The United States has been operating its armament manufacturing on a multinational basis, and it has been so for several decades. But this fact has come into the foreground due to the recent approvals given by the US to third countries for delivering arms. The F16, which is identified as an advanced American fighter plane, is manufactured on a consortium basis comprising, apart from the US, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway.
So when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky kept insisting on America supplying the F-16s, Washington finally asked the Netherlands and Denmark to deliver the planes to Kyiv. Like in any arms deal, it is a long-drawn process, and the shortest one takes many months to implement. Zelensky had been to the Netherlands and Denmark to clinch the F-16 deal. It also became clear that months will go by before the Ukrainian pilots are trained and Ukraine can use them in combat operations. And it will happen only after this winter.
The Ukrainian president has been hoping that he could press the advanced fighters into the war immediately, and turn the tide as it were. The second example of the US transferring a weapons system through a third country is that of Washington giving a green signal to Israel to export the Arrow 3 anti-Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) to Germany, for induction into the German defence system.
Germany-Israel Diplomacy, Courtesy US Weapons
The Germans are pleased that the deal has gone through, and they believe that it will be Germany’s missile defence shield, and that of Europe as a consequence. The sense of urgency is a fallout of the Russia-Ukraine war, and the security alert in Europe.
In the case of Arrow 3, the US-Israel collaboration seems to have been deep and Israel is the owner of the system but the US holds the veto whether it could be sold to another country because it is US technology. There is a double irony in Israel supplying the strategic anti-missile system to Germany given the shadow of Holocaust hovering around the past of the two countries.
Despite the US veto, Israel being the manufacturer of the key weapons system is able to use it to change the relationship between Israel and Germany and Israel and Europe. Unlike the US, the European countries have been critical, if nothing else, of Israel’s policies towards Palestine and the Palestinians. The Israeli export of the weapons system thus marks a change in the equation of Israel with Europe in general.
The US has distributed its armaments manufacturing capabilities among NATO allies and in the case of Israel, a client state. Both these instances might lead to a situation, which looks unthinkable at the moment but the European countries as well as Israel might want to assert their independence and ownership of the American weapons systems.
It is quite unlikely that the small countries like Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway would be assertive like Hungary would be tempted to do so, or even Italy. Even the conservative governments in these countries would not forsake American interests because they know that their own interests are at stake.
US Sphere Of Influence, At A Cost
There are bound to be plenty of commercial reasons as to why the manufacturing bases have been diversified. The Europeans will have a better control of the F16s manufacturing timetable, and also its inventory, if they are made in Europe.
What this means in general is that the US has built a complicated web of relationships, commitments and manufacturing arrangements to maintain its sphere of influence. And the web is getting wider. The GE414 jet engine deal with India involves significant technology transfers. If the US wants to maintain its global domination, then it is inevitable that it should have these wider linkages.
The compulsions of logistics alone would dictate the diversified manufacturing bases of armament manufacture. It can be termed a strategic global supply chain which exists on trust. And the US exerts its influence through its veto power whether the armaments being manufactured with American collaboration in these countries can be given to a third country.
What it implies is that the dissension-ridden “American empire” as it moves away from its Centre, which is the United States, could possibly lose its hold. This has been the fate of far-flung empires, whether it was the ancient Persians or the Romans. The British Empire faced the same challenge.
The Americans are striving to avoid the risks of too wide an empire through innovative arrangements. It is not necessary to speculate whether they will succeed. With the prospect of another Trump presidency, the stability of the “American empire” hangs in the air.
Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr is a New Delhi-based journalist. 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!
