An Interview with Dr. Ian Anthony, Director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)

Please elaborate on the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) mission and its main research areas.

Our mission is to undertake research on security, conflict and peace. We do this by performing policy analyses, providing recommendations, facilitating dialogue and building capacities, promoting transparency and accountability, and delivering authoritative information to a global audience. SIPRI’s vision, in short, is a world in which sources of insecurity are identified and understood in order to prevent or resolve conflicts and create a lasting peace.

What makes the above mission possible is SIPRI’s independence. We’re proud of the integrity of the data we provide, all of which is based on open sources. This gives us credibility, even among countries such as Iran or North Korea. They accept SIPRI invitations to participate in events because they believe we are not trying to ‘put them into a corner’.

In terms of SIPRI’s research agenda, it’s constantly evolving. Our projects on regional and global security, for example, now focus on the following topics – security and governance in Africa; Arctic futures; China and global security; European security; Central Asia and Afghanistan; and the relationship between transport and security.

In our armed conflict and conflict management programme, we continue to monitor and analyze trends in violent conflict around the world, as well as their causes, dynamics and consequences. In turn, our research on military spending and armaments looks at developments in military expenditure worldwide, keeps track of arms transfers, and analyzes data relating to the world’s major arms-producing companies.

Finally, our arms control, armament and non-proliferation programme covers areas such as nuclear non-proliferation; biotechnology assessment; dual-use and arms trade control; chemical and biological arms control; and nuclear forensics. Given its scope and depth, our research is in high demand and we’re always looking for ways to respond, in a timely way, to trends in global security.

SIPRI has just launched the latest figures on the world’s nuclear forces. What are your key findings?

SIPRI’s latest annual nuclear forces data shows that while the overall number of nuclear weapons in the world continues to decline, none of the nuclear weapon-possessing states are prepared to give up their nuclear arsenals for the foreseeable future.

At the start of 2014, nine states—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea—possessed approximately 4,000 operational nuclear weapons. If all their nuclear warheads are counted, these states together possessed a total of approximately 16,300 nuclear weapons at the start of the year, which compares to 17,270 in early 2013.

Having fewer nuclear weapons is good news, but the picture remains a mottled one. For example, the steady decline in the overall number of nuclear warheads in the world over the past five years has been largely due to cuts made by Russia and the USA, which together still account for more than 93 per cent of all nuclear weapons. These two states have been further reducing their inventories of strategic nuclear weapons under the terms of New START, but the pace of reductions appears to be slowing compared with a decade ago. Also, while the overall number of weapons may be going down, all of the nuclear-armed states are modernizing their remaining delivery systems, warheads and production facilities.

Also, while the overall number of weapons may be going down, all of the nuclear-armed states are modernizing their remaining delivery systems, warheads and production facilities. China, India and Pakistan continue to expand their nuclear arsenals, while Israel appears to be waiting to see how the situation in Iran develops. In the case of North Korea, there is an emerging consensus among experts that it has indeed managed to produce a small number of nuclear weapons.

Finally, what is particularly worrying is that the current events in Ukraine put us back into a situation where the balance of nuclear forces between the USA and Russia might once again become a more important issue than in the recent past.

SIPRI is also well known for its data on global military expenditures. According to the figures, military spending continues to fall in the West but is increasing in the rest of the world. Can you expand on this point? Do you think this trend will continue in the coming years?

The drop in military spending in the West is mostly attributable to austerity measures put in place by European nations after the 2007-2008 global financial and economic crisis, and to attempts by the Obama Administration and US Congress to agree on mutually acceptable short- and long-term budgetary policies.

In other regions, there are a number of factors pushing up military spending, including economic growth; government ambitions for greater global or regional power; local conflicts and tensions; poor management of windfall revenues from oil and other natural resources; and the desire to ensure regime survival through strong and loyal security forces (especially in the Middle East and North Africa in the wake of the Arab Spring).

In response to your second question, at present there is little or no prospect of a large-scale transfer of resources occurring from military spending to spending on human and economic development. But while military outlays in absolute terms continues to rise in much of the world, its share as a percentage of GDP has tended to decline in most countries, or at worst remain roughly level. Another positive trend is the potential for democratic governments to at least provide counterweights to military spending, since they must also consider the wider needs of their populations to maintain power. We see this, for example, in some South American countries, which have put a stronger focus on social spending rather than on the military in recent years. This is good news, as is the fact that military spending was flat in Western and Central Europe even before the financial crisis, and has been steadily falling as a share of GDP.

Another SIPRI data set describes trends in international arms transfers, i.e. arms that are traded or donated as aid across international borders. The data shows that the volume of major weapons transfers in 2009–13 was 14 per cent higher than in 2004–2008. In terms of exporters and importers, who are the main players in this activity?

The flow of arms to Africa, the Americas, and Asia and Oceania increased significantly between the two time periods you cite, while there was a notable decrease in the flow to Europe. The level of arms transfers to the Middle East remained more or less unchanged.

The five largest suppliers of major weapons during the five-year period 2009–13 were the United States (29 per cent of global arms exports), Russia (27 per cent), Germany (7 per cent), China (6 per cent) and France (5 per cent). These top 5 suppliers, in other words, accounted for 74 per cent of the total volume of arms exports worldwide, while the USA and Russia together accounted for 56 per cent of the volume.

The five biggest importers in 2009-13 were largely in South Asia and the Gulf region. They included India (14 per cent of global imports), China (5 per cent), Pakistan (5 per cent), the UAE (4 per cent) and Saudi Arabia (4 per cent). Together, they received 32 per cent of all arms imports.

In terms of tentative observations we might draw from this data, it is apparent that Chinese, Russian and US arms supplies to South Asia are driven by both economic and political considerations. In particular, China and the USA appear to be using arms deliveries to Asia to consolidate their partnerships in the region.

For additional information please see:
external pagePress Release: Nuclear forces reduced while modernizations continue, says SIPRIcall_made
Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2013
Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2013
The SIPRI Top 100 Arms-Producing and Military Services Companies, 2012