policy recommendation #1

..on the arms and "homeland security" industry.

First let's consider this industry. This is obviously too complex an issue to address in a humble blog entry, but it can be summarized. See this, this, and this for the economic and logistical details. The following are points of interest:

1. The world arms industry is valued at ~$1,000 billion (2006 USD) annually.
   
2. Between 1999 and 2006, U.S. arms manufacturers sold $123 billion worth of weapons; 64% of this was to developing nations.
3. Arms manufacturers generally receive large tax subsidies and U.S. and European governments lend money to developing nations specifically for arms procurement - reversing their professed adherence to laissez-faire economics while simultaneously attaching loan conditions which force the recipient nations to develop such a system of economics.
4. Defense contractors have enormous influence with the U.S. government; indeed, there appears to be a revolving door through which individuals transfer smoothly between private enterprise and public "service". Naomi Klein documents clearly how even this revolving door facade is disappearing, allowing high level public administrators to maintain their interests in private arms manufacturers while simultaneously wielding the authority to effect policy decisions which affect the defense contracts these manufacturers are dependent upon for revenue.
5. Since Sept. 11 and the newly fashioned "War on Terror", the U.S. has revised its list of states with which it is acceptable to deal arms, based upon its desire to accumulate allies in this "war".
6. Globalization of the arms industry has made it even more difficult to track and to regulate the international arms trade.
   

Thus, this is a huge, entrenched, privatized industry. And, following the trend of politicians and businessmen who publicly condone the Friedmanite policy of privatizing everything, while covertly benefiting from subsidies and insurance financed by public money, this industry has a great deal of protection from official and unofficial public policy. The "War on Terror" creates an enormous new market for these corporations, and one which they are unlikely to relinquish willingly.

Just put yourself in the position of a CEO for Lockheed or Carlyle, faced with the prospect of withdrawing troops from Iraq. Unless this withdrawal is supplemented by the promise of conflict elsewhere, you would be failing your shareholders (and employees; Lockheed alone has 140,000 of them) if you did not use your substantial influence to lobby government for a continuation of the occupation. The arms industry has a very clear interest in world conflict. It is its bread and butter.

So my first in what will be a series of policy recommendations (regardless of how difficult they may be to actualize):

All production and sale of arms must be nationalized. It must be subject to strict congressional oversight (or the equivalent), based upon publicized criteria. Arms trading must be transparent, and must be conducted with full public accountability and according to the collective interests of the state, rather than the private interests of defense contractors and their investors. It must satisfy the minimal demands of a strict and well-defined mandate to protect a state and its interests. International trade must likewise be regulated by publicly transparent treaties. If it is undesirable to share technology, then arms trading between states is acceptable, but it must be subject to rigorous oversight and public scrutiny.