US Defense Corporations Benefitting From Obama’s ‘Asia-Pivot’

A boom in arms sales has arms manufactures fat and happy, while the security of Asia-Pacific is threatened

The major beneficiary in the Obama administration’s decision to “pivot” to the Asia-Pacific region, contrary to Washington officials, is not the American people and their security. Rather, it is the military industrial complex.

The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), a trade group that includes US defense corporations like Lockheed Martin Corp, Boeing Co and Northrop Grumman Corp, has published a report heralding the Obama administration’s decision to sharply increase sales of weapons systems to US allies in the region.

In late 2011, President Obama announced a strategic shift into Asia-Pacific. This so-called ‘Asia pivot’ is an aggressive policy that involves surging American military presence throughout the region in an imperialistic attempt to contain China’s rising economic and military influence and maintain US dominance.

Fred Downey, vice president for national security at the AIA, says the pivot “will result in growing opportunities for our industry to help equip our friends.” In other words, to get rich off the American government’s interventionist foreign policy.

At a time when US arms sales to Europe are declining, Obama’s Asia-Pivot came just in time to reassure the corporatist shareholders in the defense industry that the money will keep rolling in.

“Fears resulting from China’s growing military spending should lead to enough US sales in South and East Asia to more than offset a slowdown in European arms-buying,” Reuters reports.

The AIA, “in response to a Reuters request, said sales agreements with countries in the US Pacific Command’s area of activity rose to $13.7 billion in fiscal 2012, up 5.4 percent from a year before.”

The Obama administration’s aggressive policies in Asia are increasing the likelihood of a breakout of war and damaging the security of the region. But American arms manufacturers sure are happy about it.

Author: John Glaser

John Glaser writes for Antiwar.com.