Empathy and arms sales
Dr. Samantha Nutt in a Ted talk posted June 2016 entitled The real harm of the global arms trade discussed her personal experience in working with people directly affected by the proliferation and use of weapons. She is founder of the international humanitarian organization War Child. She has worked in the field with such organizations as Doctors Without Borders for over twenty years.
I have previously questioned how the United States can both profess to be working for peace, offering humanitarian aid to many affected by war and continue to be the world leader in the sale of weapons which, as Dr. Nutt points out, frequently end up in the hands of children or those who use violence to impose their beliefs on others. In this presidential election we, the people of the United States, which has allowed organizations such as the NRA to have such a powerful influence on the thinking and actions of our politicians, need to consider some of the facts about the business of manufacturing and selling weapons. I urge the reader to do their own research since the figures may vary a little from source to source although I have not found the differences in figures to be statistically significant. I personally think that the figures speak for themselves. I did not research all the principal stockholders in the various companies. Often the top stockholders are listed as the current CEO and other senior executives. Such is the case with Lockheed Martin whose CEO is one of the most powerful business woman in the United States. Consider:
“According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the top 100 weapons manufacturers in the world sold a combined $402 billions of arms in 2013, proving that war can be indeed profitable for companies in the industry.”
The top 10 profit making arms companies of NATO countries are:
Lockheed Martin
Revenue (2014): $45.6 billion
Country of Origin: USA
Boeing
Revenue (2014): $30.7 billion
Country of Origin: USA
BAE Systems
Revenue (2014): $26.82 billion
Country of Origin: U.K.
Raytheon
Revenue (2014): $21.95 billion
Country of Origin: USA
Northrop Grumman
Revenue (2014): $20.22 billion
Country of Origin: USA
General Dynamics
Revenue (2014): $18.66 billion
Country of Origin: USA
EADS/Airbus Group
Revenue (2014): $15.7 billion
Country of Origin: N/A
United Technologies Corporation
Revenue (2014): $11.9 billion
Country of Origin: USA
Finmeccanica
Revenue (2014): $10.56 billion
Country of Origin: Italy
Thales
Revenue (2014): $10.37 billion
Country of Origin: France
(Tharawat-magagine.com)
Large companies which manufacture and sell guns and other weapons can only survive if they can sell their weapons to the government, the private citizens of the United States and, with government approval, to various governments and groups in other countries. These companies also often sell public stock and, therefore, need stockholders. Many stockholders may or may not be aware of the particular stocks which are in their portfolio. I have no idea if President Barack Obama knows that he has money in a pension fund that holds stock in gun and ammunition companies. Although Obama’s stake is minuscule, worth no more than $30, it reflects a much larger surge of investment. Since Obama was elected in 2009, mutual funds have raised their stakes to about $510 million for $30 million in the nation’s two largest gun manufactures with publicly traded shares…This means such stocks are now common in retirement and college savings plans…
The president is among millions of Americans buying into gun companies - often unwittingly - as mutual funds have increased such holdings to record levels, according to a Reuters analysis of institutional investment in firearms companies. (Reuters.com, Special Report: Why Obama and other gun control advocates own stock in firearms makers, by Tim McClaughlin and Peter Eisler, February 5, 2016)
Every voter might want to question the historic role of arms sales – who profits and where the guns and other military equipment ends up. Perhaps every candidate for every elected office should be prepared to have a cogent, fact based, non-reactionary discussion about the profit aspect of weapons manufacturing and sales. Perhaps every candidate and every current elected official could provide a list of all companies in which they own stock.
I suspect that it is easy for all of us to convince ourselves that we are powerless to change such major issues. It may be easy to convince ourselves that we cannot afford to take a stance on the investment ethics of the company for which we work or with whom we have any association. When I was at graduate school we students for whom the institution existed insisted that the board of trustees commit to insuring that their investment policies matched their stated ethics and mission.
We cannot logically claim to have empathy for those who profit directly and indirectly by violence and not take a stand on the fact that military weapons are big business in this and all other NATO countries.
Empathy is an action word. It is not passive.
Written June 2, 2016
Dr. Samantha Nutt in a Ted talk posted June 2016 entitled The real harm of the global arms trade discussed her personal experience in working with people directly affected by the proliferation and use of weapons. She is founder of the international humanitarian organization War Child. She has worked in the field with such organizations as Doctors Without Borders for over twenty years.
I have previously questioned how the United States can both profess to be working for peace, offering humanitarian aid to many affected by war and continue to be the world leader in the sale of weapons which, as Dr. Nutt points out, frequently end up in the hands of children or those who use violence to impose their beliefs on others. In this presidential election we, the people of the United States, which has allowed organizations such as the NRA to have such a powerful influence on the thinking and actions of our politicians, need to consider some of the facts about the business of manufacturing and selling weapons. I urge the reader to do their own research since the figures may vary a little from source to source although I have not found the differences in figures to be statistically significant. I personally think that the figures speak for themselves. I did not research all the principal stockholders in the various companies. Often the top stockholders are listed as the current CEO and other senior executives. Such is the case with Lockheed Martin whose CEO is one of the most powerful business woman in the United States. Consider:
“According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the top 100 weapons manufacturers in the world sold a combined $402 billions of arms in 2013, proving that war can be indeed profitable for companies in the industry.”
The top 10 profit making arms companies of NATO countries are:
Lockheed Martin
Revenue (2014): $45.6 billion
Country of Origin: USA
Boeing
Revenue (2014): $30.7 billion
Country of Origin: USA
BAE Systems
Revenue (2014): $26.82 billion
Country of Origin: U.K.
Raytheon
Revenue (2014): $21.95 billion
Country of Origin: USA
Northrop Grumman
Revenue (2014): $20.22 billion
Country of Origin: USA
General Dynamics
Revenue (2014): $18.66 billion
Country of Origin: USA
EADS/Airbus Group
Revenue (2014): $15.7 billion
Country of Origin: N/A
United Technologies Corporation
Revenue (2014): $11.9 billion
Country of Origin: USA
Finmeccanica
Revenue (2014): $10.56 billion
Country of Origin: Italy
Thales
Revenue (2014): $10.37 billion
Country of Origin: France
(Tharawat-magagine.com)
Large companies which manufacture and sell guns and other weapons can only survive if they can sell their weapons to the government, the private citizens of the United States and, with government approval, to various governments and groups in other countries. These companies also often sell public stock and, therefore, need stockholders. Many stockholders may or may not be aware of the particular stocks which are in their portfolio. I have no idea if President Barack Obama knows that he has money in a pension fund that holds stock in gun and ammunition companies. Although Obama’s stake is minuscule, worth no more than $30, it reflects a much larger surge of investment. Since Obama was elected in 2009, mutual funds have raised their stakes to about $510 million for $30 million in the nation’s two largest gun manufactures with publicly traded shares…This means such stocks are now common in retirement and college savings plans…
The president is among millions of Americans buying into gun companies - often unwittingly - as mutual funds have increased such holdings to record levels, according to a Reuters analysis of institutional investment in firearms companies. (Reuters.com, Special Report: Why Obama and other gun control advocates own stock in firearms makers, by Tim McClaughlin and Peter Eisler, February 5, 2016)
Every voter might want to question the historic role of arms sales – who profits and where the guns and other military equipment ends up. Perhaps every candidate for every elected office should be prepared to have a cogent, fact based, non-reactionary discussion about the profit aspect of weapons manufacturing and sales. Perhaps every candidate and every current elected official could provide a list of all companies in which they own stock.
I suspect that it is easy for all of us to convince ourselves that we are powerless to change such major issues. It may be easy to convince ourselves that we cannot afford to take a stance on the investment ethics of the company for which we work or with whom we have any association. When I was at graduate school we students for whom the institution existed insisted that the board of trustees commit to insuring that their investment policies matched their stated ethics and mission.
We cannot logically claim to have empathy for those who profit directly and indirectly by violence and not take a stand on the fact that military weapons are big business in this and all other NATO countries.
Empathy is an action word. It is not passive.
Written June 2, 2016
RSS Feed