Technology protectionism is ubiquitous in the international arms trade. Therefore, recent German whispers to collaborate in the P75I diesel-propelled submarine construction could be a favourable and concrete step towards manufacturing strategic weapons and weapons platforms in India. However, only a month ago, the AUKUS (Australia, UK and US) countries agreed on a restricted high-technology nuclear submarine manufacturing deal for Australia. The common narrative emerging from the two contradictory pitches is unambiguous – defence technology, whether in submarine or other fields of warfare, is highly protected despite proliferation attempts by many countries.
Reluctance to share technology
In the first instance, the German whisper comes at a time when different companies, reputed for building submarines in their countries, have either withdrawn from the Request for Proposal (RFP) floated for this purpose in July 2021 or may not withstand the cannons of ‘strategic partnership’ when the bidder is finalised in due course. Part of the reason for withdrawal by many of these companies was their reluctance to share the air-independent propulsion (AIP) technology under the ‘strategic partnership’ model for building the submarines. While India operates many types of submarines including nuclear-propelled ones (Arihant), it does not have submarines with AIP technology.
The hesitation of advanced countries in sharing new technologies in defence with other countries is also evident from the AUKUS deal on submarines signed in mid-March this year. This allows Britain and subsequently Australia to benefit from the US monopoly of advanced technology in jointly producing new generation nuclear submarines. The group has categorically rejected the inclusion of any fourth country as a prospective partner in the submarine deal. These include countries like India, hitherto a close partner with the AUKUS countries in different diplomatic platforms.
Submarine technology is just a representative example of defence protectionism that has affected the global arms trade in many ways. First, the global arms trade is less about the sale of weapons and weapons platforms to other countries and more about the restrictive proliferation of defence technology and weapons. Developed countries seek to protect their monopolies over high-technology weapons through regime formations that regulate technology exports to other countries. In many cases, there is a blanket ban on the sale of weapons to third-party countries. The protectionist trend is also responsible for the lack of popularity for licensed production in buyer countries, low FDI flow and offset clauses in the defence sector since all these tools invariably involve a transfer of technology.
Monopolisation of critical technologies
Second, major military innovations (MMIs) have followed a protectionist trend in international politics and the diffusion of innovation is painfully slow. This is perhaps because MMIs may create new military equilibrium or simply rock the established asymmetry in international military balance. Developed countries use all tactics to discourage defence R&D, innovation and product design in developing countries to perpetuate their weapons’ dependency. Third, global arms trade has effectively metamorphosed into class wars wherein the same set of countries remain perpetual exporters by virtue of monopolisation of ‘critical defence technologies’ and many others remain perpetual arms importers. Over the past decades in the post-Cold War period, there has been very few changes in the SIPRI list of arms exporters as well as importers. There is very little scope for most importers to graduate as exporters or even become self-sufficient. China is one notable example though it still ranks as a lead importer. Similarly, India will remain one of the lead importers for a foreseeable spell despite commendable progress in its arms exports.
If the Cold War was largely about technology, so is the future of warfare! Superior defence technology would dictate war and peace in future on the one hand and victory and defeat on the other hand. Protectionism would, therefore, continue to obstruct easy and cost-effective diffusion of new generation defence technologies. National elites and academic scholars do discuss the pangs of protectionism such as the technological divide and resultant asymmetry in the international arms trade. However, nothing substantial has been done to dilute the monopoly of advanced industrial economies.
Some countries like China have indulged in reverse engineering. A few of them have resorted to expansion and consolidation of domestic military industrial complex (MIC) like India. Many Afro-Asian countries have reduced arms imports. Probably that speaks for the reduced volume of international arms trade by more than seven percent during 2017-22 as compared to 2012-17 in the SIPRI Factsheet (March 2023).
However, such steps are not going to liberate all arms importing countries from the ‘technology trap’ and a more equitable, open and transparent global arms trade would remain a distant dream! Probably, we need more nationalism, a techno-security mindset amongst importing countries, an entrepreneurial society, and above all, a will to innovate amongst the national MICs to come out from the perpetual ‘technological dependence’ over a few arms exporting countries.
Bhartendu Kumar Singh is in the Indian Defence Accounts Service. Views are personal, and do not represent the stand of this publication.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
