軍工聯合體

軍工聯合體

https://www.britannica.com/topic/military-industrial-complex

另請參閱 RCW 關於“肮髒十二人”的研究項目：大規模殺傷性武器的企業合作夥伴

美國總統德懷特·艾森豪威爾在 1961 年的演講中將“軍工聯合體 (MIC)”一詞帶入了二十世紀的詞匯表。艾森豪威爾警告說：

在政府委員會中，我們必須防止軍工聯合體獲得不正當的影響力，無論是有意還是無意的。權力錯位導致災難性崛起的可能性是存在的，而且將持續存在。我們絕不能讓這種組合的重量危及我們的自由或民主進程。我們不應該把任何事情視為理所當然。隻有警覺且知識淵博的公民才能迫使龐大的工業和軍事防禦機製與我們的和平方法和目標正確結合，以便安全和自由共同繁榮。

MIC 的概念通常用於指立法者、國家武裝部隊和所謂的“國防”工業（又稱戰爭奸商）之間的政策和貨幣關係。這些關係包括政治捐款、對武器和戰爭支出的政治批準、支持官僚機構的遊說以及對行業的監督。

國際視角

現代 MIC 源於 19 世紀 80 年代和 90 年代英國、法國和德國的工業革命。交通運輸革命（輪船和鐵路）使這些國家能夠進行長距離動員，促進了“帝國主義時代”。可以說，戰爭的工業化也加劇了緊張局勢。隨著第一次世界大戰 (WWI) 的開始，釋放的軍事潛力在歐洲產生了可怕的後果，這是一場在戰壕中進行的消耗戰，付出了巨大的人道主義和經濟代價。

第一次世界大戰結束時，大多數國家並未完全複員；相反，技術被更快地融入軍事用途。這導致軍方與私營公司之間的關係得到加強，包括日本和美國在內的其他國家也建立了中等收入國家。1930 年至 1939 年期間，軍費開支翻了一番。

第二次世界大戰 (WWII) 期間，GDP 的很大一部分用於戰爭。1943 年，盟軍的 GDP 總額為 2,2230 億美元（按 1990 年價格計算）。二戰對參戰國的經濟產生了深遠的影響，大多數西方國家的公共支出和稅收水平都發生了變化。

二戰也與先進武器技術的出現同義，尤其是核武器。許多工業化國家的政治精英開始以軍事術語來定義國際現實。二戰後，軍事需求繼續影響企業經濟，冷戰體現了兩個超級大國之間無休止的軍備競賽。低強度、非常規衝突時期，被潛在核衝突的持續威脅所籠罩，營造出一種氛圍，人們認為需要不斷采購軍事產品和服務，包括大規模的海軍、空軍和陸軍。目前的美國軍工聯合體就是在這種環境下誕生的。

政治、軍事和經濟機構之間這些牢固而看似密不可分的聯係，導致 E.P. 湯普森在 1982 年宣稱，美國（和蘇聯）“沒有軍工聯合體；他們就是軍工聯合體。”根據斯德哥爾摩國際和平研究所 (SIPRI) 的數據，全球軍費開支持續增加，美國軍方在作戰和資金方麵都占據主導地位。2011 年的軍費總開支為 1.74 萬億美元。

美國現任政府和“國防”工業捐款

“國防”工業往往向現任國會議員提供大量捐款。雖然它不是向政客捐款最多的，但它是政治上最強大的部門之一。該部門包括實驗室、大學以及各種武器、航空航天和電子公司。

據響應性政治中心稱，在 2008 年競選周期中，與“國防”部門相關的個人和政治行動委員會向政治候選人和委員會捐款近 2400 萬美元，民主黨和共和黨各占一半。雖然共和黨在過去受到青睞，但最終捐款還是會捐給掌權的人。據信，在過去二十年裏，該部門共捐款 1.508 億美元，其中 57% 捐給了共和黨候選人。

響應性政治中心表示，國防部門還擁有強大的聯邦遊說力量，2009 年花費了 1.365 億美元，低於前一年 1.508 億美元的高點。2009 年，超過 1,100 名遊說者代表

擁有近 400 名客戶。過去二十年來，“國防”遊說花費的金額和遊說者的數量穩步增長。

該行業最大的公司包括洛克希德馬丁、波音、通用動力、諾斯羅普格魯曼和雷神。允許這些公司向政客捐款意味著武器製造商可以獲得政府的“國防”合同，這些合同往往利潤豐厚。這也意味著他們可以通過瞄準眾議院和參議院成員來影響預算，這些成員是負責監督軍事和“國防”支出的武裝部隊和撥款委員會的成員。雖然共和黨和民主黨都在全國招募代表來保證五角大樓數十億美元的合同，但納稅人才是全國大型武器製造廠的承保人。許多說客，包括退休軍人，利用他們在五角大樓工作期間獲得的內部信息來談判數十億美元的合同。國防遊說者與軍方混在一起，以確保不需競標的合同，這與“安全和自由”的繁榮形成了鮮明對比。

軍工聯合體對裁軍的影響

政治、軍事和經濟精英的交織是民主的虛偽——如果不是腐敗的話。這種投資的交織需要不斷擴大的增長才能生存，這不僅從根本上與廢除核武器背道而馳，而且是對和平與正義的詛咒。讓納稅人承保軍事合同和武器製造廠不僅意味著資源被分配到醫療保健、教育和社區基礎設施之外，也與廢除核武器的目標相矛盾。民間社會必須努力擺脫武器，這將需要繼續挑戰政治和經濟結構。

Military-industrial complex

https://www.britannica.com/topic/military-industrial-complex

Also see RCW’s research project on the Dirty Dozen: corporate partners in mass destruction

US President Dwight D. Eisenhower brought the term military-industrial complex (MIC) into the lexicon of the twentieth century with his 1961 address. Eisenhower warned:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

The concept of MIC is commonly used to refer to policy and monetary relationships between legislators, national armed forces, and the so-called “defence” industry (aka war profiteers). These relationships include political contributions, political approval for expenditure on weapons and war, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry.

International perspective

Modern MICs rose out of the industrial revolution in Britain, France, and Germany in the 1880s and 1890s. The revolution in transportation (steamships and railroads) made it possible for these nations to make long-distance mobilizations, facilitating the “Age of Imperialism”. Arguably, the industrialization of war also fueled tensions. The military potential that was unleashed had horrible consequences in Europe with the beginning of the World War I (WWI), which was a war of attrition fought in trenches, at great humanitarian and economic cost.

At the end of WWI, the majority of countries did not completely demobilized; instead there was a shift toward faster integration of technology into military usage. This resulted in strengthening relationships between the military and private companies, and the establishment of MICs in other nations, including Japan and the United States (US). The period between 1930 and 1939 military spending doubled.

World War II (WWII) saw large proportions of GDP spent on war. In 1943 the Allied total GDP was 2,223 billion international dollars (in 1990 prices). The impact of WWII was profound for participants’ economies, with changes in the public spending and taxation levels of most Western nations.

WWII is also synonymous with the advent of advanced weapon technologies, especially nuclear weapons. The political elite in many industrialized countries came to define international reality in predominantly military terms. After WWII, military demands continued to influence the corporate economy, with the Cold War embodying a relentless armaments race between the two superpowers. The period of low-intensity, unconventional conflict, overshadowed by the constant threat of a potential nuclear conflict, allowed an atmosphere to be created where there was a perceived need for constant procurement of military goods and services including large naval, air, and land forces. It was from this environment that the current US MIC was born.

These robust and seemingly inextricable ties between the political, military, and economic establishments led E.P. Thompson to declare in 1982 that the United States (and the Soviet Union) “do not have military-industrial complexes; they are such complexes.” According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) a continuous increase in military spending continues worldwide, with the US military dominating both operationally and monetarily. The total military expenditure in 2011 was 1.74 trillion USD.

American incumbents and “defence” industry donations

The “defence” industry tends to contribute heavily to incumbent members of Congress. While it is not the highest contributor of money to politicians, it is one of the most politically powerful. The sector includes laboratories, universities, and various weapon, aerospace, and electronics companies.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, individuals and political action committees associated with the “defence” sector contributed nearly $24 million to political candidates and committees during the 2008 campaign cycle, split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. While Republicans have been favoured in the past, ultimately contributions are made to whoever is in power. It is believed that during the last two decades, the sector has contributed a total of US$150.8 million, with 57 percent going to Republican candidates.

The Center for Responsive Politics states that the defense sector also has a formidable federal lobbying presence, having spent US136.5 million in 2009, down from a high of US$150.8 million the previous year. In 2009, more than 1,100 lobbyists represented nearly 400 clients. The amount spent on “defence” lobbying and the number of lobbyists has steadily increased during the last two decades.

The sector’s biggest companies include Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon. Allowing these companies to make donations to politicians means that the weapons manufacturers can secure government “defence” contracts, which are often lucrative. It also means they influence the budget by targeting House and Senate members who sit on the armed forces and appropriations committees overseeing military and “defence” spending. While both Republicans and Democrats recruit reps across the country to guarantee the Pentagon’s billion dollar contracts, it is the taxpayer that underwrites the large weapon manufacturing plants across the country. Many lobbyists, retired service men and women, negotiate billion dollar contracts using insider information they obtained while employed at the Pentagon. The muddy world where defense lobbyists mingle with the military to secure no-bid contracts is in contrast to the prospering of “security and liberty”.

Implications of the MIC for disarmament

The intertwining of the political, military, and economic elite is democratically hypocritical – if not corrupt. This intertwining of investments, which requires always-expanding growth to survive, is not only fundamentally at odds with abolition, but is an anathema to peace and justice. Having taxpayers underwrite military contracts and weapon manufacturing plants not only means that resources are allocated away from healthcare, education and community infrastructure, it also contradictory to the goal of abolition. Civil society must endeavor to getting rid of the weapons, which will require continued challenging of political and economic structures.