K-Defense Day: Pimping For The Arms Dealers
The European Union huffs and struts towards higher targets of expenditure that will cull projects for peaceful development in favour of a fatuous rearmament agenda. Member countries of the NATO alliance, lent on by the administration of President Donald Trump, are doing the same. The countries of the Middle East continue to add to the numbers, with warring Israel seeing a 65% increase in 2024 to US$46.5 billion, the sharpest annual increase since the Six-Day War in 1967.
In East Asia, military contractors are also preening themselves in Tokyo and Seoul, pressing the flesh and pursuing contracts. Japan's military spending rose by a gulping 21% in 2024. The amount of US$55.3 billion is the largest since 1952. In Seoul, on the occasion of K-Defense Day on June 8, President Lee Jae-myung made it clear that he did not want South Korea's own defence industry to miss out on all the fun. In a closed-door discussion held at the Grand Hyatt Seoul hotel organised by the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), Lee solemnly promised to 'do my best to push ahead, as long as we don't end up being labelled arms dealers'.
This somewhat idiosyncratic caveat is bound to make little difference, given Lee's ambitions to promote the value of South Korea's killing inventory. DAPA, wanting to make the most of its first Defense Industry Day themed 'Remembering the dedication and passion of Korea's Defense Industry', was in a bullish mood to promote Korean military prowess. Some well minted propaganda did the rounds, drawing inspiration on the exploits of Admiral Yi Sun-sin on July 8, 1592, when the turtle ship was committed to the Battle of Sacheon against the Japanese fleet. The turtle ship, in its 'historical significance', symbolised 'Korea's will to protect its territory and its independent technological prowess.'
Those in the defence industry had been worried that the new President might give them the cold shoulder on this grand occasion. He had previously attacked the installation of the US Terminal High Altitude Defense system on Korean soil, ostensibly to protect South Korea from North Korean missiles, as needlessly provocative.
The militarists need not have worried. All the relevant mandarins were in attendance, including the Minister of National Defense nominee Ahn Gyu-baek and Chairperson of the National Defense Committee, Seong Il-jong. The industry titans were also represented. Numerous awards of merit were also presented.
Lee had purportedly told his aides that K-Defense Day, put on the calendar of commemorations by his impeached predecessor Yoon Suk Yeol in 2023, would be a good opportunity to 'highlight our support for defence.' According to Korea JoongAng Daily, Lee outlined his various achievements of late to the closed gathering, including attending the G7 summit held last month in Canada. 'A big reason I went was to showcase the strength of our defence industry and to ask them to buy our submarines.'
In May, it was revealed that a trio of South Korean firms – Hyundai Heavy Industries, Hanwha Ocean and Hanwha Aerospace – had made a combined offer to the Canadian armed forces valued between US$14 to 17 billion in submarines, with US$720 million worth of armoured vehicles and artillery systems. It was a good time for the Koreans to strike, given the stated view by newly-elected Canadian Prime Minister Mike Carney that 'the old relationship with the United States based on… tight security and military cooperation is over'.
Lee also explained his purpose for seeking an invitation to the latest NATO summit held in The Hague. Despite wanting to avoid accusations of being a grubby arms dealer, the ROK President was clearly placing the ambitions and wallets of arms dealers ahead of the common citizenry. He had become a pimp for arms: 'The biggest reason I wanted to go was to advertise our defence industry and weapons.'
Participants at the forum pressed Lee to depart from the view that defence was a matter of procurement and competition between parties rather than a total industry beneficial to the state. The response was suitably patriotic – at least if you are a merchant of death: 'Defence and arms exports are not just a competition between companies; they're a competition between nations. We have to win as 'One Team Korea.''
In public remarks made at the start of the forum, Lee offered the sort of reasoning that launders the military-industrial complex of its stains, concealing its insatiable appetite to stimulate the cause for war. 'I hope the defence industry not only strengthens our security but also becomes one of Korea's future growth engines. The government will continue investing and providing strong support.'
In response to 'the rapidly changing security environment', the government would also 'develop state-of-the-art weapon systems using artificial intelligence (AI) and unmanned robots and build a healthy business ecosystem that goes beyond the industrial structure centred on big corporations to allow small and medium enterprises and diverse talent to participate.' Militarism, following this seedy rationale, should not just be for the big corporations and arms manufacturers. In the business of killing, the little guys should also be given a chance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Defence Spending Is Like Insurance – How Will NZ Pay The Higher Premiums?
Defence spending is like insurance – you have to pay for it but you hope you never have to use it. And the higher the risk you face, the higher your premium will be. New Zealand has now committed to paying those higher defence insurance premiums. The government's 2025 Defence Capability Plan, released in April, includes NZ$9 billion in extra funding over the next four years. That's a sizable increase on a current annual budget of just under $5 billion. New Zealand is not alone, of course. Driven by geopolitical tensions and US President Donald Trump's demand that other countries spend a higher proportion of their GDP on defence, global military spending rose for the tenth year in a row to US$2,718 billion in 2024, with huge increases in Europe and the Middle East. How much 'insurance' a country should buy in the form of defence spending will vary. Too little, and it cannot respond when it needs to; too much, and resources are needlessly wasted. For New Zealand, it is a matter of finding the right balance. Economically, however, defence spending is more complicated than simply buying weapons and recruiting more personnel. There can be benefits beyond basic security considerations. One involves what economists call 'technology spillovers'. Past innovations developed for military use – such as jet engines, GPS and the internet – often found important civilian applications. The challenge is to design defence investments to deliberately build skills and technologies with wider economic benefit: advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity or clean tech. New Zealand's defence plan includes this kind of spending, including between $100 million and 300 million on cybersecurity. On the other hand, promises of new jobs from large projects are often overstated, with New Zealand's best known example being the ' Think Big ' policy of the 1970s. Rather, there can be job substitution as people move from civilian roles into military ones. Guns and butter In the end, of course, increased defence spending must be funded – through higher taxes, more debt or reduced spending on other items. Higher GDP growth would make the expenditure more affordable, but even then we face the same tradeoffs. It's not possible to have lower taxes and debt as well as higher government spending. Most of the expenditure set out in the defence plan will be on equipment. But any increase in the output of the defence industry will likely crowd out other consumer and investment goods. While clearly an extreme example, one only has to look at how defence spending rose during WWII. The increase in military output came at the expense of other goods, leading to shortages and rationing. New Zealand doesn't face that scale of change, but there is still likely to be some shift in production from 'butter to guns'. We might also see a shift in how businesses spend their research and development money, towards military and away from civilian applications. New Zealand does not have a large defence industry and will need to import much of the new equipment. This implies a need for higher exports to pay for those imports, meaning fewer goods for New Zealanders to consume. Costs and benefits Most countries are understandably reluctant to cut spending on health, education and other things voters care about in order to boost defence. Hence, governments can be tempted to label new expenditures as 'defence' when it could otherwise be classified as 'updated infrastructure'. Spending on dual-purpose capital works is likely to increase, therefore, with projects earmarked for defence more likely to be funded. The New Zealand defence plan already allows for housing, airfield and port facilities that can all have multiple uses. There are also ethical considerations. Many consumers prefer not to invest in the arms trade, but components used in weapons manufacture often have non-military uses as well. Similarly, many consumer items, such as phones, vehicles and food, can be purchased by the military but clearly have non-military uses. We may see more of the output of companies that also produce non-military items directed into defence. All of this can make it difficult to classify a company as a defence contractor, and may be challenging for large investors (such as superannuation funds) with ethical investment policies. At the same time, the cost of not investing in defence firms might also rise as demand for their products or services increases and they become better investments. Like people in general, countries prefer lower insurance premiums. But when risks increase, so too does the price of insurance. Voters will disagree on how much should be spent on defence, but that is largely a political question. What economics teaches us, however, is that if you want to reduce your insurance premium, then reduce your risk. And that is something easier said than done.
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
K-Defense Day: Pimping For The Arms Dealers
Militarism is catching on across the countries of advanced economies and beyond. The sly, disingenuous term of 'defence' is used in this context, encouraging arms manufacturers, contractors and the entire apparatus of the military-industrial complex to fatten for the cause. The European Union huffs and struts towards higher targets of expenditure that will cull projects for peaceful development in favour of a fatuous rearmament agenda. Member countries of the NATO alliance, lent on by the administration of President Donald Trump, are doing the same. The countries of the Middle East continue to add to the numbers, with warring Israel seeing a 65% increase in 2024 to US$46.5 billion, the sharpest annual increase since the Six-Day War in 1967. In East Asia, military contractors are also preening themselves in Tokyo and Seoul, pressing the flesh and pursuing contracts. Japan's military spending rose by a gulping 21% in 2024. The amount of US$55.3 billion is the largest since 1952. In Seoul, on the occasion of K-Defense Day on June 8, President Lee Jae-myung made it clear that he did not want South Korea's own defence industry to miss out on all the fun. In a closed-door discussion held at the Grand Hyatt Seoul hotel organised by the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), Lee solemnly promised to 'do my best to push ahead, as long as we don't end up being labelled arms dealers'. This somewhat idiosyncratic caveat is bound to make little difference, given Lee's ambitions to promote the value of South Korea's killing inventory. DAPA, wanting to make the most of its first Defense Industry Day themed 'Remembering the dedication and passion of Korea's Defense Industry', was in a bullish mood to promote Korean military prowess. Some well minted propaganda did the rounds, drawing inspiration on the exploits of Admiral Yi Sun-sin on July 8, 1592, when the turtle ship was committed to the Battle of Sacheon against the Japanese fleet. The turtle ship, in its 'historical significance', symbolised 'Korea's will to protect its territory and its independent technological prowess.' Those in the defence industry had been worried that the new President might give them the cold shoulder on this grand occasion. He had previously attacked the installation of the US Terminal High Altitude Defense system on Korean soil, ostensibly to protect South Korea from North Korean missiles, as needlessly provocative. The militarists need not have worried. All the relevant mandarins were in attendance, including the Minister of National Defense nominee Ahn Gyu-baek and Chairperson of the National Defense Committee, Seong Il-jong. The industry titans were also represented. Numerous awards of merit were also presented. Lee had purportedly told his aides that K-Defense Day, put on the calendar of commemorations by his impeached predecessor Yoon Suk Yeol in 2023, would be a good opportunity to 'highlight our support for defence.' According to Korea JoongAng Daily, Lee outlined his various achievements of late to the closed gathering, including attending the G7 summit held last month in Canada. 'A big reason I went was to showcase the strength of our defence industry and to ask them to buy our submarines.' In May, it was revealed that a trio of South Korean firms – Hyundai Heavy Industries, Hanwha Ocean and Hanwha Aerospace – had made a combined offer to the Canadian armed forces valued between US$14 to 17 billion in submarines, with US$720 million worth of armoured vehicles and artillery systems. It was a good time for the Koreans to strike, given the stated view by newly-elected Canadian Prime Minister Mike Carney that 'the old relationship with the United States based on… tight security and military cooperation is over'. Lee also explained his purpose for seeking an invitation to the latest NATO summit held in The Hague. Despite wanting to avoid accusations of being a grubby arms dealer, the ROK President was clearly placing the ambitions and wallets of arms dealers ahead of the common citizenry. He had become a pimp for arms: 'The biggest reason I wanted to go was to advertise our defence industry and weapons.' Participants at the forum pressed Lee to depart from the view that defence was a matter of procurement and competition between parties rather than a total industry beneficial to the state. The response was suitably patriotic – at least if you are a merchant of death: 'Defence and arms exports are not just a competition between companies; they're a competition between nations. We have to win as 'One Team Korea.'' In public remarks made at the start of the forum, Lee offered the sort of reasoning that launders the military-industrial complex of its stains, concealing its insatiable appetite to stimulate the cause for war. 'I hope the defence industry not only strengthens our security but also becomes one of Korea's future growth engines. The government will continue investing and providing strong support.' In response to 'the rapidly changing security environment', the government would also 'develop state-of-the-art weapon systems using artificial intelligence (AI) and unmanned robots and build a healthy business ecosystem that goes beyond the industrial structure centred on big corporations to allow small and medium enterprises and diverse talent to participate.' Militarism, following this seedy rationale, should not just be for the big corporations and arms manufacturers. In the business of killing, the little guys should also be given a chance.
Otago Daily Times
11 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Trump threatens 30% tariffs on EU, Mexico
US President Donald Trump on Saturday (local time) threatened to impose a 30% tariff on imports from Mexico and the European Union starting on August 1, after weeks of negotiations with the major US trading partners failed to reach a comprehensive trade deal. In an escalation of a trade war that has angered US allies and rattled investors, Trump announced the latest tariffs in separate letters to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum that were posted on his Truth Social media site on Saturday. The EU and Mexico, both among the largest US trading partners responded by calling the tariffs unfair and disruptive while pledging to continue to negotiate with the US for a broader trade deal before the deadline. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she was sure an agreement can be reached. "I've always said that in these cases, what you have to do is keep a cool head to face any problem," Sheinbaum said at an event in the Mexican state of Sonora. "We're also clear on what we can work with the United States government on, and we're clear on what we can't. And there's something that's never negotiable: the sovereignty of our country," she said. Trump sent similar letters to 23 other trading partners this week, including Canada, Japan and Brazil, setting blanket tariff rates ranging from 20% up to 50%, as well as a 50% tariff on copper. The US President said the 30% rate was "separate from all sectoral tariffs," indicating 50% levies on steel and aluminum imports and a 25% tariff on auto imports would remain. The August 1 deadline gives the targeted countries time to negotiate agreements that could lower the threatened tariffs. Some investors and economists have also noted Trump's pattern of backing off his tariff threats. The spate of letters showed Trump has returned to the aggressive trade posture that he took in April when he announced a slew of reciprocal tariffs against trading partners that sent markets tumbling before the White House delayed implementation. 'UNFAIR TREATMENT' But with the stock market recently hitting record highs and the US economy still resilient, Trump is showing no signs of slowing down his trade war. He promised to use the 90-day delay in April to strike dozens of new trade deals, but has only secured framework agreements with Britain, China and Vietnam. The EU has hoped to reach a comprehensive trade agreement with the US for the 27-country bloc. Trump's letter to the EU included a demand that Europe drop its own tariffs. "The European Union will allow complete, open Market Access to the United States, with no Tariff being charged to us, in an attempt to reduce the large Trade Deficit," he wrote. Von der Leyen said the 30% tariffs "would disrupt essential transatlantic supply chains, to the detriment of businesses, consumers and patients on both sides of the Atlantic." She also said while the EU would continue to work towards a trade agreement, it "will take all necessary steps to safeguard EU interests, including the adoption of proportionate countermeasures if required." Mexico's economy ministry said Saturday it was informed the US would send a letter during a meeting on Friday with US officials. "We mentioned at the roundtable that it was unfair treatment and that we did not agree," the ministry's statement said. RATE FOR MEXICO LOWER THAN CANADA Mexico's proposed tariff level is lower than Canada's 35%, with both letters citing fentanyl flows even though government data shows the amount of the drug seized at the Mexican border is significantly higher than the Canadian border. "Mexico has been helping me secure the border, BUT, what Mexico has done, is not enough. Mexico still has not stopped the Cartels who are trying to turn all of North America into a Narco-Trafficking Playground," Trump wrote. China is the main source of the chemicals used to make the opioid fentanyl. According to US authorities, only 0.2% of all fentanyl seized in the US comes from across the Canadian border, while the vast majority originates from the US-Mexico border. Mexico sends more than 80% of its total exported goods to the US and free trade with its northern neighbour drove Mexico to become the top US trading partner in 2023. The EU had initially hoped to strike a comprehensive trade agreement but more recently had scaled back its ambitions and shifted toward securing a broader framework deal similar to the one Britain brokered that leaves details to be negotiated. The bloc is under conflicting pressures as powerhouse Germany urged a quick deal to safeguard its industry, while other EU members, such as France, have said EU negotiators should not cave into a one-sided deal on US terms. Bernd Lange, the head of the European Parliament's trade committee, said Brussels should enact countermeasures as soon as Monday. "This is a slap in the face for the negotiations. This is no way to deal with a key trading partner," Lange told Reuters. Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel, said Trump's letter raised the risk of retaliatory moves by the EU similar to the flare-up between the US and China that rattled financial markets. "US and Chinese tariffs went up together and they came back down again. Not all the way down, but still down together," he said. Trump's cascade of tariff orders since returning to the White House has begun generating tens of billions of dollars a month in new revenue for the US government. US customs duties revenue topped $US100 billion in the federal fiscal year through to June, according to US Treasury data on Friday. The tariffs have also strained diplomatic relationships with some of the closest US partners. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said last week that Japan needed to lessen its dependence on the US. The fight over tariffs has also prompted Canada and some European allies to reexamine their security dependence on Washington, with some looking to purchase non-US weapons systems.
