aircraft. The F125IN is projected to save more than USD $1.5 billion (or the equivalent approximately Rs 7000 Crore) in life-cycle costs compared to the existing Jaguar engine.

The F125IN engine will be significantly lighter and more powerful than aircraft’s current engine. It features an advanced dual full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) system, modular construction, integrated engine health monitoring system and outstanding power-to-weight ratio. 

A Leader in Rotorcraft Flight Safety Technology

Honeywell has been in the forefront of flight safety for more than 50 years. The company believes that aviation accidents are avoidable, especially those that involve a degraded situational awareness of flight crews and information available to the flight crew. Honeywell has taken these enhancements for aviation safety to focus on all flight regimes and mission profiles.

Pilots flying aircraft equipped with the Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS), Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), Runway Awareness and Advisory System (RAAS) and severe-weather avoidance systems receive accurate real-time information about their section of airspace.

Rotorcraft pilots fly unique and challenging flight regimes. Honeywell’s rotorcraft safety solutions help prevent avoidable collisions with ground, water, and obstacles such as towers and other aircraft – even when flying in adverse weather with poor visibility, rough terrain, or at low altitudes. Environmental awareness and hazard avoidance systems minimize risks and maximize reaction time by continually and monitoring terrain, obstacles and traffic within 40 nautical miles, and providing visual and oral warnings to the flight crews. The warnings are based on database technology, aircraft system inputs, closure rates and proximity to the threat. The solution includes EGPWS designed specifically for rotorcraft operations, which helps prevent avoidable collisions with the ground, water and manmade obstacles. Honeywell pioneered EPGWS technology and it flies in the airline, regional, business aircraft, general aviation, and rotorcraft segments.

Another innovation, IntuVue 3-D weather radar, provides flight crews with the most accurate, real-time information available to assess approaching weather systems and determine the safest, most efficient way to avoid thunderstorms, turbulence, windshear and other potentially hazardous weather-related conditions. The system is an all-new approach to weather detection and avoidance.

Task and data management is especially important in emergency medical, police and SAR operations. The Observer MkIII is a task-management mapping system that provides highly detailed raster mapping in the VFR environment. As a multi-workstation task management system, Observer can create a paperless cockpit by using databases that allow position, text and images to be stored and retrieved at the touch of a button.

Honeywell has not neglected aircraft safety around airports. The company has solutions, products and services that are designed to improve the safety and efficiency of airports, critical infrastructure protection and airfield solutions, including lighting. Honeywell helped modernize Delhi, Hyderabad and Bangalore airports and is looking for other opportunities to help India modernize its air transportation system.

Land Systems

Honeywell also provides systems for the development and upgrade on a wide variety of land systems. Honeywell’s TALIN Inertial Navigation Units deliver outstanding position and pointing accuracy to infantry fighting vehicles, main battle tanks, self propelled and towed Howitzers, and rocket launch systems. Honeywell’s Digital Magnetic Compasses and Dead Reckoning Modules have been selected by soldier modernization programs. Honeywell also offers the battle proven AGT1500 tank engine, auxiliary power units, environmental control systems, and the innovative CATOX NBC (Catalytic Oxidation) protection system.

UAV Expertise

Honeywell is well known for its UAV expertise. For example, the T-Hawk Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) is equipped with video cameras to let troops see threats on the ground as it hovers above the battlefield. At just 14 inches (.36 meters) in diameter and 17 pounds (7.7 kilos), the aircraft is small enough to be carried in a backpack. The vehicle can easily fly into hazardous areas without exposing soldiers to enemy fire.

The T-Hawk has the unique ability to take off and land vertically from complex desert and urban terrains without runways or helipads. It provides more than 40 minutes of flight endurance, more than 40 knots of airspeed and operates to altitudes of more than 7,000 feet.

Commercial Airlines

Honeywell provides mechanical systems and advanced cockpit avionics to all of India’s major commercial airlines, as well as providing aftermarket maintenance support.

Safety systems include Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS), which provides a terrain display and alerts the flight crew if the aircraft approaches too close to terrain. Honeywell’s patented ACAS (i.e., TCAS – Traffic Collision Avoidance System) provides a display of surrounding aircraft and alerts the flight crew if another aircraft comes too close for safety. Honeywell’s radar provides essential weather detection up to 320 nautical miles, turbulence detection up to 40 nautical miles, and forward-looking windshear detection up to five nautical miles. Honeywell’s flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders record flight data parameters and cockpit voice conversation for analysis. Honeywell’s auxiliary power unit is a small gas turbine engine that provides compressed air and electrical power for main-engine starting and operation of aircraft systems on the ground or in flight. The APU is designed to meet the power needs of the commercial aircraft with lower fuel burn and emissions.

Indian Scientists and Engineers Play Pivotal Role

Indian scientists and engineers play a key role in Honeywell’s aerospace research and development efforts. Founded in the mid-1990s, the Honeywell Technology Solutions lab (HTS) is headquartered in Bangalore, with locations in Madurai and . HTS staff members are performing pioneering work on the next generation of Honeywell avionics, navigation and safety systems, and mechanical products. In all, more than 8,000 people are employed by the company in India, and many are engineers and software developers. During the last few years Honeywell has developed its diverse engineering base in India, with engineers in India as well as staff who provide program management, quality assurance, systems engineering, technology, and market analytics.

HTS also serves the needs of Honeywell’s other divisions, which include Automation & Control Solutions, Specialty Materials, and Transportation Systems. Honeywell is a $38 billion (U.S.) global company with customers, employees and operations in more than 100 countries.

In India and throughout the world, Honeywell technology, products and services make people safer and more secure, more comfortable and energy efficient, and more innovative and productive.

December 7th, 2008.