国際武器移転史 第 8 号 2019 年 7 月＜目 次＞『国際武器移転史』第 8 号の刊行によせて ‥‥‥国際武器移転史研究所長 横井 勝彦（1）論説
History of Arms Transfer Control and Challenges Facing the Arms Trade Treaty‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ TAMARA ENOMOTO（3）Can the Arms Trade Treaty Increase Transparency in International Arms Transfers?
‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ PAUL HOLTOM（19）Challenges in Developing a Risk Assessment Criteria for Arms Transfers in Southeast Asia‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ MITZI AUSTERO and PAULEEN GOROSPE（39）Preventing Diversion: A Challenge for Arms Trade Treaty States Parties‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ NICHOLAS MARSH（55）Jet Age Feminism: Emilio Pucci, Mary Wells, and the Braniff Airways Stewardess of the 1960s‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ PHIL TIEMEYER（67）
Pakistani Civil Aviation and U.S. Aid to Pakistan, 1950 to 1961‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ S. WAQAR H. ZAIDI（83）戦前期日本の武器生産問題と武器輸出商社 ―泰平組合と昭和通商の役割を中心にして―‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 纐纈 厚（99）イギリス海軍における節約と旧式艦の処分―クリミア戦争からワシントン海軍軍縮条約を中心に― ‥‥‥‥‥‥ 小風 尚樹（127）書評渡辺昭一編著『冷戦変容期の国際開発援助とアジア― 一九六〇年代を問う―』（ミネルヴァ書房、2017 年、424 頁）‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 脇村 孝平（157）

明治大学国際武器移転史研究所編

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号の刊行によせて
横井 勝彦
国際武器移転史研究所長『国際武器移転史』第 8 号をお届け致します。
国際武器移転史研究所は、2015 年度より明治大学研究クラスターとして活動を続けてきましたが、2018 年 8 月 1 日に特別推進研究インスティテュートに選定されました。そして、その直後（同月 18 日）には「武器貿易条約（ATT）第 4 回締約国会議直前シンポ
ジウム－世界の武器移転をめぐる理想と現実－」を明大で開催し、国内外の研究・実務の第一線で活躍する専門家が集結しました。今回の『国際武器移転史』第 8 号に掲載されている冒頭の英語論文（Enomoto, Holtom, Austero and Gorospe, Marsh の各氏による 4 編）は、
いずれもそこでの報告を基礎に、2019 年開催の ATT 第 5 回締約国会議に向けてアップデー
トした論稿であります。
続いて昨年 11 月には、国際セミナー「冷戦期国際航空研究の新動向―脱植民地化とジェンダーの観点から－」を開催しました。世界各国の航空機産業と航空産業に注目して、両大戦間における軍民両用技術のアジア・南米への移転の連鎖とそれを背景とした大衆航空
文化拡大の世界史的意味を追究しました。本誌に掲載さている Tiemeyer と Zaidi の英語論
文 2 編は、そこでの議論を踏まえて新たに寄稿してくれたものです。
今回は日本語論文を 2 編掲載することができました。どちらも従来の研究では触れられることのなかった新たな領域に踏み込んだ意欲的な論稿です。纐纈論文は、第二次大戦以前の日本の武器輸出政策と軍需産業民営化との関連ならびに武器輸出商社泰平組合と昭和通商の活動に注目しております。小風論文は、400 隻に及ぶ軍艦データベースの統計分
析を通して、イギリスの海軍費（1850 〜 1930 年）において旧式艦売却費の占めた割合と
イギリス海軍における旧式艦処分の全体像の解明を試みております。
最後に、本号では脇村氏による書評を掲載することができました。書評対象文献は「欧米の対アジア開発援助」をテーマとした共同研究の成果ですが、本研究所でも「アジア諸国の軍事的自立化と国際軍事援助」を研究プロジェクトの一つとしており、脇村氏の書評はいくつもの示唆を与えてくれています。

1

第 8 号の刊行に際しても、多くの方々に大変お世話になりました。改めて厚くお礼申し上げますと共に、引き続き皆さまの積極的な投稿をお待ちしております。

2018 年 7 月 23 日

本誌は「文部科学省私立大学戦略的研究基盤形成支援事業（2015 〜 2019 年度）」に依拠しています。

2

History of Global Arms Transfer, 8 (2019), pp. 3-18

History of Arms Transfer Control andChallenges Facing the Arms Trade Treaty †By TAMARA ENOMOTO*
Since the 1990s, there has been a proliferation of initiatives to create regional andglobal instruments establishing common criteria for assessing arms transfer
licenses. These activities culminated in 2013 with the adoption of the Arms Trade
Treaty (ATT). A Conference of States Parties to the ATT has been held annually
since 2015, the fourth of which was held in Tokyo from 20 to 24 August 2018. As
the introductory article of a collection of four articles based on presentations at
the international symposium on 18 August 2018, at the Meiji University ResearchInstitute for the History of Global Arms Transfer (RIHGAT) in Tokyo, this article
aims to sketch the history of arms transfer control and to briefly introduce thechallenges facing the ATT. The following three articles address those challenges
further; all four articles have been updated in the past year. The collection aims toprovide the bases for policy debates ahead of the Fifth Conference of States
Parties to the ATT, to be held from 26 to 30 August 2019 in Switzerland.
From the 1990s to the present, many initiatives aimed at developing measures to control
conventional arms at the national, regional, and global levels have been developed. Fromtransfer control and marking mechanisms to security sector reform and disarmament,
demobilization and reintegration, myriad measures have flourished addressing theuncontrolled circulation and misuse of conventional arms. Among them were efforts toagree to a legally binding document establishing common criteria for assessing arms
transfer licences. The efforts culminated in 2013 with the adoption of the Arms Trade
Treaty (ATT).1 At the time of this writing,2 there are currently 102 States Parties to the
ATT.3 The Conferences of States Parties (CSPs) to the ATT have been held annually since2015; the Fourth Conference of States Parties (CSP4) was held in Tokyo, Japan, from 20 to* Author’s Affiliation: Tamara Enomoto, Visiting Associate Professor, Organization for the Strategic
Coordination of Research and Intellectual Properties (Research Institute for the History of Global Arms Transfer),
Meiji University.
† This work is partially funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology’s(MEXT) Program for the Strategic Research Foundation at Private Universities, 2015-9, JSPS KAKENHI, grant
numbers JP16K17075, and JP16KT0040. The author would like to thank Nicholas Marsh and Paul Holtom forextensive advice and comments.
1 The ATT was adopted on 2 April 2013 by resolution 67/234B during the sixty-seventh session of the General
Assembly of the United Nations (UNGA). See UNGA, A/RES/67/234 B. It states that the General Assembly
adopts ‘the Arms Trade Treaty as contained in the annex to document A/CONF.217/2013/L.3’. During the Final
United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (18-28 March 2013), the President of the Conference
proposed for adoption a draft decision (UNGA, A/CONF.217/2013/L.3) to which a draft text of the ATT wasannexed, but it was not adopted during the Conference.
2 12 May 2019.
3 United Nations Treaty Collection, as of 12-05-2019 07:48:57 EDT, chapter XXVI disarmament, Arms Trade
Treaty. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVI-8&chapter=26&clang=_en(Last accessed on 12 May 2019).

3

TAMARA ENOMOTO
24 August 2018. Presided by Ambassador Nobushige Takamizawa of Japan, CSP4 provided
opportunities for Japanese and overseas academics and practitioners to share knowledge
and discuss the challenges facing the ATT.
The Meiji University Research Institute for the History of Global Arms Transfer(RIHGAT) seized this opportunity to hold an international symposium entitled ‘Symposium
Ahead of the Fourth Conference of States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty: Reflecting on a
Vision Against the Reality of Arms Transfers in the World’, at the Surugadai Campus, Meiji
University, Tokyo, Japan, on 18 August 2018, two days prior to the opening of the CSP4.
The symposium aimed to create a platform for academics from different fields (history,arms control, and international law) and stakeholders (government officials, civil society,industry, etc.) to discuss and share the history of arms transfer control and the challenges
facing the ATT. It further aimed to create an opportunity to disseminate information about
the ATT and arms transfer control by engaging the media and academia to help raise publicawareness. Despite being held in the middle of summer vacation, it was attended by some
180 participants, including academics, students, journalists, diplomats, members of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and staff members of Japanese arms manufacturers.
This collection of articles is based on the presentations of many speakers at that
symposium. It has been updated and refined to provide bases for policy debates ahead of
the upcoming Fifth Conference of States Parties (CSP5) to the ATT. As the introduction of
the collection, this article sketches the history of arms transfer control and introduces thefollowing three articles.4

I
Before introducing post-Cold War initiatives on the regulation of arms transfers and thecurrent challenges facing the ATT, this section gives an overview of international policy
debate on arms transfer control from the late nineteenth century to the Cold War period.5
The first multilateral agreement adopted by most of the great powers to control arms
transfers after the formation of the sovereign-state system was the 1890 Brussels Act.6 The
Brussels Act, formally titled the General Act of the Brussels Conference Relative to theAfrican Slave Trade, prohibited the transfer of firearms and ammunition to much of theAfrican continent,7 into which a substantial number of European-made arms had flooded.8
As the formal name of this treaty indicates, the main subject of the conference was theslave trade from Africa to other parts of the world, especially to the Arab world.9
In policy debates leading up to the adoption of this treaty, African people were seen as‘barbaric’ contributors to the slave trade who were unable and unqualified to further thecollective social good. Their acts of violence or resistance against the colonizers—the‘civilized states’—were regarded as irrational, illegitimate, and backward acts of nonsense
4 The analysis and opinions contained in this article reflect solely those of the author, and any errors andomissions in this article are the author’s.
5 This and the following sections are largely based on the author’s previous work. See Enomoto, ‘Controlling’.
6 General Act of the Brussels Conference Relative to the African Slave Trade, 2 July 1890.
7 Article 8 of the Brussels Act states as follows: ‘The importation of firearms, and especially of rifles andimproved weapons, as well as of powder, ball and cartridges, is … prohibited in the territories comprised between
the 20th parallel of North latitude and the 22d parallel of South latitude, and extending westward to the Atlantic
Ocean and eastward to the Indian Ocean and its dependencies, including the islands adjacent to the coast within
100 nautical miles from the shore’.
8 Atmore, Chirenje, and Mudenge, ‘Firearms’; Beachey, ‘The arms trade’; Guy, ‘A note’.
9 Berlioux, Slave trade, pp. 1, 3-4, 72-3, 75-6; Clarke, Cardinal Lavigerie, pp. 246-9, 250-2, 254, 332-4, 344;
Pasha, Seven years, pp. 84-5.

4

History of Arms Transfer Control and Challenges Facing the Arms Trade Treaty
that rejected the benefits of civilization.10 Moreover, the wars between African groups wereconsidered a source of humanitarian catastrophe and slave hunting. 11 Therefore, theprohibition of arms transfers to such ‘backward’ people was seen as necessary to stop their‘barbaric’ infighting and slave hunting, and to ‘bring the benefits of civilization to themunder the protection of the civilized states’.12 The prevailing doctrine at the time of theBrussels Act was the sovereign right of a state to determine for itself whether and when toresort to war.13 From the latter half of the eighteenth century, the ultimate prerogative of astate to wage war came to be regarded as a legitimate and fundamental element of statesovereignty. As such, arms transfers to state actors, or ‘civilized sovereign states’, werelargely considered legitimate, unless they were potential or actual enemies of the exportingstate. At the same time, the laissez-faire policy of minimum governmental interference inthe economic affairs of individuals and society was prevalent in the late nineteenth
century.14 Therefore, governments rarely sought to regulate arms production and transfers
by private companies, except in times of war.15
The interwar period saw a series of negotiations aimed at creating a modified version of
the Brussels Act. Joined by the newly independent small states, the Convention for theControl of the Trade in Arms and Ammunition was adopted in 1919,16 and the Convention
for the Supervision of the International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implementsof War was adopted in 1925.17 These treaties literally became dead letters even before theink was dry as a result of the unwillingness of many states to ratify them.18
The series of negotiations was led by the great powers, who insisted that it was the moral
duty of ‘civilized states’ to prevent arms from falling into the hands of those who did notmeet the ‘standard of civilization’ and who were, therefore, not entitled to sovereign
equality.19 As a result, the great powers proposed a broader prohibited zone that included
not only parts of Africa, but also Transcaucasia, Persian lands and/or waters, Gwadar, theArabian Peninsula, and the continental regions of Asia that were part of the Turkish
10 Kurimoto, Mikai no sensou, p. 148.
11 Berlioux, Slave trade, pp. 1, 76; Casati, Ten years in Equatoria, pp. 289, 291; Clarke, Cardinal Lavigerie,pp. 250-2, 254, 332-4, 344; Pasha, Seven years, pp. 84-5.
12 Bain, Between anarchy, p. 68; Louis, ‘Sir Percy Anderson’s’; Matthews, ‘Free trade’.
13 Joyner, International law, p. 163.
14 It should be borne in mind that European states generally sought to control the arms trade prior to the shift
in the underlying economic ideology of trade from mercantilism to capitalism. Most of the previous control
measures had been characterized by unilateral initiatives and had been designed to protect technological lead or
to safeguard scarce weapons. See Krause, Arms and the state, pp. 37-48, 59-61; Krause and MacDonald,‘Regulating’, pp. 708-11.
15 Krause and MacDonald, ‘Regulating’, pp. 711-2. Whether a neutral state could legitimately supply arms tobelligerents of war was fiercely debated between the United Kingdom and the United States over the case of theConfederate commerce raider Alabama in the 1860s and 1870s. The case reaffirmed the prevailing principle ofinternational law of the time that there was no general obligation of neutral states to prevent private arms
transfers to belligerents of war. Several decades later, the Hague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights andDuties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land of 18 Oct. 1907 and the Hague Convention (XIII)
Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War of 18 Oct. 1907 prohibited the supply of arms
by a neutral state to a belligerent state, yet arms transfers by private suppliers were outside the scope of theprohibition. See Garcia-Mora, ‘International law’; Stone, ‘Imperialism’, pp. 214-7.
16 Convention for the Control of the Trade in Arms and Ammunition, 10 Sept. 1919.
17 Convention for the Supervision of the International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of
War, 17 June 1925.
18 The treaty adopted in 1919 did not specify a fixed number of states to express their consent for its entry into
force; instead, its Article 26 stated that it ‘would come into force for each Signatory Power from the date of thedeposit of its ratification’. Therefore, the treaty did enter into force for a small number of states which depositedtheir instruments of ratification, but it was widely seen as a dead letter by 1923, which prompted the next roundof negotiation. See Stone, ‘Imperialism’, pp. 219-20.
19 Ibid., p. 218.

5

TAMARA ENOMOTO
Empire.
It is critical to recognize that these interwar treaties included some control over arms
transfers between states, which had been entirely outside the scope of the 1890 Brussels
Act. On both sides of the Atlantic, growing public outcry for regulation of the ‘merchantsof death’20 demanded efforts to control arms transfers,21 and the idea of war as legitimate
violence between equal sovereign states was increasingly called into question. Thus, thetreaties of this period included the prohibition of arms transfers, except those sanctioned byboth the exporting and importing states.22 They also included reporting mechanisms forlicensed arms exports and imports. Such measures could have placed the ‘merchants ofdeath’ under some control by governments and could have also facilitated public scrutiny
over authorized arms transfers.
However, the licensing and reporting measures were criticized by smaller arms-importingstates, which saw them as infringements on their sovereignty and security. These critics
claimed that licensing would put smaller importing states at the mercy of producers who
might recognize a rebel group instead of the legitimate government of an importing state.23
They also argued that publishing arms exports and imports meant that the armaments ofimporting states would be revealed, while the producing states would enjoy secrecy as totheir armaments.24 While these measures were included in the treaties at the insistence ofthe great powers, few importing states rushed to ratify them.25
The decades following the end of the Second World War saw a shift in the framing ofpolicy debates on arms transfers. As Robert Jackson argues, the game of international
relations shifted after the Second World War from one based on positive sovereignty, or ademonstrated ability for effective self-governance and fulfilment of the ‘standard ofcivilization’, to a new game based on negative sovereignty—the formal legal entitlement tofreedom from outside interference. 26 In the new rules of the game, the principles ofsovereign equality and non-intervention were respected for all states, regardless of theirempirical capabilities as organized political systems.27
The new negative sovereignty norms were emphasized by states in the global south
between the 1950s and 1970s, when western states sought to regulate international arms
20 This expression refers to arms manufacturers and dealers who were accused of having instigated andperpetuated the First World War in order to maximize their profits from arms sales.
21 Anderson, ‘British rearmament’; Cortright, Peace, pp. 98-100; Harkavy, The arms trade, p. 215; Stone,‘Imperialism’, p. 217.
22 Cortright, Peace, pp. 62-3. There were other sets of initiatives to control arms transfers to particular states
during this period. For instance, the 1920s peace treaties with the defeated states (Germany, Austria, Hungary,Turkey, and Bulgaria) in the First World War imposed prohibition of imports and exports of arms on these states.
There were also some unilateral and multilateral arms embargoes in specific conflicts, such as those in China in
the 1910s and 1920s, and the Chaco war between Bolivia and Paraguay between 1932 and 1935. See Krause and
MacDonald, ‘Regulating’, pp. 714, 720-722.
23 Stone, ‘Imperialism’, pp. 222-4.
24 Stone, ‘Imperialism’, pp. 226-8.
25 The interwar negotiations did not yield any tangible agreement, yet they facilitated the institutionalization ofpeacetime licensing mechanisms for arms transfers in many of the great powers. See Stone, ‘Imperialism’;Krause and MacDonald, ‘Regulating’.
26 Jackson, Quasi-states, pp. 25-29.
27 For instance, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted
by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 1960, stated that all peoples have the right to selfdetermination and that inadequacies in political, economic, social, or educational preparedness should neverserve as pretexts for delaying independence. The idea that the principles of sovereign equality and nonintervention, which had been formulated through the development of the sovereign-state system, should be
respected for any state regardless of its conditions was strongly held by the newly independent states and wasconfirmed in UNGA resolutions in the 1960s and 1970s. See UNGA, A/RES/15/1514; UNGA, A/RES/20/2131;
UNGA, A/RES/25/2625.

6

History of Arms Transfer Control and Challenges Facing the Arms Trade Treatytransfers, including transfers to states. At the UNGA, western states proposed resolutions to
examine the matter of international arms transfers in order to consider the possibility ofdeveloping an international arms transfer registration and publicity system.28 Malta, forexample, submitted a draft UNGA resolution in 1965 which invited the Eighteen-Nation
Committee on Disarmament to consider the question of arms transfers between states ‘witha view to submitting to the General Assembly proposals for the establishment of a systemof publicity through the United Nations’. 29 Malta argued for the need to address the
problem of local arms races in the Third World, expressing concerns that they were
hindering economic and social development by diverting scarce resources. It also stressedthat an effective system of international arms transfer registration and publicity would build
confidence among states.30 Similar draft resolutions were proposed by Denmark, Ireland,
Malta, and Norway in 1968,31 and again by eighteen states including Ireland, Denmark,Japan, and Norway in 1976.32 However, states in the global south generally criticized the
proposals, insisting that they were based on discriminatory ideas against smaller armsimporting sovereign states and that they could be used as an instrument for ‘the haves’ tointervene in the internal affairs of ‘the have-nots’.33
As Stephen Krasner argues, the principles associated with both Westphalian sovereignty,
such as the exclusion of external actors from domestic authority configurations, andinternational legal sovereignty, such as mutual recognition, have in reality been violated
frequently since the formation of the sovereign-state system. 34 Nevertheless, states,
especially states in the global south, played the game of negative sovereignty, and the
proposed resolutions were never adopted in the UNGA between the 1950s and 1970s.
It was in the late 1980s, as states in the global south started to lose political power in theinternational sphere following the debt crisis, structural adjustment programmes led byinternational financial institutions, and the weakened East-West competition and tension,
when they became amenable to proposals that they had once criticized as illegitimate
intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states. In 1988, the UNGA resolution that
addressed the issue of international arms transfers was adopted.35 The resolution requested
the UN Secretary-General to carry out thereafter, with the assistance of governmental
experts, a study on the ways and means to promote transparency in international transfersof conventional arms. Based on this resolution, a report entitled ‘Study on Ways and Meansof Promoting Transparency in International Transfers of Conventional Arms: Report of theSecretary-General’ was prepared by a UN Group of Government Experts (GGE) andsubmitted to the UNGA in 1991.36 Another UNGA resolution to establish an internationalarms transfer register system, a measure which had never materialized during the Cold War
period, was adopted in the same year.37 As a result, the UN Register of Conventional Arms
(UNROCA) was established in 1992.

28 Catrina, Arms transfers, p. 138; Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), The arms trade,pp. 100-8; Wulf, ‘United Nations’, p. 230.
29 Draft resolution submitted by Malta, in SIPRI, The arms trade, pp. 102.
30 Ibid., pp. 101-2.
31 Ibid., pp. 103-5.
32 Catrina, Arms transfers, p. 138.
33 Krause, ‘Controlling the arms trade’, p. 1030; Muni, ‘Third World’, pp. 203-7.
34 Krasner, Power, p. 197.
35 UNGA, A/ RES/43/75I.
36 UNGA, A/46/301.
37 UNGA, A/RES/46/36L.

7

TAMARA ENOMOTO

II
Since the 1990s, violations of international human rights law and/or international
humanitarian law by national military and security forces, especially those of states in the
global south, have been matters of concern for international policy-makers. 38 In otherwords, the ability and will of states, especially states in the global south, to ensure humansecurity, respect human rights, and pursue the collective social good have been seriously
brought into question, along with the legitimacy of state violence. Since the latter half ofthe 1990s, the notion of a ‘responsibility to protect’ has received support, to a certain
extent, from actors including governments, NGOs, and academics, especially those in the
global north.39 According to this notion, Westphalian sovereignty and international legalsovereignty are not inherent rights of states but are contingent on a state’s positive
sovereignty. In other words, they are conditioned upon a state’s capacity and willingness toprotect its population. Failure to fulfil this responsibility may lead to intervention byoutside actors, who should now bear the responsibility.
As the ability and will of states, especially states in the global south, to ensure humansecurity, respect human rights, protect their own populations, and pursue the collective
good rapidly came under suspicion, it was asserted that establishing the UNROCA was notenough. The idea gained momentum that the risk of misuse, such as serious violations ofinternational human rights law and humanitarian law, should be evaluated before exportingstates decide whether to authorize arms transfers to other states. Governments, NGOs, andacademics, especially those in the global north, sought to develop common criteria against
which exporting states would assess the potential risks of misuse before authorizing arms
transfers to other states.
Such criteria were first agreed upon among the permanent members of the United Nations
Security Council (P5) in 1991,40 at the United Nations Disarmament Commission (UNDC)
in 1991,41 at the European Council in 1991 and 1992,42 at the European Union (EU) in
1998,43 at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 1993 and2000,44 and at the Wassenaar Arrangement in 2002.45 Starting largely as a ‘northern’ arms
exporters’ initiative, efforts were also made in the 2000s to encourage states in the global
south to agree to similar sets of arms transfer criteria, against which the potential risks of
misuse should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, before authorizing arms transfers; such
documents were agreed upon at the Organization of American States (OAS) in 2003,46 by
East and Central African states in 2005,47 at the Central American Integration System
38 Anderson, Do no harm; Collier, Wars, guns, and votes; Kaldor, New and old wars.
39 Clapham, ‘Weapons’, pp. 167-8.
40 Guidelines for Conventional Arms Transfers. Communique issued following the meeting of the P5 in

London, 18 Oct. 1991.
41 Guidelines for International Arms Transfers in the Context of General Assembly Resolution 46/36 H of 6
Dec. 1991.
42 Conclusions of the Presidency: Declaration on Non-Proliferation and Arms Exports, adopted at the European
Council Meeting in Luxembourg, 28-29 June 1991; Conclusions of the Presidency: Non-Proliferation and Arms
Exports, adopted at the European Council Meeting in Lisbon, 26-27 June 1992.
43 European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, 5 June 1998.
44 Principles Governing Conventional Arms Transfers, 25 Nov. 1993; FSC.DOC/1/00/Rev.1, OSCE Document
on Small Arms and Light Weapons, 24 Nov. 2000.
45 Best Practice Guidelines for Exports of Small Arms and Light Weapons, 11-12 Dec. 2002.
46 Draft Model Regulations for the Control of Brokers of Firearms, Their Parts and Components andAmmunition, approved at the 34th Regular Session of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission(CICAD), 17-20 Nov. 2003.
47 Best Practice Guidelines for the Implementation of the Nairobi Declaration and the Nairobi Protocol on
Small Arms and Light Weapons, approved at the Third Ministerial Review Conference of the Nairobi Declaration

8

History of Arms Transfer Control and Challenges Facing the Arms Trade Treaty(SICA) also in 2005,48 at the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in
2006,49 and by central African states in 2010.50 During this time, initiatives were taken todevelop a more ‘universal’ instrument that could potentially be agreed by all states. Thisultimately led to a process to negotiate the ATT following an UNGA resolution in 2006,51
and culminated in 2013 with the adoption of the ATT.
The adopted ATT includes similar criteria as those agreed upon in the above instruments.
Its Article 6 stipulates that a state party shall not authorize any transfer of conventionalarms if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be usedin the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva
Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such,or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a party. Article 7of the treaty also obliges each exporting state party to assess the potential that theconventional arms or items: (a) would contribute to or undermine peace and security; (b)could be used to: (i) commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarianlaw; (ii) commit or facilitate a serious violation of international human rights law; (iii)
commit or facilitate an act constituting an offence under international conventions or
protocols relating to terrorism to which the exporting State is a Party; or (iv) commit or
facilitate an act constituting an offence under international conventions or protocols
relating to transnational organized crime to which the exporting State is a Party.
The once controversial reporting and registration mechanism for arms exports was also
included in the ATT. Article 13 of the treaty obliges each state party to provide an initialreport to the Secretariat of measures undertaken in order to implement the ATT within thefirst year after entry into force of the treaty for the state party. The same article also reads
that each state party shall submit annually to the Secretariat, by 31 May, a report for thepreceding calendar year concerning authorized or actual exports and imports of
conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).
When we consider this backdrop for the development of the ATT and the logic behind it,
the 1890 Brussels Act and contemporary arms transfer control may look similar, in terms of
their underlying assumptions and aspirations. In a sense, the language of the ATT wasdeveloped against the background in which the right to Westphalian sovereignty andinternational legal sovereignty were increasingly seen as contingent on a state’s ability andwill to protect its own population, and the primacy of the principle of non-intervention was
severely eroded.
It nevertheless needs to be pointed out that the ATT’s approach is not based on the binary
assumption that civilized rational subjects are capable of defining the collective social goodand barbarians are incapable of doing so, which was the assumption embedded in theBrussels Act. Instead, the ATT is based on the idea that any actor, whether global north or
south, has a lesser or greater degree of risk of falling into irrationality, dysfunction andimmorality, and thus requires external risk assessment. At the same time, no actor ison the Problem of the Proliferation of Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons in the Great Lakes Region and theHorn of Africa, 20-21 June 2005.
48 Code of Conduct of Central American States on the Transfer of Arms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other
Related Material, 2 Dec. 2005.
49 ECOWAS Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons, Their Ammunition and Other Related Materials,
14 June 2006.
50 Central African Convention for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons, their Ammunition and allParts and Components that can be used for their Manufacture, Repair and Assembly, 30 April 2010
51 The process was made possible by a series of UNGA resolutions: UNGA, A/RES/61/89; UNGA, A/
RES/63/240; UNGA, A/RES/64/48; UNGA, A/RES/67/234.

9

TAMARA ENOMOTO
assumed to be capable of providing universal judgement as to the level of risk of a specificactor or of defining the collective good on behalf of the potentially affected population orof the international community.
Potential discrimination in implementation of the ATT therefore arises from its
differences from—rather than its similarities to—the Brussels Act. Since decisions whether
to export based on risk assessment are left to the discretion of each state party, some states
parties of the ATT may conclude that the risk of arms being used to commit or facilitate
serious violations of international humanitarian law is ‘overriding’, in the question of
authorizing certain arms to a certain actor at a certain time, while other states parties may
think that the risk is not sufficiently ‘overriding’ to reject a licence for transfer. When thisambiguous, uncertain norm is combined with the political, military or economic interests ofarms exporters, it can be used in a discriminatory manner.
States parties to the ATT faced this issue, in addition to a number of technical, financial,
practical and political issues, in the course of the CSP process. The next section provides
an overview of the CSP process and explains some of the challenges facing the ATT byreferring to the following three articles included in this collection.

III
The ATT entered into force on 24 December 2014. The preparatory process for CSPs
started in early 2014, and five informal and formal preparatory meetings took place before
the First Conference of States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty (CSP1) on 24-27 August
2015 in Cancun, Mexico. 52 Presided by Ambassador Jorge Lomónaco of Mexico,
discussions at the CSP1 centred around procedural and administrative issues such as therules of procedure and financial rules of CSPs, the location and budgetary arrangements of
the ATT Secretariat, election of the head of the ATT secretariat, reporting mechanisms andtemplates, and election of the President, Vice-Presidents and Management Committee for
the Second Conference of States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty (CSP2). States parties
discussed proposed draft templates that could be used as the basis for the initial and theannual reports, but failed to address concerns raised on the drafts or to adopt them as theofficial reporting templates. As a result, the issue of reporting templates was carried over to
CSP2.
CSP2 was held on 22-26 August 2016, in Geneva, Switzerland, with Ambassador
Emmanuel E. Imohe of Nigeria presiding.53 The issue of reporting templates was again
tabled at the conference. Although only minor cosmetic changes were made to the draft
initial and annual reporting templates, states parties ‘endorsed’ both the initial and annual
reporting templates and ‘recommended’ their use by States Parties – although the issue ofthe reviewing the reporting templates was left open for future CSPs.54 CSP2 established a
Voluntary Trust Fund (VTF) for ATT implementation, as well as three working groups toallow work to continue between CSPs: on Transparency and Reporting, on Effective
Implementation of the ATT, and on Universalization.
The Third Conference of States Parties (CSP3) was held on 11-15 September 2017 in
52 ATT Secretariat, ATT/CSP1/2015/6. For a summary of the issues discussed at the CSP1, See Enomoto, ‘In
preparation for the second conference’.
53 ATT Secretariat, ATT/CSP2/2016/5. For a summary of the issues discussed at the CSP2, See Enomoto, ‘In
preparation for the third conference’.
54 ATT/CSP2/2016/5, Final Report, paragraph 25.

10History of Arms Transfer Control and Challenges Facing the Arms Trade Treaty
Geneva, Switzerland, presided by Ambassador Klaus Korhonen of Finland.55 At CSP3,
concerns were raised that some states were not meeting their legal obligations of initial
and/or annual reporting. As of the beginning of CSP3, 61 of the 85 ATT states parties
required to submit their initial reports had done so (72 percent), and 48 of the 75 states
parties required to submit their annual reports for 2016 had done so (64 percent). In orderto address this issue, states parties agreed that future CSPs would review reporting
compliance, and endorsed a document, Reporting authorized or actual exports and importsof conventional arms under the ATT: questions & answers, which clarified technicalmatters that states may face in filling in the annual reporting template.56 During CSP3,
Ambassador Nobushige Takamizawa of Japan was elected president of CSP4, and theJapanese delegation announced their intention to hold CSP4 in Japan.57 The RIHGAT, in
collaboration with domestic and overseas research institutes, universities and NGOs, began
preparations for an international symposium to be held on 18 August 2018.
CSP4 was held in Tokyo, Japan, on 20-24 August in 2018.58 As we expected that the issueof reporting compliance would continue to be one of the key issues at the conference, theRIHGAT invited a specialist on the matter, Paul Holtom, Senior Researcher at the Small
Arms Survey, to the symposium. The presentation has since been updated as part of thiscollection.
Holtom’s article asks whether the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) can achieve its purpose ofincreasing transparency in the international arms trade. After introducing the concepts ofintergovernmental and public transparency in international arms transfers, the article
provides examples of key transparency instruments, with a focus on the UNROCA. The
article then reviews ATT annual reports submitted during 2016-18 in comparison to
UNROCA submissions. It concludes that the ATT has the potential to increase the numberof states that make information on their arms transfers publicly available, yet points outthat there are worrisome signs that several ATT states parties are providing less detailed
information in their ATT reports than they used to provide to UNROCA. The article
concludes that states parties need to implement the treaty’s reporting obligations in goodfaith, and that NGOs should remain vigilant and highlight any backsliding in reporting
before obfuscation of information becomes a ‘norm’ in transparency in internationaltransfers of conventional arms.
The next article is written by Mitzi Austero, Programmes Manager and Communications
and Research Manager at Nonviolence International Southeast Asia, and Pauleen Gorospe,
Communications and Research Manager at the organisation. Since the ATT was opened forsignature and ratification, the number of Asian states parties has been particularly low
compared to other regions, and no Southeast Asian state had yet ratified the treaty at thetime of the opening of CSP4. There were several signatories who were facing domestic
challenges regarding ratification, particularly in Southeast Asia: Cambodia, Malaysia,
Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. CSP4 was expected to help universalize the treaty in
55 ATT Secretariat, ATT/CSP3/2017/SEC/184/Conf.FinRep.Rev1. For a summary of the issues discussed at the
CSP3, See Enomoto, ‘Key issues at the third and fourth’.
56 ATT Secretariat, Reporting authorized or actual exports.
57 Rule 11 of the rules of procedure adopted at the CSP1 states that ‘(t)he venue for each ordinary session shallbe decided by the Conference at its preceding ordinary session, taking into consideration the importance ofpromoting the universalization of the Treaty. In the absence of a decision by States Parties on the venue of thenext ordinary session of the Conference, it shall be held at the seat of the Secretariat’. ATT Secretariat, ATT/CSP1/CONF/1.
58 ATT Secretariat, ATT/CSP4/2018/SEC/369/Conf.FinRep.Rev1. For a summary of the issues discussed at the
CSP3, See Enomoto, ‘Key issues at the third and fourth’.

11

TAMARA ENOMOTO
the region by raising awareness and promoting policy debate on the treaty among actors,
including state delegations, academics and NGOs in the region. We therefore invited
Austero to the symposium to discuss the challenges faced in Southeast Asia ahead of CSP4.
The presentation has since been updated by Austero and her colleague Gorospe.
In Austero and Gorospe’s article, they look into the challenges of developing criteria forrisk assessment of arms transfers in Southeast Asia, in view of the region’s experienceswith armed conflicts, high levels of armed violence, and proliferation of weapons. It assertsthat informal and sub-national cooperation in the region can help build and strengthen
formal structures to support arms control regimes and encourage national governments toadopt international instruments. It calls for a pragmatic approach that incorporates
disparities in the levels of development, presence of armed conflicts, and the different
security needs of each country. Lastly, it recommends that formal and informal regional
mechanisms be actively utilized in discussions on the adoption of a regional protocol onarms transfers.
In the course of the preparatory process for CSP4, states parties decided that theconference would thematically focus on the issue of diversion. Our symposium therefore
included a presentation on the theme by Nicholas Marsh, Research Fellow at the Peace
Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), who is a specialist on this issue. Article 11 of the treaty
states that each state party involved in the transfer of conventional arms covered under
Article 2 (1) shall take measures to prevent their diversion, and establishes the means bywhich a diversion can be prevented by importing, transit, trans-shipment and exportingstates parties. Although the term diversion is not defined in the treaty, it is generally
understood that the term applies to the movement of weapons from authorized tounauthorized end use, or from authorized to unauthorized end users; preventing diversion
has been one of the central aims of the ATT.
Marsh’s article argues that in different places, the treaty covers both diversions taking
place during a transfer and after the transfer has been completed. The article then considers
the different ways that authorization can be granted; it points out that a diversion can occur
when any state involved in a transfer has not provided authorization and presents examples
of diversion in contemporary armed conflicts, analysing the nature of the diversion in eachexample. It concludes with the observations that states parties need to control the activities
of arms brokers, that much more knowledge is needed by states parties to help them predict
when a diversion may occur, and that a key priority for international cooperation andassistance should be to enhance stockpile security and management.
The symposium also introduced a presentation on challenges facing the implementationof the ATT that addressed some key issues preventing states parties from fully
implementing the treaty. The updated article may be included in one of the future issues of
our journal. The symposium also discussed difficult implementation challenges, such as
possible treaty violations, in the general debate session. Throughout the CSP process, there
has been criticism against states parties for their tendency to focus on procedural andadministrative matters while avoiding concerns about the Treaty’s implementation or any
discussion of actual arms transfers, including arms transfers to Saudi Arabia.59 CSP4
included more substantive discussions around the treaty’s implementation than previous
CSPs, but NGOs complained that states parties ‘once again failed to specifically discussproblematic arms transfers and violations of the Treaty’.60
59 Some of their criticisms are summarized in Enomoto, ‘In preparation for the second conference’; ‘In
preparation for the third conference’; ‘Key issues at the third and fourth’.
60 Control Arms, Fourth conference, p. 1.

12

History of Arms Transfer Control and Challenges Facing the Arms Trade Treaty
From the historical perspective described in the preceding sections of this article, thedifficulties may lie in the design of the ATT and the underpinning ideas and assumptions.
The ATT’s approach to setting the criteria for arms transfers is based on the idea that any
actor has a lesser or greater degree of risk of falling into irrationality, dysfunction andimmorality, and thus requires external risk assessment, while no actor is assumed to becapable of providing universal judgement as to the level of risk of specific actors. This
ambiguous approach leaves open the possibility of being used in a discriminatory manner
when it is met with political, military or economic interests of arms exporters.

Ⅳ
The ATT is an under-researched treaty in Japan. The author was the only non-state Japaneseparticipant throughout most of the preparatory committees and negotiation conferences
held between 2010 and 2013. Not much information is available on the ATT in Japanese,and most national media reports on the treaty contain factual errors; academic writings on
the subject may not necessarily offer updated information.
For instance, a chapter of a book edited by the Japan Association of Disarmament Studies
and published in March 2019 judges that the ATT does not apply to unmanned versions ofcombat aircraft and attack helicopters in its scope, and therefore there is no legal obligation
to control or report them.61 Although the ATT does not explicitly reference unmanned
versions of these categories within its scope, such judgement is not based on updated
information on debate and agreements through the CSP process and the state practices that
followed.
Article 2 of the ATT reads that the treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within thefollowing categories: (a) battle tanks; (b) armoured combat vehicles; (c) large-calibre
artillery systems; (d) combat aircraft; (e) attack helicopters; (f) warships; (g) missiles andmissile launchers; and (h) small arms and light weapons. Article 5 adds that each state party
is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventionalarms, and that national definitions of any of the categories covered under Article 2 (1) (a)(g) shall not cover less than the descriptions used in the UNROCA at the time of entry into
force of the ATT. Since the treaty entered into force on 24 December 2014, discussion
followed as to what was covered by the UNROCA at that time.62
The UN Secretary-General convened a GGE on the continuing operation of the UNROCA
and its further development every three years from 1994 to 2009. The 2012 GGE meeting
was postponed to 2013. 63 The 2006 GGE report agreed that its category IV (combat
aircraft) ‘already covered those unmanned platforms that were versions of combat aircraftor that otherwise fell within the existing definition but not specially designed UAVs’. 64
Efforts were made in subsequent GGEs to be precise about the types of platforms to becovered, based on developments in the technology, transfer, and use. The 2013 GGE report
noted that unmanned aerial vehicles were covered by categories IV (combat aircraft) and V(attack helicopters) of the UNROCA. 65 Although the 2013 GGE did not change thecategory description itself, it did recommend that states report international transfers of
61 Iwamoto, ‘Present’, pp. 387-8.
62 See commentaries on Articles 2 and 5 in Caonero and Merrell-Wetterwik, ‘Article 5’; Casey-Maslen, S.

‘Article 5’; Holtom, ‘Article 2’; Parker, ‘Article 2’.
63 UNGA, A/C.1/67/L.22.
64 UNGA, A/61/261, para. 96
65 UNGA, A/68/140.

13

TAMARA ENOMOTO
unmanned aerial vehicles in their annual reports to the UNROCA incorporating ‘unmanned’
sub-categories under categories IV and V. Both 2006 and 2013 GGE reports were endorsed
by UNGA resolutions.66 Following the decision taken by the 2013 GGE, the United Nations
Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) made changes on its website to update thereporting template so that it was in line with the recommendation made by the GGE. The
UNODA Standardized Reporting Forms for the UNROCA at the time of the entry into
force of the ATT included the following categories and descriptions. As a result of the GGE
conclusions and recommendations and ODA’s approach, it was widely interpreted thatunmanned versions of ‘combat aircraft’ and ‘attack helicopters’ are indeed included in thescope of the ATT.67
IV. Combat aircrafta) Manned fixed-wing or variable-geometry wing aircraft, designed, equipped or
modified to engage targets by employing guided missiles, unguided rockets, bombs,
guns, cannons or other weapons of destruction, including versions of these aircraft
which perform specialized electronic warfare, suppression of air defence orreconnaissance missions;b) Unmanned fixed-wing or variable-geometry wing aircraft, designed, equipped or
modified to engage targets by employing guided missiles, unguided rockets, bombs,
guns, cannons or other weapons of destruction. The term “combat aircraft” does notinclude primary trainer aircraft, unless designed, equipped or modified as describedabove.
V. Attack helicoptersa) Manned rotary-wing aircraft, designed, equipped or modified to engage targets
by employing guided or unguided anti-armour, air-to-surface, air-to-subsurface, or airto-air weapons and equipped with an integrated fire control and aiming system forthese weapons, including versions of these aircraft which perform specializedreconnaissance or electronic warfare missions;b) Unmanned rotary-wing aircraft, designed, equipped or modified to engage targets
by employing guided or unguided anti-armour, air-to-surface, air-to-subsurface, or airto-air weapons and equipped with an integrated fire control and aiming system forthese weapons.
As noted in the previous section, Article 13 of the ATT obliges each state party to submit
annually to the Secretariat, by 31 May, a report for the preceding calendar year concerning
authorized or actual exports and imports of ‘conventional arms covered under Article 2(1)’. In preparation for CSP1, an informal working group on transparency and reporting
was formed, and the question of what is included in Article 2 (1) of the ATT was addressedwith a view to developing an annual reporting template. The chair of the working grouppromoted the interpretation that the 2013 UNROCA GGE had concluded that unmanned
versions of combat aircraft and attack helicopters are included in the scope of thesecategories in the UNROCA, and therefore should also be regarded as included in the scopeof the ATT. As there was a desire by states parties that were active in the working group toseek a close alignment between the reporting templates for both ATT and UNROCA, there
66 UNGA, A/RES/61/77; UNGA, A/RES/68/43.
67 Holtom, ‘Article 2’, pp. 42-3; Parker, ‘Article 2’, 85-95.

14

History of Arms Transfer Control and Challenges Facing the Arms Trade Treaty
was support for the inclusion of sub-categories for unmanned versions of combat aircraft
and attack helicopters in the ATT reporting template.68
More specifically, the ATT annual reporting template has sub-headings under the
categories of ‘combat aircraft’ and ‘attack helicopters’ that allow states parties to report
separately on imports and/or exports of manned or unmanned versions within thesecategories.69 The aforementioned document endorsed at CSP3, Reporting authorized or
actual exports and imports of conventional arms under the ATT: questions & answers,
offers some explanation of this interpretation.70 As noted earlier, states parties ‘endorsed’
the annual reporting template and ‘recommend’ its use at CSP2, and therefore it is notmandatory to use the template.71 However, among the annual reports submitted to the ATT
Secretariat in 2018, only France did not use the template.
In view of this situation, judging simply that there is no legal obligation to control orreport unmanned combat aircraft and attack helicopters under the ATT may not be helpful
in understanding the debate and decisions through the CSP process and the state practices
that followed. In order to understand the definition/description for ATT categories, one has
to closely examine and continually update the deliberations of the UNROCA GGEs as well
as of the CSP process.72
With a history of the two atomic bombs that were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,arms control and disarmament debate in Japan has largely focused on nuclear weapons
control, which results in an extremely small number of academics in the area of
conventional weapons control. Updated information on the details of debate and measurestaken during the CSP process have not necessarily been shared even among academics, letalone with the media and the public. In this context, our international symposium in August
2018 provided a rare opportunity for the RIHGAT to disseminate accurate information insome detail on the key themes of CSP4, as well as to provide some historical insights basedon our research.
The RIHGAT was established in 2015 as a five-year project aiming to contribute to thecurrent arms control debate, both in practical and academic terms, through interdisciplinaryand global collaborative research based on historical studies. As CSP4 approached, theRIHGAT was elevated to one of three official institutes of Meiji University as of 1 August
2018. It began running cross-department courses for undergraduate students on arms
industry and arms control studies in April 2019, and aspires to create an international
research and education hub for those who are interested in relevant studies. With CSP5
approaching, it is hoped that this collection will provide a good opportunity to overview
the long and complex history of international policy debate on arms transfer control, and tolook into developments on the issues discussed before CSP4.

68 The author thanks Paul Holtom for his information about the working group debate.
69 ATT Secretariat, ATT/CSP2/2016/WP.6, annex 2.
70 ATT Secretariat, Reporting authorized or actual exports.
71 This is because several states parties highlighted that they understood Article 13 to mean that the same report

can be submitted to both the ATT and UNROCA, an approach that France has consistently taken since it
submitted its first ATT annual report. The author thanks Paul Holtom and Nicholas Marsh for this information.
72 The 2016 UNROCA GGE recommended changing the heading of category IV to ‘Combat aircraft andunmanned combat aerial vehicles’ and formally amending the description for category IV to consist of two subcategories. See UNGA, A/71/259, para. 57.

15

TAMARA ENOMOTO
References
Anderson, D. G., ‘British rearmament and the “merchants of death”: the 1935-36 royal commission on the
manufacture of and trade in armaments’, Journal of Contemporary History, 29:1 (1994), pp. 5-37.
Anderson, M., Do no harm: supporting local capacities for peace through aid (Cambridge, 1996).
Atmore, A., Chirenje J. M., and Mudenge, S.I., ‘Firearms in southcentral Africa’, Journal of African
History, 12:4 (1971), pp. 545-56.
Bain, W., Between anarchy and society: trusteeship and the obligations of power (Oxford, 2003).
Beachey, R. W., ‘The arms trade in East Africa in the late nineteenth century’, Journal of African History,
3:3 (1962), pp. 451-67.
Berlioux, E. F., Slave trade in Africa in 1872: principally carried on for the supply of Turkey, Egypt,
Persia and Zanzibar (1872).
Caonero, F. and Merrell-Wetterwik, A. C., ‘Article 5 General Implementation’, in S. D. Silva and B. Wood,eds., Weapons and international law: the Arms Trade Treaty (Brussels, 2015), pp. 78-87.
Casati, G., Ten years in Equatoria and the return with Emin Pasha. Volume 2 (1891).
Casey-Maslen, S. ‘Article 5. general implementation’, in A. Clapham, S. Casey-Maslen, G. Giacca and S.
Parker, eds., The Arms Trade Treaty: a commentary (Oxford, 2016), pp. 165-76.
Catrina, C., Arms transfers and dependence (1988).
Clapham, A., ‘Weapons and armed non-state actors’, in S. Casey-Maslen, ed., Weapons under international
human rights law (Cambridge, 2014), pp. 163-96.
Clarke, R. F., Cardinal Lavigerie and the African slave trade (1889).
Collier, P., Wars, guns, and votes: democracy in dangerous places (New York, 2009).
Control Arms, Fourth conference of states parties to the Arms Trade Treaty Tokyo, Japan, 20-24 August
2018 (2018). https://controlarms.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/CSP2018-Final-summary.pdf (Last
accessed on 13 May 2019)
Cortright, D., Peace: a history of movements and ideas (Cambridge, 2008).
Enomoto, T., ‘In preparation for the second conference of states parties to the Arms Trade Treaty: key
issues at the first conference of states parties and thereafter’, History of Global Arms Transfer, 2 (2016),
pp. 67-84. [in Japanese]
Enomoto, T., ‘Controlling arms transfers to non-state actors: from the emergence of the sovereign-statesystem to the present’, History of Global Arms Transfer, 3 (2017), pp. 3-20.
Enomoto, T., ‘In preparation for the third conference of states parties to the Arms Trade Treaty: Key issues
at the Second Conference of States Parties and thereafter’, History of Global Arms Transfer, 4 (2017),
pp. 141-158. [in Japanese]
Enomoto, T., ‘Key issues at the third and fourth conferences of states parties to the Arms Trade Treaty’,
History of Global Arms Transfer, 7 (2019), pp. 67-86. [in Japanese]
Garcia-Mora, M. R., ‘International law and the law of hostile military expeditions’, Fordham Law Review,
27:3 (1958), pp. 309-31.
Guy, J. J. (1971). ‘A note on firearms in the Zulu Kingdom with special reference to the Anglo-Zulu war,
1879’, Journal of African History, 12:4 (1971), pp. 557-70.
Harkavy, R. E., The arms trade and international systems (Cambridge, 1975).
Iwamoto, S. ‘Present states of and challenges facing arms control of military drones’ in Japan Associationof Disarmament Studies, ed, Aspects of disarmament and arms control (Tokyo, 2019). [in Japanese]
Jackson, R. H., Quasi-states: sovereignty, international relations and the Third World (Cambridge, 1998).
Joyner, C., International law in the 21st century: rules for global governance (Lanham, 2005).
Kaldor, M., New and old wars: organized violence in a global era (Stanford, 1999).
Krasner, S., Power, the state and sovereignty: essays on international relations (2009).
Krause, K., Arms and the state: patterns of military production and trade (Cambridge, 1992).
Krause, K., ‘Controlling the arms trade since 1945’, in R. D. Burns, ed, Encyclopedia of arms control anddisarmament, vol. II (New York, 1993), pp. 1021-1039.
Krause, K., and MacDonald, M. K., ‘Regulating arms sales through World War II’, in R. D. Burns, ed,
Encyclopedia of arms control and disarmament, vol. II (New York, 1993), pp. 707-24.
Kurimoto, E., Primitive and Modern Wars (Tokyo, 1999). [in Japanese]
Louis, R. W., ‘Sir Percy Anderson’s grand African strategy, 1883-1896’, English Historical Review, 81:319(1966), pp. 292-314.
Matthews, J., ‘Free trade and the Congo Basin Treaties’, South African Journal of Economics, 27:4 (1959),
pp. 293-300.
Muni, S. D., ‘Third World arms control: role of the Non-Allied Movement’, in T. Ohlson, ed, Arms transfer

16

History of Arms Transfer Control and Challenges Facing the Arms Trade Treaty
limitations and Third World security (Oxford, 1988), pp. 191-201.
Parker, S. ‘Article 2. scope’, in A. Clapham, S. Casey-Maslen, G. Giacca and S. Parker, eds., The Arms
Trade Treaty: a commentary (Oxford, 2016), pp. 58-136.
Pasha, R. G., Seven years in the Soudan: being a record of explorations, adventures, and campaigns
against the Arab slave trade (1892).
Holtom, P. ‘Article 2 scope’, in S. D. Silva and B. Wood, eds., Weapons and international law: the Arms
Trade Treaty (Brussels, 2015), pp. 29-55.
SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), The arms trade with the Third World(Stockholm, 1971).
Stone, D., ‘Imperialism and sovereignty: the League of Nations’ drive to control the global arms trade’,
Journal of Contemporary History, 35:2 (2000), pp. 213-30.
Wulf, H., ‘United Nations deliberations on the arms trade’, in I. Anthony, ed., Arms export regulations(Oxford and New York, 1991), pp. 228-37.
Official Publications
ATT Secretariat (Arms Trade Treaty Secretariat), Final report, ATT/CSP1/2015/6.
ATT Secretariat (Arms Trade Treaty Secretariat), Rules of procedure: Arms Trade Treaty, ATT/CSP1/
CONF/1.
ATT Secretariat (Arms Trade Treaty Secretariat), Final report, ATT/CSP2/2016/5.
ATT Secretariat (Arms Trade Treaty Secretariat), Report of the ATT working group on reporting templates
to the second conference of states parties, ATT/CSP2/2016/WP.6.
ATT Secretariat (Arms Trade Treaty Secretariat). Final report, ATT/CSP3/2017/SEC/184/Conf.FinRep.
Rev1.
ATT Secretariat (Arms Trade Treaty Secretariat), Reporting authorized or actual exports and imports of
conventional arms under the ATT: questions and answers, Annex D to the ATT working group on
transparency and reporting co-chairs’ draft report to CSP3, ATT/CSP3.WGTR/2017/CHAIR/159/Conf.
Rep.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial
countries and peoples, UN Document A/RES/15/1514.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Declaration on the inadmissibility of intervention in thedomestic affairs of states and the protection of their independence and sovereignty, UN Document A/
RES/20/2131.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Declaration on principles of international law concerning
friendly relations and co-operation among states in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
UN Document A/RES/25/2625.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), International arms transfers, UN Document A/ RES/43/75I.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Study on ways and means of promoting transparency ininternational transfers of conventional arms, UN Document A/46/301.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Transparency in armaments, UN Document A/RES/46/36L.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Report on the continuing operation of the United Nations
Register of Conventional Arms and its further development, UN Document A/61/261.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Transparency in armaments, UN Document A/RES/61/77.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Towards an Arms Trade Treaty: establishing common
international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, UN Document A/
RES/61/89.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Towards an Arms Trade Treaty: establishing common
international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, UN Document A/
RES/63/240.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), The Arms Trade Treaty, UN Document A/RES/64/48.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), The Arms Trade Treaty, UN Document A/RES/67/234.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Transparency in armaments, UN Document A/C.1/67/L.22.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Draft decision submitted by the president of the final
conference, UN Document A/CONF.217/2013/L.3.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), The Arms Trade Treaty, UN Document A/RES/67/234 B.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Report on the continuing operation of the United Nations
Register of Conventional Arms and its further development, UN Document A/68/140.
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Transparency in Armaments, UN Document A/RES/68/43.

17

TAMARA ENOMOTOUNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Report on the continuing operation of the United Nations
Register of Conventional Arms and its further development, UN Document A/71/259.

18

History of Global Arms Transfer, 8 (2019), pp. 19-38

Can the Arms Trade Treaty Increase
Transparency in International Arms
Transfers?
By PAUL HOLTOM*
This article asks whether the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) can achieve its purpose ofincreasing transparency in the international arms trade. After introducing theconcepts of intergovernmental and public transparency in international arms
transfers, the article provides examples of key transparency instruments with afocus on United Nations Register of Conventional Arms (UNROCA). The article
reviews ATT annual reports submitted during 2016-18, which provide information
on international transfers of conventional arms that took place during 2015-17 incomparison to UNROCA submissions for this period. The article concludes that
the ATT has the potential to increase the number of States that make informationon their arms transfers publicly available, especially if States Parties takeadvantage of the opportunities for capacity building that could be provided via
the ATT voluntary trust fund (VTF). Yet there are worrying signs that several ATTStates Parties are providing less detailed information in their ATT reports thanthey used to provide for UNROCA. Therefore, States Parties and nongovernmental organizations need to remain vigilant and highlight backsliding inreporting before obfuscation of information becomes a ‘norm’ in transparency ininternational transfers of conventional arms.
The first Article of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) declares that the Treaty’s purpose
includes: ‘promoting cooperation, transparency and responsible action by States Parties in
the international trade in conventional arms, thereby building confidence among States
Parties’.1 To achieve the aim of promoting transparency in international arms transfers,
ATT States Parties are legally obliged to provide to the ATT Secretariat an annual report on
authorizations and/or actual exports and imports of eight categories of conventional arms,
including small arms and light weapons (SALW).2 This article investigates the assumptionthat the ATT can increase transparency in the international arms trade. Specifically, it seeks
to address the question: ‘Has the ATT increased transparency in international arms
transfers?’. In order to do this, it uses reporting to the United Nations Register ofConventional Arms (UNROCA) to provide a baseline for assessing the impact of the ATT
on transparency in international arms transfers, examining both the level of reporting andthe quality of the information contained in ATT and UNROCA reports.
Providing data on arms exports and imports for other States and for the general public isviewed as a sensitive issue for many States, having potential implications for national* Author’s Affiliation: Paul Holtom, Senior Researcher, Small Arms Survey.
1 UNGA, Arms Trade Treaty, Article 1.
2 UNGA, Arms Trade Treaty, Article 13.3.

19

PAUL HOLTOM
defence and security. Yet, a norm in transparency in international arms transfers has been
established since the end of the Cold War, as States have exchanged official information
with other States on imports and exports of conventional arms and military equipment, as
well as making such information available for parliamentary and public scrutiny. However,since the start of the UN process towards an ATT, there has been a significant decline in thenumber of States providing information on their international transfers of conventionalarms to UNROCA. Does this suggest that the norm of transparency in international arms
transfers is under threat? Can the ATT reverse this negative tendency and increasetransparency in international arms transfers?
Section I of this article identifies intergovernmental and public transparency ininternational arms transfers. Section II gives an overview of transparency in internationalarms transfers for the period 1992-2015, with a focus on UNROCA reporting. It provides abaseline against which to assess the impact of the ATT on transparency in internationalarms transfers. The third section provides background information on the development of
ATT reporting forms and other guidance developed for use by ATT States Parties to enable
them to report annually on their exports and imports of conventional arms. Section IV
reviews the first three years of ATT annual reports submitted during 2016-18, providing
information on international transfers of conventional arms that took place during 2015-17,
and assesses this data to determine if the ATT has increased transparency in internationalarms transfers. The final section provides concluding remarks.

I
What is transparency? An Florini provides a negative definition for transparency,
suggesting it can simply be considered ‘the opposite of secrecy’.3 In a positive sense, it hascome to be understood as involving the ‘systematic provision of information’ with a viewto reducing ‘the risk of misunderstanding or miscalculation’. 4 Therefore, it is also usedsynonymously with ‘open government’ or ‘openness’. It should also be noted that States
and national governments can be transparent in some spheres and still retain secrets inother areas. Thus, a general division can be made, depending on the intended audience of
the information released, between intergovernmental transparency and public transparency.5
The confidential exchange of information on international transfers of conventional arms
between States is classified as intergovernmental transparency. This type of exchange of
information is not viewed as a goal, but as a means to build confidence and enhancecooperation between states that regard participation as being in line with their national andinternational security interests. There are two main objectives for multilateralintergovernmental mechanisms for reporting on arms exports and/or imports: (1) preventing
arms races and armed conflict between states that exchange information and (2) informing
arms export licensing decisions in order to prevent destabilizing accumulations of arms anddiversion to unauthorised illicit end users (i.e. terrorists, criminals, entities subject to UN
arms embargoes).
In the first category, it is assumed that the exchange of information can provide data thathelps to understand the intentions and capabilities of other States in order to prevent theexaggeration of threats, misinterpretations, and miscalculations that can lead to arms races
3 For example, see: Florini. ‘The end of secrecy’, p 50.
4 UNGA, A/46/301, para. 14.
5 Florini, ‘The end of secrecy’; Grigorescu, ‘International organizations’, pp. 643–67.

20

Can the Arms Trade Treaty Increase Transparency in International Arms Transfers?
and armed conflict.6 This was the rationale for the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in
Europe (CFE Treaty), signed on 19 November 1990 by 22 North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO) and Warsaw Treaty Organisation (WTO) states. States that participate
in the exchange of information on military holdings of five categories of major
conventional weapons under the CFE Treaty share this data in a confidential manner, withthe aim of building confidence and preventing conflict.7 The CFE Treaty is an example ofan intergovernmental transparency mechanism that seeks to prevent arms races and armed
conflict between the States that participate in the information exchange.
In the second category, information on arms export licences and/or deliveries of
conventional arms is shared between States in order to inform national decision-making onexports, ensuring that potential transfers will not contribute to destabilizing accumulations
and fuel armed conflict.8 The Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for ConventionalArms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies (Wassenaar Arrangement), established by 33
states in July 1996, is an example of such an intergovernmental transparency mechanism.
The Wassenaar Arrangement has two key objectives:•• promote greater transparency, cooperation and responsibility in transfers ofconventional arms, military equipment, and dual-use items and technologies; and•• prevent destabilizing accumulations and the diversion of controlled items to illicit end
users.9
The 42 Wassenaar Arrangement participating States are major arms producers or Stateswith significant involvement in the international arms trade. These States meet formally
twice a year to exchange information in confidence on exports and export licence denials.
The information exchanged between Wassenaar Arrangement participating States is notmade publicly available.
Public transparency, or government openness, in international arms transfers refers to thepractice of making information on a state’s preferences, intentions, and capabilities
available to the general public, including in other citizens of other States. It is generally
regarded as being linked to a government’s democratic accountability and commitment toparliamentary and public oversight.10 Public transparency with regard to international arms
transfers entails the public dissemination of information on laws, decision-making
procedures for exports and procurement, and information on authorizations and actual arms
exports and imports, as well as the refusal for licences to export or import conventionalarms. By making such information publicly available, it is expected that it will enable
parliamentarians and interested citizens to monitor and assess compliance with national andinternational legal obligations regarding international arms transfers, in particular Articles
6, 7 and 11 of the ATT.11 The possibility of being held to account for certain transfers that
could be viewed negatively by domestic publics ‘might motivate the authorities to give
6 UNGA, A/46/301, para 99-100.
7 The five categories of weapons to be reported upon are listed in Article 1 of the CFE Treaty: tanks, artillery,armoured combat vehicles, combat aircraft and attack helicopters.
8 UNGA, A/46/301, para 98 and 101.
9 The Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods andTechnologies is regarded to some extent as a successor to the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export
Controls (COCOM). COCOM was established in 1947 to prevent the transfer of arms and military equipmentfrom NATO members and Japan to WTO states. It was disbanded in 1994. The membership of the WA is broader
than that of COCOM, with former WTO members now participants (WA, ‘Website’).
10 Grigorescu, ‘International organizations’, p. 644.
11 Greene, Information exchange and transparency; and SAS, Survey 2007, pp. 73 and 81.

21

PAUL HOLTOM
even more careful consideration to all aspects of contemplated arms transfers before they
are carried out’.12 As of December 2018, 34 States had published at least one national
report on arms exports since 1990, providing information on national arms transfer control
systems and/or arms export authorizations or actual exports and. 13 Some States produce
reports that include descriptions of all equipment licensed for export, instances where an
export licence was denied, brokering licences authorized or denied, and transit licences.
The level of detail provided can vary considerably.
Although it is analytically useful to distinguish between intergovernmental and public
transparency in international arms transfers, there is a lot of the interplay between the twoforms in practice. While the data on international arms transfers shared between States
under the CFE Treaty and Wassenaar Arrangement is not made publicly available, there is a
growing tendency for information exchanged within intergovernmental frameworks to also
be made publicly available, thereby contributing to public transparency.14 Several regional
examples that support this argument are presented below. UNROCA is the most importantintergovernmental reporting mechanism on imports and exports of conventional arms,
which also makes information provided by States publicly. UNROCA was created toincrease intergovernmental transparency and build confidence between States and prevent
destabilizing accumulations of conventional arms that could fuel misperceptions andeventually lead to armed conflict. The UN Department for Disarmament Affairs interpreted
the UN General Assembly resolution that established UNROCA as providing for the
information supplied by UN Member States to be made available for, at first the interested
academic and research community, and subsequently for the public at large via a websitethat reproduces national submissions. 15 Therefore, UNROCA is not only anintergovernmental transparency mechanism but also contributes to public transparency. As
will be discussed below, the approach taken for UNROCA set an important precedent for
public reporting under the ATT. This article only assesses the way in which the ATT
contributes to public transparency in international arms transfers. It also notes that the
ATT’s reporting obligations did not necessarily introduce new commitments or practices
because many ATT States Parties were already politically or legally committed to providing
information on an annual basis on their authorizations and/or actual exports and imports.

II
The issue of transparency in international arms transfers is not new. States exchanged
information on their international arms transfers during the inter-war period of the 1920s
and 1930s under the auspices of the League of Nations, which produced a Statistical
Yearbook on Trade in Arms and Armaments using information provided by States.16 The
possibility of the UN collecting, collating and disseminating information on international
12 UNGA, A/46/301, para. 101.
13 The 34 states that have published at least one report on their arms exports since 1990 are: Albania, Australia,

Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, The
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States. Although Belarus published a national reporton export control policy, exports of arms and military equipment for 2006, it did not contain any data on actual
transfers. A list of the published reports is at: http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atlinks_gov.html.
14 Grigorescu, ‘International organizations’, p. 649.
15 UNROCA, ‘Website’.
16 Stone, ‘Imperialism and sovereignty’, pp. 213-30. The League of Nation’s Yearbooks can be found at: www.
un.org/disarmament/convarms/Register/HTML/Register_Resources.html.

22

Can the Arms Trade Treaty Increase Transparency in International Arms Transfers?
arms transfers was also raised in the General Assembly on several occasions during theCold War. The genesis of UNROCA can be found in General Assembly resolution 43/75 of
7 December 1988, which requested the UN Secretary-General to establish a group of
governmental experts (GGE) to carry out a study on the ‘ways and means of promoting
transparency in international transfers of conventional arms on a universal and nondiscriminatory basis’.17 This study laid the foundations for the UNROCA of ConventionalArms (‘the Register’), providing recommendations for the instrument’s operation andscope.
UN General Assembly resolution 46/36 L of December 1991, on ‘Transparency inarmaments’ established the UNROCA ‘to prevent excessive and destabilizing accumulationof arms (…) in order to promote stability and strengthen regional or international peace andsecurity [and to] enhance confidence, promote stability, help states to exercise restraint,ease tensions and strengthen regional and international peace and security’.18 All UN
Member States are requested to provide information on their actual imports and exports
from the preceding calendar year for seven categories of conventional arms:
I.
Battle tanks;
II. Armoured combat vehicles;
III. Large-calibre artillery;
IV. Combat aircraft;
V. Attack helicopters;
VI. Warships; andVII. Missiles and missile launchers.
Descriptions for the seven categories are provided in an appendix to the resolution. The
description have been reviewed every three years by a group of governmental experts(GGE) appointed by the UN Secretary-General as part of a regular assessment of thecontinuing operation and further development of UNROCA. The GGEs can recommend
changes to the parameters of the descriptions, which are then put before the UN General
Assembly for adoption. 19 The last change to a category description took place following
the 2016 GGE on the UNROCA, which provided a description for unmanned combat aerial
vehicles (UCAV) to be reported in an amended category for combat aircraft. 20 Member
States determine on a national basis what constitutes an ‘export’ or ‘import’ and whichconventional arms to report.21 Since 2004, UN Member States have been invited to provide
information on international transfers of SALW,22 and were provided with a standardised
reporting form for reporting international transfers of SALW in 2006.23 The 2016 GGE on
the continuing operation and further development of the UNROCA recommended thatmember States report on international transfers of SALW on the same basis as the seven
17 UNGA, A/RES/43/75 I.
18 UNGA, A/RES/46/36 L.
19 For more information on the role of GGE’s in the development, or lack thereof, see: Holtom, ‘Nothing toreport’, pp. 61-87.
20 UNGA, A/71/259, para. 81.
21 Member States are only requested to provide information on international transfers of complete weaponssystems and not spare parts, components, upgrade kits, and military technology and equipment. UN General
Assembly resolution 46/36 L of December 1991 also invited Member States to provide background information
on procurement through national production, military holdings, and relevance policies.
22 UNGA, A/58/274, para. 113(e).
23 UNGA, A/61/261, para. 125.

23

PAUL HOLTOM
categories of conventional arms, thus creating a ‘seven plus one formula’ for reporting. 24
Since its inception the UNROCA has received reports from more than 170 states. The
level of reporting has varied significantly from year-to-year, from a high of 124 states in2002 for transfers that took place in calendar year 2001 to a low of just 50 states in 2016
for transfers that took place in 2015 (see Figure 1). The decline in reporting correspondswith the period in which the negotiations on the ATT took place, as well as the repeated
failure of several UN GGE to reach consensus on adding an eighth full category to the
UNROCA for reporting on international transfers of SALW. Nevertheless, reporting to the
UNROCA provides a useful baseline for assessing the contribution of the ATT fortransparency in international arms transfers. The GGEs tasked with accounting for the
decline in reporting have determined that the downward trajectory is largely due to the factthat the large number of Member States that provided nil reports during the period 2001-7
stopped reporting during 2008-18.25 More precisely, the factors that could have influenced
this downward trajectory are thought to include:•• ‘a reduction in follow-up efforts regarding reporting;•• an increasing burden on Member States with regard to reporting on conventional arms
issues;•• reporting fatigue felt by Member States that previously reported regularly;•• the limited relevance of the Register while small arms and light weapons were notincluded as a main category; and•• the focus on the Arms Trade Treaty process at the United Nations in recent years’.26

120
100
80

Total submissions

60

Information on SALW
transfers

40
20
0

1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016

Number of UN Member States

140

Calendar year in which transfers took place

Figure 1. Submissions to the UNROCA of Conventional Arms, years in which transfers
took place, 1992-2017
Sources: UNODA, The UN Register; UNROCA.
24 UNGA, A/71/259, para. 75 and 83.
25 UNGA, A/68/140, para.17; UNGA, A/71/259, para. 20.
26 UNGA, A/68/140, para. 16.

24

Can the Arms Trade Treaty Increase Transparency in International Arms Transfers?
The UNROCA has not only served as a critical point of reference for the ATT, but has
also been an inspiration for regional confidence-building instruments and informationexchanges on international arms transfers. For example, since 1998 participating states of
the Organization of Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) have exchanged annual
reports on their imports and exports of conventional arms using UNROCA descriptions forseven categories of conventional arms and using reporting templates that are identical tothose used for the UNROCA.27 A decision was taken in September 2016 for the informationexchanged on conventional arms transfers to be made publicly available on the OSCE
website.28 In June 1999, the Organization of American States (OAS) General Assembly
adopted the Inter-American Convention on Transparency in Conventional Weapons
Acquisitions (CITAAC), which entered into force in November 2002. The CITAAC
requires States Parties to submit annual reports on imports and exports of items fallingwithin the seven categories of the UNROCA, and to report on all acquisitions within 90
days of their incorporation into the armed forces, and provides that ‘States Parties shallguarantee the confidentiality of any information they receive, if requested to do so by theState Party providing the information’.29 In addition, European Union (EU) Member States
regularly exchange information on authorizations for export and brokering licences anddeliveries of conventional arms. This information is compiled in the publicly available EU
annual report produced in accordance with the legally binding Common Position 2008/944/
CFSP, which defines common rules governing control of exports of military technology
and equipment.30 Countries in south-eastern Europe have adopted the EU approach toexchanging information in a regional setting and making information on authorizations
and/or actual exports of conventional arms. Therefore, the Euro-Atlantic region and theAmericas have multiple political commitments and legal obligations for reporting on
international arms transfers.
In contrast to the public transparency on international arms transfers by States in the EU,
OAS, OSCE, and south-eastern Europe, there are several intergovernmental transparency
mechanisms on international transfers of SALW for which the results are not made publicly
available. Since 2001, OSCE participating states have exchanged information on theirimports and exports of small arms, but this information is not made publicly available.
States parties to the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Convention
on SALW, their Ammunition and Other Related Materials (ECOWAS Convention) and theCentral African Convention for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons, Their
Ammunition and all Parts and Components that can be used for their Manufacture, Repair
and Assembly (Kinshasa Convention) are legally obliged to report each year to theirrespective Secretariats on their SALW imports and exports, but these reports do not have to
be made public.31As a result of this opacity, the baseline for assessing the contribution of
the ATT to public transparency in international transfers of SALW relies on UNROCA
submissions and information provided in national and regional reports on arms exports.

27 OCSE, FSC.DEC/13/97.
28 OSCE, FSC.DEC/4/16/Corr.1.
29 OAS, CITAAC. Most national reports can be found online at: http://www.oea.org/csh/english/

conventionalweapons.asp.
30 CoEU, Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP.
31 ECOWAS, Convention, Article 10; ECCAS, Convention, Articles 21 and 24.

25

PAUL HOLTOM

III
Article 13(3) of the ATT obliges ATT States Parties to provide an annual report to the ATT
Secretariat by 31 May each year on their conventional arms imports and exports during theprevious calendar year. 32 This section notes that while the treaty text provides some
guidance for reporting, the ATT working group on transparency and reporting, and nongovernmental organizations have developed tools and materials to support reporting by
ATT States Parties.
Article 13(3) does not explicitly state that ATT annual reports will be made publicly
available. At a glance, Article 13(3) resembles the UN General Assembly resolution that
established the UNROCA, which also did not contain provisions for national submissions
to the UNROCA to be made publicly available. However, it has been argued that there is an
implicit call for public reporting because of the placement of the comma in the sentence:‘Reports shall be made available, and distributed to States Parties by the Secretariat’.33 The
so-called ‘transparency comma’ is thus interpreted as distinguishing between making
reports publicly available in the first half of the sentence before the comma, and theintergovernmental transparency provided for in the second half of the sentence. One could
argue that the fact that Article 13(3) also notes that ‘reports may exclude commerciallysensitive or national security information’ suggests that it is the intention of the treaty toprovide for public transparency. Most of the ATT States Parties that have provide an annual
report on arms exports and imports have accepted this public transparency approach, yetseveral have also indicated that they have withheld information from the report due tocommercial sensitivities or national security.
Article 13(3) of the ATT also provides some flexibility for States Parties with regards tothe sources of information for their reports. UN Member States are requested to provide
information for UNROCA on their actual exports and imports of conventional arms. In
other words, the reports should contain data on deliveries that have taken place. ATT States
Parties can elect to provide such information in their ATT annual reports, in accordancewith the provisions in the Treaty to provide the same information for the ATT and
UNROCA. Alternatively, States Parties can provide information on authorizations, in otherwords on licences issued for exports or contracts signed for imports. This flexibility reflects
the fact that several Member States indicated that they use such sources for providing
information on international transfers of SALW for the UNROCA.34 It has recently been
revealed that UN Member States use information on authorizations for their UNROCA
submissions for other categories too.35
The ATT does not provide a form or template for reporting exports and imports of
conventional arms in the treaty nor in an annex to the treaty. Article 13(3) provides some
guidance in noting that a State Party can provide the same information in its ATT annual
report as it provides in its UNROCA submission, in order to address concerns that ATT
reporting provisions would introduce a new reporting burden for ATT States Parties. States
Parties decided in late 2014 to establish an informal working group on transparency andreporting, which was tasked with the development of standardized templates for both the
ATT initial reports on implementation measures and ATT annual reports on exports and
32 UNGA, Arms Trade Treaty, art. 13.3
33 Control Arms Secretariat, ATT monitor, p. 19.
34 Holtom, Transparency in transfers, pp. 23-6.
35 An analysis of information provided by UN Member States in their UNROCA submissions for calendar

years 2016 and 2017 indicates that 36 UN Member States provided information on actual exports and imports
comparted to four Member States that provided information on authorizations.

26

Can the Arms Trade Treaty Increase Transparency in International Arms Transfers?
imports of conventional arms. 36 The informal working group produced a draft annual
reporting template, which combined the UNROCA standardized form for reporting on
international transfers of conventional arms and the form for providing backgroundinformation on international transfers of SALW. The informal working group developed
ATT reporting templates that contained three key differences when compared to the
UNROCA standardized forms:•• First, the ATT annual reporting template provides space for States Parties to indicate
if the data provided relates to authorizations and/or actual exports and imports.
•• Second, it offers the option to report on the number of units exported or imported and/or their financial value.
•• Third, the UNROCA standardized form provides a column for ‘intermediate location’,
which is not included in the ATT annual reporting template.
The annual reporting template was not adopted at the first Conference of States Parties(CSP1) for the ATT in 2015.37 Following minor revisions in 2016, CSP2 endorsed thetemplate and recommended it for use by States Parties. However, it is not compulsory for
ATT States Parties to use the standardised reporting template. The Conference also decided
to keep the template and procedures for making reports publicly available ‘under review’.38
The ATT working group on reporting and transparency has continued to support ATT State
Party reporting on international transfers of conventional arms. Given the fact that ATT
States Parties can provide the same information for UNROCA and the ATT annual report,
the ATT working group on reporting and transparency and civil society organizations andresearch institutions have developed various tools to help reduce the reporting burden forStates.39 In preparation for the third conference of ATT States Parties, Belgium led on thedevelopment of guidance to help ATT States Parties better understand how to fulfil their
obligations under Article 13(3) of the ATT, in the form an FAQ guide entitled: Reporting
authorized or actual exports and imports of conventional arms under the ATT: questions
and answers.40 The FAQ approach taken for the guidance resembles the guidance document
prepared by the UNODA for UNROCA reporting.41 Also, like the UNROCA, the ATT
Secretariat has led the development of an online reporting tool, which has been introduced
for use for ATT States Parties reporting in 2019.

IV
ATT annual reports on exports and imports of conventional arms are the primary method
for assessing the application of the ATT and demonstrating that national systems are inplace that maintain records of actual or authorised exports and imports of conventionalarms. As noted above, the submission of annual reports to the ATT Secretariat is a legallybinding obligation, in contrast to the political commitment of participation in the
UNROCA. This section presents an overview of reporting for the first three years of ATT
annual reports, those submitted during 2016-18 and covering authorization or actual
36 ATT Secretariat, ATT/CSP1/2015/WP.4.
37 ATT Secretariat, ATT/CSP1/2015/6, para. 36.
38 ATT Secretariat, ATT/CSP2/2016/5, para. 25.
39 ATT-BAP, Reporting guidance; UNIDIR, Reporting on conventional arms.
40 ATT Secretariat, ATT/CSP3.WGTR/2017/CHAIR/159/Conf. Rep.
41 UNODA, The global reported arms trade.

27

PAUL HOLTOM
international transfers of conventional arms that took place during calendar years 2015-17.
The first ATT annual reports were due to be submitted to the ATT Secretariat by 31 May
2016, providing information on authorizations and/or actual exports and imports of theeight categories of conventional arms covered by Article 2(1) of the treaty that took place
during the calendar year 2015. Reporting for this first year gave a positive initial sign. A
total of 61 ATT States Parties were due to report by 31 May 2016. Twenty-eight States
Parties reported by this date, but a total of 51 ATT States Parties submitted an annual reporton conventional arms transfers that took place during the 2015 calendar year. Of these 51
States Parties, three submitted a report even though they were not due to submit their firstannual report until 31 May 2017. Thus, of the 61 ATT States Parties due to report, 48 didso, representing 79 per cent of the total reports due. While the number of annual reports
submitted on time and overall has increased year on year, the percentage of ATT States
Parties that are fulfilling their obligation to report is in decline (see Table 1). Thus, 68 percent of the 75 ATT States Parties due to report by 31 May 2017 fulfilled their reporting
obligation for calendar year 2016, dropping to 61 per cent of 89 States Parties due to reportfor 2017 by 31 May 2018.
Table 1. ATT Annual Reports for calendar years 2015-17

ATT State Party

RegionLevel ofFreedom ATT Annual
economic
House
Report (year ofdevelopment Scoretransfers)

Albania
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Australia
Austria
BahamasBarbados
Belgium
BelizeBosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Cape VerdeCentral African Republic
Chad
Costa Rica
Cote d’Ivoire
Croatia
CyprusCzechia

EuropeAmericas
Americas
Oceania
EuropeAmericas
Americas
EuropeAmericas
EuropeEuropeAfricaAfricaAfricaAfricaAmericas
AfricaEuropeAsia
Europe

UMI
SIDS
UMI
HI
HI
HI (SIDS)
HI (SIDS)HI
UMI (SIDS)
UMI
UMI
LI
LMI (SIDS)
LI
LI
UMI
LMI
UMI
HI
HI

28

PF
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
PF
F
PF
F
NF
NF
F
PF
F
F
F

Last UN
Registersubmission(year oftransfers)

2015 2016 2017
2017



2010


 * 2017
2017



2017



2011
NRR 2003
2017

NRR 2010
2017



2017



2006

NRR NRR NRR NRR 1995
NA 19942008
NA 20022014
NRR NRR  * 2017
2017




Can the Arms Trade Treaty Increase Transparency in International Arms Transfers?
Denmark
Dominica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Estonia
FinlandFranceGeorgia
Germany
Ghana
GreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuineaGuyanaHungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
JamaicaJapan
LatviaLesothoLiberia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Madagascar
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
MexicoMoldova
MonacoMontenegro
Netherlands
New Zealand
Niger
Nigeria
NorwayPanamaParaguay
Peru
PolandPortugal

EuropeAmericas
Americas
Americas
EuropeEuropeEuropeAsia
EuropeAfricaEuropeAmericas
Americas
AfricaAmericas
EuropeEuropeEuropeEuropeAmericas
Asia
EuropeAfricaAfricaEuropeEuropeEuropeAfricaAfricaEuropeAfricaAfricaAmericas
EuropeEuropeEuropeEuropeOceania
AfricaAfricaEuropeAmericas
Americas
Americas
EuropeEuropeHI
SIDS
UMI (SIDS)
LMI
HI
HI
HI
LMI
HI
LMI
HI
SIDS
LMI
LI
UMI (SIDS)
HI
HI
HI
HI
UMI (SIDS)
HI
HI
LMI
LI
HI
HI
LI
LI
HI
LMI
UMI (SIDS)
UMI
LMI
UMI
HI
HI
LI
LMI
HI
UMI
UMI
UMI
HI
HI

F
F
PF
F
F
F
F
PF
F
F
F
F
PF
PF
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
PF
PF
F
F
F
PF
PF
F
NF
F
PF
PF
F
PF
F
F
PF
PF
F
F
PF
F
F
F




NRR 














NRR NRR 
NRR NRR NRR  ~  *NRR NRR 















NRR NRR ~ * 








NRR NRR  *
NRR NRR 




NRR 

NRR NRR 








NRR 



* 
~ 
NRR NRR 







2014
2010
2010
2015
2015
2017
2017
2007
2017
2007
2017
2014
2007
2010
2017
2013
2017
2017
2014
2017
2017
2005
2017
2017
2017
2010
2006
2012
1994
2012
2015
2017
2017
2016
2017
2009
2005
2014
2008
2006
2010
2017
2017

29

PAUL HOLTOM
Romania
EuropeSt Kitts and Nevis
Americas
St Lucia
Americas
St Vincent and theAmericas
Grenadines
Samoa
Oceania
San Marino
EuropeSenegalAfricaSerbiaEuropeSeychelles
AfricaSierra Leone
AfricaSlovakia
EuropeSlovenia
EuropeSouth Africa
AfricaSpain
EuropeSwedenEuropeSwitzerland
EuropeFYROM
EuropeTogo
AfricaTrinidad and Tobago
AmericasTuvaluOceaniaUK
EuropeUruguay
AmericasZambiaAfricaTOTAL REPORTS SUBMITTED
Reports not due but submitted
Total reports due
Reports due and submitted
Percentage of due reports submitted
Reports not due but submitted
Number of reports not made publicly
available

UMI(SIDS)(SIDS)

F
F
F


-


-


-

2017
2005
2006

(SIDS)

F

-

-

-

2008

UMI (SIDS)

F
F
F
F
PF
PF
F
F
F
F
F
F
PF
PF
F
F
F
F
PF


NRR 
* 



NRR NRR 


* 













~ 




NRR NRR NRR 






NRR NRR 51
52
54
3
1
0
61
75
89
48
51
54
79% 68% 61%
3
1
0

LI
UMI
(SIDS)
LI
HI
HI
UMI
HI
HI
HI
UMI
LI
HI (SIDS)(SIDS)
HI
HI
LMI

1

3

2011
2013
2017
2017
2008
2006
2017
2017
2016
2017
2017
2017
2017
2007
2014
2006
2017
2015
2006

4

Notes: For the column that indicates level of economic development: ‘HI’ indicates a ‘high income country’;‘UMI’ indicates a ‘upper-middle income country’; ‘LMI’ indicates a ‘lower-middle income country’; ‘LI’
indicates a ‘low income country’; (SIDS) indicates ‘small island developing state’.
For the column that indicates Freedom House score: ‘F’ indicates ‘Free’; ‘PF’ indicates ‘partly free’; ‘NF’
indicates ‘Not Free’.
‘’ indicates report submitted; ‘NRR’ indicates ‘no report required’; ‘-‘ indicates report due but not
submitted; ‘*’ indicates report not made publicly available; ‘~’ indicates report submitted but not required to
do soSources: ATT Secretariat, ‘Reporting: Status as of 16 April 2019’; Freedom House, ‘Freedom in the World’;
UN, WESP Report 2018; UNROCA.

Overall, 61 ATT States Parties have submitted at least one ATT annual report, of which
52 have submitted a report for every year for which they are obliged to report. Twentyeight States Parties that are due to report have never reported, of which 11 were due to30

Can the Arms Trade Treaty Increase Transparency in International Arms Transfers?
report for all three years. Japan is the only State Party in Asia due to report for the years
2015-17 and has reported every year. The three States Parties in Oceania due to report on
their 2015 activities all reported, but this dropped to two out of four for 2016 and then up
to three out of four for 2017. Of the three regions that represent most of the ATT States
Parties due to report, Europe has the highest level of participation with more than 90 per
cent of States Parties due to report in this region doing so each year. The level of reportingby States Parties in Africa and the Americas is largely comparable. More than half of States
Parties in these two regions submitted an annual report for 2015 but the percentage has
been in decline for the next two years for both regions to around a quarter of States Parties
in Africa reporting for 2017 and about a third for the Americas (see Table 1). The ATT
working group on transparency and reporting and the Arms Trade Treaty-Baseline
Assessment Project have separately distributed questionnaires to find the reasons for noncompliance with the reporting obligation, but the limited number of returns prevents one
from understanding the challenges and obstacles faced by all non-reporting States Parties.42
Therefore, this article has looked for reasons that could help to explain why some States
Parties are able to report. First, there is a strong correlation between ATT States Parties thatare participating States of the Wassenaar Arrangement and those that report – all 34 ATTStates Parties that are participating States of the Wassenaar Arrangement have submitted anannual report for every year due. All EU Member States and those located in South-Eastern
Europe that submit information for regional and sub-regional reports on arms exports also
submit ATT annual reports. There is not a particularly strong correlation between states
parties to CITAAC and ATT States Parties located in the Americas. So, while regional andmultilateral reporting instruments could help to explain reporting for the Euro-Atlantic
region and States with well-developed transfer control systems, this is not the only reason
for explaining why ATT States Parties report.
Robert J. Lemke and James J. Marquardt have argued that the nature of a state’s politicalsystem can help to determine whether it will submit a report to the UNROCA, by looking
at reporting records against Freedom House scores. 43 For the ATT, this approach does nothelp understand reporting or non-reporting as 73 per cent of the 46 ATT States Parties
identified as ‘free’ in Freedom House’s scores for 2018 have submitted an ATT annual
report compared to 70 per cent of the 16 States Parties assessed as ‘partly free’. None of
the three States Parties considered ‘not free’ have yet reported (see Table 1). James H.
Lebovic noted the weakness of this approach for analysing reporting to UNROCA anddetermined that ‘a state’s capacity’ is a key factor for explaining participation. 44
Therefore, this article sought to determine ‘state capacity’ by using the level of economic
developed as assessed by the 2018 World Economic Situation and Prospects (WESP)
report. Thirty-five of the 89 States Parties due to submit an ATT annual report for at least
one of the calendar years 2015-17 were classified as ‘high income countries’, compared to
21 ‘upper-middle income countries’, 11 ‘lower-middle income countries’, and 11 ‘low
income countries’ (see Table 1).45 Of these States, 89 per cent of ‘high income countries’
and 86 per cent of ‘upper-middle income countries’ submitted at least one annual report,
compared to 36 per cent of ‘lower-middle income countries’ and 45 per cent of ‘low
income countries’. Further, only 28 per cent of small island developing states (SIDS) havesubmitted at least one annual report. Therefore, the level of economic development of an
42 ATT Secretariat, ATT/CSP4.WGTR/2018/CHAIR/357/M2.SumRep, para. 33; ATT-BAP, ‘Lessons learned’
43 Lemke and Marquardt, ‘Freedom and transparency’, pp. 343-68.
44 Lebovic, ‘Democracies and transparency’, pp. 559-60.
45 UN, WESP Report, pp. 144-5.

31

PAUL HOLTOM
ATT State Party appears to be a good indicator for annual reporting. Therefore, this is an
issue that could be addressed to some extent by awareness-raising and capacity-building
activities, which could be supported via the Arms Trade Treaty Voluntary Trust Fund (ATTVTF).
In order to determine whether the ATT has increased transparency in international arms
transfers, this article compares the first three years of ATT annual reports with submissions
to the UN Register on international transfers of seven categories of conventional arms andinternational transfers of SALW. The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs(UNODA) indicated that 50 UN Member States reported to the UNROCA for calendar year
2015, 54 for 2016, and 56 for 2017.46 As far as can be discerned from available data, 30
Member States reported to both the ATT and UNROCA for 2015, 29 for 2016, and 35 for2017 (see Table 1). Therefore, for each of these years, around 20 ATT States Parties
submitted an ATT annual report but did not report to the UNROCA. There are no ATTStates Parties that reported to the UNROCA and did not provide an ATT annual reportduring these years. Only four ATT States Parties due to report for the calendar years 201517 have never reported to the Register,47 of which only Liberia has submitted an annual
report to the ATT Secretariat for 2015-17. Of the 23 ATT States Parties that did not reportto the UNROCA for the calendar years 2008-17, seven did submit at least one ATT annual
report for 2015-17. Therefore, in quantitative terms the ATT has increased transparency ininternational arms transfers compared to the Register, as UN Member States that havenever reported to the Register or which stopped reporting have submitted an ATT annual
report. Moreover, the fact that around 20 UN Member States are fulfilling their ATT
obligation to provide an annual report, but not reporting to the UNROCA, gives an increasein the number of States providing information on international transfers of conventionalarms for public review than would be found in UNROCA alone. Nevertheless, thecombined number of reports for the ATT and UNROCA is still not as high as the number of
UN Member States that reported to UNROCA during 2001-9.
At the same time, more than half of the ATT States Parties that have submitted an ATT
annual report are ‘regular reporters’ for the UNROCA or publish information in annual
national or regional reports on arms exports. The information provided by such States
Parties in their ATT annual reports is the same as information provided in UNROCA
submissions or other reports on arms transfers. While this is in line with the provisions
contained in ATT Article 13(3), under which the same information can be provided in an
ATT annual report and UNROCA submission, this means that the ATT is not providing
more information or increasing transparency in international arms transfers for such States.
However, as will be discussed below, of more concern is the fact that in several cases States
Parties appear to be providing less information in their ATT annual reports than they used
to in their UNROCA submissions, in particular aggregating data or omitting certain typesof information.
Non-governmental organizations expressed concerns during ATT Conferences of States
Parties and related events that ATT States Parties would submit their annual reports andindicate that these reports shall not be made available for the public. While the number ofStates Parties that have requested that their annual reports be restricted for access by otherStates Parties only is low, there is a worrying upwards trend in the number of States Parties
that are requesting that their annual reports are not made publicly available. While only
46 UNODA, The UN Register.
47 These four ATT States Parties are: Cabo Verde, Guinea, Liberia, and Nigeria.

32Can the Arms Trade Treaty Increase Transparency in International Arms Transfers?
Slovakia indicated that its ATT annual report for 2015 should be for States Parties only,
three States Parties selected this option for 2016 and four for 2017. It is worth noting thatno ATT State Party has yet requested more than one annual report to be restricted access –the only reports submitted by Cyprus and Madagascar are restricted access. Therefore, in
total, eight States Parties have indicated that one annual report should be made available
for States Parties only. However, the year for which Argentina, Cyprus, Greece, andSlovakia made their ATT annual reports available for States Parties only, these States also
reported to the UNROCA and their submissions were made publicly available on the
UNROCA website; while the restricted access ATT annual reports for Liberia, Madagascar,
Panama, and Senegal have no counterpart in the UNROCA. Liberia’s report for 2016 isrestricted access, while its 2015 report is publicly available and no report has been
submitted for 2017. Panama and Senegal have each submitted three annual reports,
restricting access to the submissions for 2016 only. No public explanations have been givenby these States Parties for why their reports are restricted access. The ATT Secretariat hassuggested that there is some confusion on the part of ATT States Parties regarding the tickbox on the annual reporting form for this issue and that some States Parties have mistakenly
indicated that the report should be restricted access. Therefore, it does not appear that theoption to restrict access to annual reports for States Parties only has had a positive impact
on reporting – i.e. States Parties are providing information in ATT annual reports but notfor the UNROCA because the latter makes the information publicly available. That said,
while 61 ATT States Parties have submitted at least one annual report to the ATT
Secretariat, the submissions for only 59 ATT States Parties can be assessed in this article
because Cyprus and Madagascar have not yet submitted a publicly available report.
Ten States Parties have indicated at least once that information has been withheld fromtheir ATT annual reports because it is considered commercially sensitive or related tonational security considerations.48 Five of these ATT States Parties have indicated that suchinformation is restricted access twice,49 and one has done it for all three reports.50 Australia,
for instance, indicates that information on imports for the Australian National Defence
Forces had been ‘withheld’, while Sweden provides information on the destinations of its
light weapons exports but did not indicate either the number of units or the value. Although
this indicates that these reports are not fully transparent, they are being open about thisissue in a way that they were not required to do so for their UNROCA submission.
On the other hand, there is aggregation of data and omission of data that indicates aworrying trend for transparency in international transfers. For example, Bosnia andHerzegovina and Jamaica aggregated the list of importers and exporters for each smallarms subcategory. Denmark and Norway identified only some of their export destinations
and import sources. Croatia identified importers by subcategory in its UNROCA
submissions for 2011–15 but has not identified importers, in any form, in its ATT annual
reports. Further, Italy has submitted a different format for its information each year,
gradually providing less and less information in each return – with its UNROCA
submission for 2017 also failing to conform with the minimum expected information.
Italy’s first annual report provided disaggregated information on number of items for eachcategory for each recipient state, helping it to achieve the status of one of the world’s most48 These ten States Parties are: Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Mauritius, Norway, South
Africa, and Sweden.
49 These five States Parties are: Bulgaria, Finland, Germany, Italy, and Norway.
50 Greece and Mauritius have only submitted one publicly available report.

33

PAUL HOLTOM
transparent exporters according to the Small Arms Survey.51 For its second and third ATTannual reports, Italy has provided aggregated totals for the number of items exported foreach category in the categories of the ATT and then an annex for SALW transfers thatprovides a list of partner States and an aggregated total of SALW exported and imported
for each State. For the third report, there is a distinction between small arms on one handand light weapons on the other. Therefore, there are concrete examples of where ATT States
Parties are becoming less open and transparent with regards to the quality of informationand level of detail provided in their ATT annual reports compared to their previous
reporting practices for the UNROCA. As noted in the examples above, this is particularly
the case for reporting on international transfers of SALW.
One key difference between the scope of the UNROCA and the ATT for reporting
purposes is the inclusion of SALW as an eighth category on the ATT reporting form. Sixtythree of the 89 States Parties due to report for calendar years 2015-17 have provided
information on international transfers of SALW at least once for the UNROCA. Of the 59
States Parties that have submitted a publicly available annual report, 50 have provided
information on international transfers of SALW to the Register at least once.52 Therefore,
nine States Parties have provided information on international transfers of SALW that did
not do so for the UNROCA. 53 In quantitative terms, it would seem that the ATT has
increased transparency in international transfers of SALW.
Forty-seven ATT States Parties have provided information on international transfers of
SALW using the sub-categories contained in the ATT reporting template. Austria andBelgium provided information on SALW using the definition provided by Category 1 of
the Wassenaar Arrangement Munitions List and EU Common Military List to define smallarms for their ATT annual reports, while Japan provided information on small arms
transfers disaggregated by Comtrade categories 9301, 9302, and 9303. In addition,
Australia uses the subcategories when reporting on small arms imports but did not use thesubcategories for reporting authorizations for firearms exports and Sweden utilizes the light
weapons subcategories contained in the ATT reporting template but also uses Category 1 of
the Wassenaar Arrangement Munitions List and EU Common Military List to define smallarms for its ATT annual reports. Switzerland provides different information on SALW
transfers in its ATT reports and submissions to the UNROCA because it provides onlytransfers to military end users for the UNROCA and for ‘private entities’ for the ATT.
However, this information is already made publicly available in the Swiss annual report on
the exports of SALW, which contains information not only on the number of units of
SALW authorised for export but also the value of the licence – information that is notincluded in the ATT report. Therefore, while Switzerland provides more information on
SALW exports in their ATT report compared to the UNROCA submission on internationaltransfers of SALW, Switzerland is providing information that is made publicly available
elsewhere already. 54 Therefore, the flexibility provided by the treaty for reporting on
51 Holtom and Pavesi, Sub-Saharan Africa in Focus, p. 39.
52 Twelve States Parties that have never submitted an ATT annual report have provided background information

on international transfers of SALW at least once to UNROCA: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Ghana, Grenada,
Guyana, Iceland, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Swaziland, Togo, and Trinidad andTobago. Of the two States Parties that have only submitted restricted access ATT annual reports, Cyprus has
provided background information on international transfers of SALW to the UNROCA, while Madagascar hasnot.
53 These nine States Parties are: Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Liberia, Mauritius, Paraguay,
Sierra Leone, South Africa, and Tuvalu.
54 See for example: Switzerland, Le contrôle à l’exportation.

34

Can the Arms Trade Treaty Increase Transparency in International Arms Transfers?
international transfers of SALW is being used by some ATT States Parties to provide more
information on international transfers of SALW in comparison to submissions to
UNROCA. At the same, time, more ATT States Parties seem to provide less detailed
information in their ATT annual reports compared to information provided in their
UNROCA submissions. There is cause for concern with regards to the quality of
information provided on such transfers in many ATT annual reports.

V
The title of this article asked if the ATT has the potential to increase transparency ininternational transfers of conventional arms. The first sections of this article indicated thatit does provide for opportunities to arrest the decline in reporting on international transfersof conventional arms, including SALW, to UNROCA. Reporting to UNROCA at the turn ofthe millennium seemed to show that the norm of transparency in international arms
transfers was fairly well-established, with 89 per cent of UN Member States reporting to
the UNROCA at least once and 65 per cent of UN Member States providing information in
2002. The first year of reporting on exports and imports of conventional arms under the
ATT corresponded to the lowest level of reporting to UNROCA, with around a quarter of
UN Member States participating in UNROCA. Therefore, it was hoped that the ATT could
reinvigorate the trend in reporting on international transfers of conventional arms.
The first year of ATT annual reports was very positive, with 79 per cent of ATT States
Parties due to report providing an annual report; and three States Parties providing a
voluntary report. While the number of ATT States Parties providing an annual report to the
ATT Secretariat has increased year-on-year, the percentage of ATT States Parties that are
fulfilling their annual report obligations is in decline. The preliminary analysis contained in
the section above suggests that rather than a ‘reporting burden’, States Parties that haveother obligations to report on international transfers of conventional arms to other
instruments and mechanisms are well-placed to fulfil their ATT reporting obligations.
Reporting could be a challenge for States Parties with low levels of economic development,
but this does not exclude the possibility that there are other reasons for non-compliancewith the reporting obligation. Therefore, use of the ATT VTF for capacity-building for
SIDS and States Parties with ‘low income’ and ‘lower-middle income’ could provide
benefits for these States.
While the quantitative analysis suggests that the ATT can increase transparency ininternational arms transfers by increasing the number of the States that report on imports
and exports of conventional arms, there are several worrying tendencies in ATT reporting
to date. First, although still at a low level, it is disconcerting that the number of States
Parties that choose to limit access to their reports to ATT States Parties only is increasing;and that two States Parties that reported for the first time in 2018 on their activities in 2017chose this option. Second, the way in which States Parties that previously reported
regularly and with detailed information on their imports and exports of conventional arms
have taken to aggregating their data and not providing information on exporting orimporting States. By not indicating the States to which conventional arms are being
exported to, or imported from, it is not possible to assess whether these States Parties haverecord-keeping systems in place or if their transfers are being undertaken in accordancewith Articles 6, 7, and 11 of the ATT. This is perhaps the most worrying negative tendency
in ATT reporting.

35

PAUL HOLTOM
The ATT can increase transparency in international transfers of conventional arms, but it
has had a rather inauspicious start. The positive tendencies in reporting by States Parties inregions that have not been regular reporters for UNROCA is welcome. This tendency
clearly shows the benefits of the ATT for increasing transparency, especially as more States
Parties from Africa and the Americas become obliged to report. Based on the current
situation, States Parties in these regions should be encouraged to seek ATT VTF funding tosupport capacity-building efforts to enable their reporting. On the other hand, the ATT
should not allow States Parties to take advantage of the flexible approach to reporting
contained in Article 13(3) to aggregate data and omit information from ATT annual reportsthat no longer makes it possible for other States Parties or interested stakeholders to use
their annual reports to assess compliance with Articles 6, 7, and 11 of the treaty. The ATT
can still fulfil its potential and increase transparency in the international arms trade in orderto build confidence between States Parties and foster peace, security, stability, andsustainable development. But it requires a willingness by States Parties to implement thetreaty’s reporting obligations in good faith, and for non-governmental organizations toremain vigilant and highlight backsliding in reporting before obfuscation of information
becomes a ‘norm’ in transparency in international transfers of conventional arms.
References
ATT-BAP (Arms Trade-Treaty-Baseline Assessment Project), Lessons learned from ATT reporting(Washington D.C., January 2019), http://www.armstrade.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ATT-BAP_LESSONS-LEARNED-FROM-REPORTING_ATT.pdf.
Control Arms Secretariat, ATT monitor report 2017 (New York, 11 September 2017).
Florini. A., ‘The end of secrecy’, Foreign Policy, No. 111 (summer 1998), pp. 50-63.
Greene, O. with Batchelor, B., Information exchange and transparency: key elements of an international
action programme on small arms (Biting the Bullet Briefing 9, 2001).
Grigorescu, A., ‘International organizations and government transparency: linking the international anddomestic realms’, International Studies Quarterly, 47 (2003), pp. 643–67.
Holtom, P., Transparency in transfers of small arms and light weapons: reports to the United Nations
Register of Conventional Arms, 2003–2006 (Stockholm, SIPRI Policy Paper No. 22, 2008).
Holtom, P., ‘Nothing to report: The lost promise of the UN Register of Conventional Arms’, Contemporary
Security Policy, vol. 31, no. 1, (2010), pp. 61-87.
Holtom, P. and Pavesi, I., Trade update 2018: sub-Saharan Africa in focus (Geneva, 2018).
Lebovic, J.H., ‘Democracies and transparency: Country reports to the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms,
1992-2001’, Journal of Peace Research, 43, 5 (2006), pp. 543-62.
Lemke, R.J. and Marquardt, J.J., ‘Freedom and transparency: democracies, non-democracies andconventional arms transfers’, Democracy and Security, 3 (2007), pp. 343-68.
SAS (Small Arms Survey), ‘Probing the grey area: irresponsible small arms transfers’, Small Arms survey
2007: Guns and the city (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 72-115.
Stone, D. R., ‘Imperialism and sovereignty: The League of Nations drive to control the global arms trade’,
Journal of Contemporary History 35: 2, (2000), pp. 213-30.
UNIDIR (United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research), Reporting on conventional arms trade:
Synthesis handbook (Geneva, 2018), http://www.unidir.ch/files/publications/pdfs/reporting-onconventional-arms-trade-synthesis-handbook-en-699.pdf.
Official publications
ATT Secretariat (Arms Trade Treaty Secretariat), Reporting templates: Draft 4, ATT/CSP1/2015/WP.4(Cancun, 12 August 2015).
ATT Secretariat (Arms Trade Treaty Secretariat), Final report of the first conference of States Parties,
ATT/CSP1/2015/6 (Cancun, 27 August 2015).
ATT Secretariat (Arms Trade Treaty Secretariat), Final report of the second conference of States Parties,
ATT/CSP2/2016/5 (Geneva, 26 August 2016).

36

Can the Arms Trade Treaty Increase Transparency in International Arms Transfers?
ATT Secretariat (Arms Trade Treaty Secretariat), Reporting authorized or actual exports and imports of
conventional arms under the ATT: questions and answers, Annex D to the ATT working group on
transparency and reporting co-chairs’ draft report to CSP3, ATT/CSP3.WGTR/2017/CHAIR/159/Conf.
Rep (Geneva, 31 July 2017).
ATT Secretariat (Arms Trade Treaty Secretariat), ATT working group on transparency and reporting cochairs’ report of 31 May 2018 meeting, ATT/CSP4.WGTR/2018/CHAIR/357/M2.SumRep (Geneva, 20
July 2018).
ATT Secretariat (Arms Trade Treaty Secretariat), Reporting: Status: as of 16 April 2019.
CoEU (Council of the European Union), ‘Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008
defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment’, Official
Journal of the European Union L335 (Brussels, 8 December 2008)
ECCAS (Economic Community of Central African States), Central African convention for the control ofsmall arms and light weapons, their ammunition and all parts and components that can be used for their
manufacture, repair and assembly.
ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African State), ECOWAS convention on small arms and light
weapons, their ammunition and other related materials.
OAS (Organization of American States), Inter-American convention on transparency in conventional
weapons acquisitions (CITAAC), http://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/inter_american_treaties_A-64_
transparency_conventional_weapons_adquisitions.asp
OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), Forum for Security Cooperation (FSC)
Decision No. 13/97, Further transparency in arms transfers, OSCE Document FSC.DEC/13/97 (Vienna,
16 July 1997).
OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), Forum for Security Cooperation (FSC)
Decision No. 4/16, Enabling the publication of information exchanges in the field of small arms andlight weapons, conventional arms transfers and anti-personnel mines, OSCE Document FSC.DEC/4/16/
Corr.1, (Vienna, 21 September 2016), https://www.osce.org/fsc/268791?download=true
Switzerland, 2015: Le contrôle à l’exportation dans le domaine des armes légères et de petit calibre(ALPC) relevant de la législation sur le matériel de guerre. (Bern, 2016), https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/fr/home/Aussenwirtschaftspolitik_Wirtschaftliche_Zusammenarbeit/Wirtschaftsbeziehungen/exportkontrollen-und-sanktionen/ruestungskontrolle-und-ruestungskontrollpolitik--bwrp-/zahlen-undstatistiken0/2015.html
UN (United Nations), World Economic Situation and Prospects (WESP) Report 2018 (New York, 2018),
https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/WESP2018_Full_Web-1.pdf
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), International Arms Transfers, UN Document A/RES/43/75 I(New York, 7 December 1988).
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Study on ways and means of promoting transparency ininternational transfers of conventional arms, UN Document A/46/301, (New York, 9 September 1991).
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Transparency in armaments, UN Document A/RES/46/36 L(New York, 6 December 1991).
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Report on the continuing operation of the United Nations
Register of Conventional Arms and its further development, UN Document A/58/274 (New York, 13
August 2003).
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Report on the continuing operation of the United Nations
Register of Conventional Arms and its further development, UN Document A/61/261 (New York, 15
August 2006).
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Arms Trade Treaty (New York, 2013).
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Report on the continuing operation of the United Nations
Register of Conventional Arms and its further development, UN Document A/68/140 (New York, 15 July2013).
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Report on the continuing operation of the United Nations
Register of Conventional Arms and its further development, UN Document A/71/259 (New York, 29 July2016).
UNODA (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs), The global reported arms trade: transparency
in armaments through the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms: a guide to assist points ofcontact in submitting their national reports (New York, United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs
Disarmament Study Series no. 36, November 2017).
UNODA (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs), The UN Register of Conventional Arms

37

PAUL HOLTOM(UNROCA): developments, trends, challenges and opportunities, background paper by the United
Nations secretariat for the 2019 group of government experts on the United Nations Register ofConventional Arms, Rev.2 (New York, 2019)
Websites
ATT-BAP (Arms Trade-Treaty-Baseline Assessment Project), Reporting guidance, Accessed via the‘resources section’ of the website of the Arms Trade-Treaty-Baseline Assessment Project, http://www.
armstrade.info/resources-2/.
Freedom House, Freedom in the world 2018: table of country scores, https://freedomhouse.org/report/
freedom-world-2018-table-country-scores.
UNROCA (United Nations Register of Conventional Arms). n.d. UNROCA: transparency in the global
reported arms trade, http://disarmament.un.org/cab/register.html.
WA (Wassenaar Arrangement), n.d. Website of the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls forConventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies, http://www.wassenaar.org/.

38

History of Global Arms Transfer, 8 (2019), pp. 39-53

Challenges in Developing a Risk
Assessment Criteria for Arms Transfers inSoutheast Asia
By MITZI AUSTERO* and PAULEEN GOROSPE**
This article looks into the challenges of developing criteria for the risk assessmentof arms transfers in Southeast Asia, carefully considering the region’s experienceswith armed conflicts, high levels of armed violence, and proliferation of weapons.
Distinct regional experiences call for a regional approach. Informal and subnational cooperation in the region, which is used more than the Association ofSoutheast Asian Nations (ASEAN)’s official regional mechanisms, can help build
and strengthen formal structures to support arms control regimes and encouragenational governments to adopt international instruments. This pragmatic approach
incorporates disparities in the levels of development, presence of armed conflicts,
and the different security needs of each country, which can complement
international agreements, such as the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This article
recommends a regional focus on the risk assessment for arms transfers, including
national and regional contexts to ease the adoption of international agreements in
the region.
In Southeast Asia, the adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has remained low despite
the urgency of arms control in the region. Since the ATT was passed in 2013, five countries
have signed it: Cambodia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. As ofwriting this article, no state has ratified or acceded to the ATT. However, this does notnecessarily signify an unwillingness to adopt or implement it. This article shows thatnational mechanisms for regulating arms transfers are present in some Southeast Asian(SEA) countries. In others, the lack or absence is due to political reasons or other priorities.
Nuancing these issues against broader multilateral agreements can help overcome thesechallenges and move towards the adoption and universalization of the ATT and similar
agreements.
The SEA region has experienced various internal armed conflicts, particularly inIndonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Thailand, resulting in hundreds of deaths andmillions of displaced civilians. The conflict in Western New Guinea between theindigenous populations and the government of Indonesia is still ongoing. Myanmar isdealing with several ethnic armed groups, of which the most widely known is the rising
Rohingya armed group. Though the Philippines has been tackling Communist and Muslim
insurgencies for decades, peace talks with Muslim armed groups have progressed as* Author’s Affiliation: Mitzi Austero is the Programmes Manager of Nonviolence International Southeast Asia.
** Pauleen Gorospe is the Communications and Research Manager of Nonviolence International Southeast

Asia. She is a Ph.D. Candidate of Advanced Policy Studies at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies(GRIPS) in Tokyo.

39

MITZI AUSTERO and PAULEEN GOROSPE
expected so far, though not without threats from ISIS-inspired armed groups who haverecently clashed with government officials in Marawi City. In Thailand, deaths due to gun
and explosive violence continue to plague the Deep South despite the opening of peace
negotiations with rebel armed groups.
Apart from internal armed conflicts, territorial disputes occasionally become the subjectof foreign relations. Several states in the region have laid claim to sections of the disputed
South China Sea, namely, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.
Although not the primary driver of increasing arms imports, opposition against China’s
territorial claims has increased the demand for weapons importation over the last five
years, along with defence modernization and assertions of sovereignty. In a region where
differences in levels of development are stark and underdevelopment is a constant concern,
military spending is not the sole priority in these developing countries (see Figure 1).
However, data show that military spending in some SEA countries has seen a steadyincrease in recent years (see Figure 2).

60,000.00

50,000.00

40,000.00

30,000.00

20,000.00

10,000.00

0.00

Brunei

Cambo Indone Laos Malays Myan Philippi Singap Thailan
Viet
dia
sia
ia
mar
nes
ore
d
Nam
Per Cap GDP 28,290.6 1,384.40 3,846.90 2,457.40 9,951.50 1,256.70 2,989.00 57,714.3 6,595.00 2,342.20
Per Cap Milex

808.7

29.0

31.0

0.0

110.5

32.0

41.7

1786.491.8

53.1

Milex/GDP%

2.86%

2.09%

0.81%

0.00%

1.11%

2.55%

1.40%

3.10%

1.39%

2.27%

Per Cap GDP

Per Cap Milex

Milex/GDP%

Figure 1 - Per Capita GDP and Per Capita Military Expenditure in ASEAN (2017)
Note: *Laos’ military expenditure data for 2017 is unavailable
Source: SIPRI Military Expenditure Database1
1 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Military Expenditure Database 2017.

40

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MyanmarCambodia

Indonesia

Laos

Malaysia

MyanmarPhilippines

Singapore

Thailand

Viet Nam

20.0 6.9 7.5 6.1 4.7 4.1 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 11.0 12.2 15.1 20.8 24.7 27.4 30.2 30.0 37.2 40.7 46.0 48.8 53.1 53.1

Viet Nam

Brunei32.9 34.8 39.1 45.4 51.2 54.1 61.3 64.7 65.5 53.6 34.3 33.0 29.9 27.1 28.3 29.3 28.7 30.3 37.1 53.2 67.1 71.8 73.8 81.6 80.9 86.6 83.7 83.4 85.3 91.8

ThailandSingapore 419. 479. 598. 653. 731. 754. 826. 1055 1149 1221 1196 1176 1106 1072 1096 1111 1154 1216 1264 1377 1536 1518 1598 1723 1740 1743 1761 1695 1757 1786

Philippines 15.8 15.8 15.4 14.4 16.6 17.6 20.4 24.3 26.3 21.6 16.4 17.6 16.7 14.1 14.7 15.7 14.7 15.9 18.3 22.6 25.0 22.9 26.0 28.4 29.9 34.3 31.0 32.8 36.0 41.7

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.2 46.0 45.7 48.7 46.4 32.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.7 23.3 24.5 21.4 15.8 13.3 6.5 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

50.3 58.1 62.4 84.8 92.9 98.7 106. 119. 115. 96.9 52.4 73.4 66.1 81.6 92.5 116. 112. 121. 124. 149. 162. 143. 137. 163. 154. 165. 162. 147. 133. 110.

7.8 7.9 8.9 9.2 10.1 10.1 11.5 12.6 14.4 15.9 4.7 5.4 5.3 4.3 6.3 9.7 10.9 9.5 11.4 14.4 13.7 13.8 19.2 23.8 26.2 33.3 27.2 29.6 28.3 31.0

Malaysia

0.0 0.0 3.2 4.7 6.5 4.5 10.4 11.6 10.3 9.2 7.2 7.4 6.7 5.7 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.6 5.8 6.0 9.7 11.7 13.2 14.7 16.2 18.2 24.6 23.5 29.0

Indonesia

Laos729. 740. 893. 921. 918. 830. 904. 961. 1077 1182 920. 792. 732. 640. 652. 688. 554. 680. 792. 862. 954. 911. 1005 1054 1028 1015 1282 1015 953. 808.

Cambodia

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Brunei

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0

1000.01200.01400.01600.01800.02000.0

Challenges in Developing a Risk Assessment Criteria for Arms Transfers in Southeast Asia

Figure 2 - Per GDP Military Spending ASEAN (1988-2017)

Note: Data for Myanmar for years 1997-2005 are unavailable.

Source: SIPRI Military Expenditure Database2

2 Ibid.

41

MITZI AUSTERO and PAULEEN GOROSPE
The potential for arms flows to be diverted from state-authorized use to any of theseinternal conflicts increases with the magnitude of arms imports, making it imperative tomonitor arms transfers and usage closely. To date, a region-wide acceptance of the dangers
of arms diversion and trafficking has been demonstrated by both the statements from the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the individual states’ efforts tocreate domestic structures that regulate arms transfers. Basic regulatory policies exist.
However, these policies are not currently sufficient to cover the lifecycle of arms inregional trade, something the ATT risk assessment process is supposed to fill. The
challenge rests in how SEA countries can adopt these provisions and apply them to theircurrent national and regional mechanisms to ensure that arms are transferred to theirintended recipients and not diverted to conflict areas.
This article has five parts. The first part provides a short discussion of the ATT risk
assessment process, especially its criteria. The second part is an overview of the existingtreaties and international agreements adopted by SEA countries and the areas of regionalarms trade they cover. The third part explains the nuances of the low priority fordisarmament regimes in the region. The fourth part examines how arms proliferation
contributes to the ongoing armed violence in the region and other risks that misuse of
weapons pose to the civilian population and society at large. The fifth and concluding
section provides recommendations for the adoption of more effective and efficient risk
assessment mechanisms to address diversion issues in the region. This article recommends
a combined formal and informal regional approach to facilitate the adoption of the ATTamong SEA countries. This also serves to supplement unilateral implementation.
Traditional perspectives on regionalism especially on the sometimes unilateral behaviour
and actions of blocs do not apply in the SEA region.3 Instead, as shown in the following
parts of the article, the SEA region has its own pragmatic, bottom-up approach to theimplementation of international agreements, owing much to its attitudes on independence
and state-building.

I
An important component of the ATT, intended to prevent the diversion of arms, includes
the criteria espoused in Articles 6 and 7 of the ATT regarding prohibitions, export controls,
and risk assessment. Article 6 is clear on which arms exports are prohibited. For example,
6.1 explicitly mentions ‘obligations under measures adopted by the United Nations Security
Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular, arms
embargos’,4 while 6.2 declares that states shall not take any action that ‘would violate its
relevant international obligations under international agreements to which it is a Party, inparticular, those relating to the transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms’.5
While the first two provisions in Article 6 are straightforward, 6.3 narrowly defines thecontext of armed conflict by using the word ‘knowledge’: as stated, ‘knowledge at the timeof authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide,crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks
directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as
defined by the international agreements to which it is a Party’.6 This provision implies that
3 Norkevičius, ‘Regional institutionalism in southeast Asia’, pp. 98.
4 Arms Trade Treaty, Article 6.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.

42

Challenges in Developing a Risk Assessment Criteria for Arms Transfers in Southeast Asia
exporters are given the discretion to determine whether to send an arms shipment orwithhold authorization, in accordance with national legislation and mechanisms aftersufficient due diligence has been conducted. Due diligence is critical to ensure that theitems will not undermine peace and security, and will not be used to commit violations ofInternational Humanitarian Law (IHL), International Human Rights Law (IHRL), offences
relating to terrorism or transnational organised crime, or acts of gender-based violence.
Article 7, which addresses export and export assessment, provides a guideline to inform
this decision. Article 7 requires that states consider the following dangers when making
export determinations, along with those already mentioned: if the arms ‘(a) would
contribute to or undermine peace and security; (b) could be used to (i) commit or facilitatea serious violation of international humanitarian law; (ii) commit or facilitate a serious
violation of international human rights law; (iii) commit or facilitate an act constituting an
offence under international conventions or protocols relating to terrorism to which theexporting State is a Party; or (iv) commit or facilitate an act constituting an offence underinternational conventions or protocols relating to transnational organized crime to which
the exporting State is a Party.’7 The application of the risk assessment is expected to bedone objectively. States must gauge whether an arms shipment provides an overriding riskof the weapons being used in violation of the ATT, though the definition of overriding risk
is not indicated in the treaty’s text. The scale or extent of this overriding risk, however, isleft to the state’s sense of whether these dangers exist.
The ATT also recognizes that export assessments require the cooperation of states toperform due diligence regarding importing parties. Article 7 highlights that states should
endeavour to consider ‘relevant factors, including information provided by the importing
State’8 regarding the importing party or end user. However, if the importing state provides
little to no information, the exporting state has the sole responsibility to perform due
diligence.
The lack of an objective scale for an overriding risk discourages several SEA countries
from becoming parties. Some countries in the region have arms manufacturing companies
who would like to have a clear scale to use. In addition, following the risk assessment
guidelines in Articles 6 and 7 poses several challenges for SEA countries, who areconcentrated on building capacity and technical expertise, something not all countries in
the region or even the ASEAN regional mechanisms possess.
In order to establish proper assessment procedures, institutional capacity must be present
and dedicated personnel should have the knowledge and practical understanding of theprocess. In lesser-developed arms export mechanisms, institutional capacity is a concern
since knowledge, training, and expertise are not institutionalized. Given the limited
resources of lesser-developed countries, there may not be enough individuals to receive thetraining. Furthermore, changes in government administration sometimes trigger a turnoverof bureaucrats and civil servants before knowledge is retained by government institutions.
Individuals thus retain the technical know-how and are sometimes not able to pass it down
to their replacements or other personnel. Unless the person has attended conferences ortraining programmes where processes for other states are shared, he or she will have noprior knowledge. For example, an Applicant Exporter informed the relevant agency inCountry A that an Importing End User in Country B is exempt from presenting an importpermit, a typical documentary requirement before a transfer is authorised in Country A.
7 Ibid., Article 7.
8 Ibid.

43

MITZI AUSTERO and PAULEEN GOROSPEThe exemption was allegedly due to a policy in Country B. Officials in Country A could
not access the information regarding Country B’s import exemptions from the publicrecord. Had the official in Country A not known an officer from Country B, Country A
would not have been able to determine that the claim of exemption was inaccurate and that
the Importing End User was not eligible.9
This lack of institutional memory is also due to a lack of documented or available
information. In some countries, there is no easily accessible information on national
processes for licensing, import, and export. National policies are not disseminated widely
throughout the region, compelling ASEAN Member-States to conduct new research oneach country’s procedure for numerous transactions. The context of each export applicationmust thus be assessed, so the prior information and public availability of this information
are very important.

II

Figure 3 - International Agreements involving SEA Countries

Exporter are parties or signatories
Global to
share
Globalshare
SEA countries
a number Importerof international agreements(see Figure3). In most of these agreements, the capacity to implement is the foremost concern of thestates. However, SEA countries(%)
tend to establish the laws and build the institutions
first,(5)
before acceding to an international agreement. This can be interpreted from an outsiders’pointof view as either inefficiency
1 US
34 or unwillingness.
1 IndiaHowever, for the SEA12region, thisprocess is consistent with each country’s state building experience. With regards to the
ATT,approach also applies.22
In the words ofofficers during consultations,
2 thisRussia2 government
Saudi Arabia
10
communication, 5 August 2018.
39 Personal
France
6.7

3

Egypt

4.5

4
44

5

Germany

5.8

4

UAE

4.4

China

5.7

5

China

4.0

Challenges in Developing a Risk Assessment Criteria for Arms Transfers in Southeast Asia
‘Let’s build our national capacities first, then ratification follows’.10 While signing or
ratification may be postponed, the passage of national legislation and expertise-building
continues in individual countries. SEA has not become stagnant and has demonstrated its
national strategies through national programme. There is also enough national support for
the ATT in most ASEAN countries. Most SEA countries’ behaviour thus points towards
laying the groundwork for implementation before legally submitting to the ATT. By
focusing on effective capacity-building of national institutions and agencies directly
involved in weapons flow regulation, concerns regarding compliance with the ATT may be
alleviated. The bigger challenge for SEA countries is developing the capacity to apply thelaw, which can take several months to years. Because SEA countries are in different stagesof development, poverty alleviation and underdevelopment take priority in national agendas
alongside internal and external security, thus dividing limited resources and reducing theability to implement national programmes promptly.
The lack of capacity and expertise is not the only issue in determining the adaptability of
the ATT in the region. Apart from capacity, the export assessment has not been adopted in
all the national control systems of SEA countries. The current national laws of most of thestates in the region do not have clear criteria regarding arms trade. Because national
systems of some form already exist, adoption requires that ATT provisions be translated tocomplement national laws for state agencies’ compliance. Since the ATT is not the soleinternational instrument to which ASEAN countries subscribe, and laws for these otheragreements are already in place, adoption often requires the amendment of pre-existinglaws or an overhaul of established organizations and institutions. Laws must be harmonizedand procedures streamlined to include the scope and procedures laid out in the ATT.
Problems arise not only when the ATT is supposed to address gaps in legislation and policy
but also when other related instruments already address certain provisions of the ATT.
There are many cases where national legislation and government offices that govern thepolicies concerning conventional weapons overlap with the scope of the ATT; hence,
implementing agencies are thrown into confusion regarding jurisdiction to implement andoversee the transfers of relevant goods and items. These conflicting responsibilities cause
competition and disagreement between national government agencies, further hindering
institutional development in these countries. Instead of focusing on capacity-building forcore implementing agencies, resources are diffused among a variety of government
agencies to keep the knowledge and expertise within existing organizations part of theimplementation of the ATT and to save time in the implementation process. Some
provisions of these laws will require revision to concentrate expertise and resources on
government agencies that oversee arms transfers in all forms, thus streamlining processes
and increasing efficiency, especially in times of crisis. National laws should guide national
implementing agencies, rules, and regulations.
Aside from domestic efforts, the ATT also emphasizes the need for international
cooperation. Regional mechanisms are necessary to transcend the states’ capabilities tomove the ATT towards ratification and application. Regional cooperation and assistancecan complement national efforts in conducting due diligence and monitoring transfers. In
ASEAN countries use informal channels along with formal ones. The use of informal
mechanisms establishes rapport among sub-national agencies, especially law enforcement
offices and eventually builds reliable information channels. The informal communication
also facilitates information exchange and cooperation that would normally be encumbered
10 Personal communication, 3 May 2016.

45

MITZI AUSTERO and PAULEEN GOROSPE
by red tape if formal channels were used. While there is currently no inter-governmentalgroup, such as the Regional Centre on Small Arms, in the region there are national experts
who are unfortunately overlooked.
Dialogue and consultations with government agencies regarding the regulation of arms
flows have revealed that this knowledge and technical know-how is concentrated on
individuals. Individuals who are experts in various areas of dealing with weapons systems
often possess advanced knowledge, for instance, from experts on the identification of dual
goods in a national control list, to risk assessments of an arms import or export. Much ofthis personal knowledge is drawn from extensive experience in wars and armed conflicts
and issues regarding the diversion of arms. Because these experiences revolve aroundsecessionist movements within their countries, SEA countries also tend to be guarded, eventowards each other. Internal conflicts contribute to a feeling of insecurity, which tends tocontribute to governments becoming more vigilant to internal and external threats, making
the confidentiality or secrecy surrounding existing weapons systems and their quantity
imperative to national security. This lack of complete trust can hinder cooperation whencrises emerge. In addition, the principle of non-intervention and the focus on protecting
sovereignty draws from the region’s history and experience with strong leaders, including
Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hun Sen, the Philippines’ President Rodrigo Duterte,
Thailand’s military Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee
Hsien Loong, Indonesia’s Prime Minister Jokowi Widodo, and Malaysia’s Mahathir,coupled with Myanmar’s long ruling ‘former military’ led party. Any international treaty
that could easily be perceived as intervening in another’s affairs, sovereignty, or security
will not be high in anyone’s priorities.
The existing formal regional mechanisms do facilitate information exchange, and theseexchanges happen on sub-national, agency, and individual levels. At the ministerial andstate levels, there are ongoing bilateral and multilateral agreements through ASEAN andother means that promote cooperation on security issues, all of which can complement
ATT’s efforts. The existence of strong leadership in the region should transcend national
borders and move towards regional solidarity, cooperation, and assistance. ASEAN was,after all, able to negotiate nuclear weapons issues in the region in its early years.
Strengthening regional mechanisms with the ATT through formalization is therefore not an
impossible task.
While informal exchanges and cooperation can supplement the lack of formal institutions
and speed investigations and due diligence, this type of cooperation works best at theindividual level and relies too much on personal rapport and relationships. Formalization isstill important because it can help in institutionalizing practices. SEA countries must
consider the creation of an ASEAN institution that will steer disarmament efforts in theregion and facilitate the exchange of necessary information and technical expertise among
countries in a timely and efficient manner. National approaches are currently more
numerous and context-specific, and many national considerations and efforts to integrate ata regional level require inter-state coordination.
The lack of formal institutions and lack of transparency in arms transfers inhibit thestrengthening of information and expertise exchange among SEA countries. Whiletransparency has always been a thorny issue when dealing with weapon systems or mattersthat affect national security, trust is an important factor in forming and maintaining interstate relationships.

46

Challenges in Developing a Risk Assessment Criteria for Arms Transfers in Southeast Asia

III
The preference of SEA countries for informal mechanisms draws from the importance theyaccord to sovereignty, owing largely to their historical struggles with independence, statebuilding, and internal disputes. In this century alone, the region has seen numerous wars
and armed conflicts, some of which have not yet been resolved. Their positions regardingarms procurement as a means of self-defence thus shape their views regarding the ATT.
Promoting regional peace and security in the region would require these perspectives to begiven importance, since arms procurement is inextricably linked with capacitating thestate’s self-defence. Development is now widely considered to be tied to security; hence,
the term ‘development-security nexus’. Global threats and challenges have moved states
towards arming rather than disarming. Disarmament discussions can no longer be limited
to security issues but instead should go hand in hand with economic development
deliberations as a means to secure progress and development, which is a national priority
for the majority of the states in SEA.
Recent data have shown that several states in the region are increasing their militaryspending. The data below, from SIPRI’s 2018 Yearbook, include Indonesia in the top 10
importers of major weapons from 2013 to 2017 (Table 1). 11
Table 1 - Main Exporters and Importers of Major Weapons (2013-17)
ExporterGlobal share (%)

ImporterGlobal share (5)

1

US

34

2

Russia

22

1

India

12

2

Saudi Arabia

10

3France

6.7

3

Egypt

4.5

4

Germany

5.8

4

UAE

4.4

5

China

5.7

5

China

4.0

6

UK

4.8

6

Australia

3.8

7

Spain

2.9

7

Algeria

3.78Israel

2.9

8

Iraq

3.4

9

Italy

2.5

9

Pakistan

2.8

10Netherlands

2.1

10

Indonesia

2.8

Aside from political considerations, there is greater ease in increasing military spending
for some SEA states due to steady economic growth. Economic development has allowed
more resources to be allocated to upgrading and modernizing national defence forces andweaponry. However, the steady economic growth of some states in the region should take
into consideration that these developments were also possible due to the reduction of armed
violence and the resolution of internal conflicts, which is enshrined in the principles ofhumanitarian disarmament treaties like the ATT.
While signs currently point to SEA countries exhibiting more inward-looking policies,
11 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Yearbook 2018: armaments, disarmament andinternational security (summary).

47

MITZI AUSTERO and PAULEEN GOROSPE
strong political will and leadership can also help in promoting universalization byappealing to each country’s strength and convincing SEA countries to become champions.
Strong and popular leadership means championing people’s causes and aspirations,
including those of their neighbouring countries. These aspirations also include greater
security, sustainable peace, and more economic opportunities.

IV
The SEA region still experiences internal armed conflict, particularly in Indonesia,
Myanmar, the Philippines, and Thailand. This section discusses these issues and the context
in which the risk assessment criteria should be based: (1) to stop weapons from flowing
into armed conflict areas; and (2) to help create a better environment for peace processes tomove forward.
Indonesia
In Indonesia, violence continues to plague the West Papua region, due partially to existing
separatist movements. The most recent clash, on 7 March 2019 between the National
Liberation Army (TPNPB) freedom fighters and the Indonesian Army in Nduga Regency,
has sparked renewed fears of armed violence. The TPNPB even claims to have ‘secured
four weapons from the Indonesian army’12 after the clash, which could potentially point to
the diversion of weapons.
There is more than one separatist movement contributing to the fragile security of West
Papua, along with the prevalence of other types of violence and conflicts arising from otherroot causes, such as resource-related and identity-based clashes. Further exacerbating thisissue as well as being affected by the political turmoil, the homicide rate has increased to alevel of five times higher than the national average. 13 In West Papua, insecurity isaggravated not only by the existing armed conflict but also by disagreements rooted inhistorical issues that contribute to non-conflict-based violence.
MyanmarDespite efforts to negotiate with numerous armed groups that have kept the government
occupied, Myanmar’s peace process is stalled and the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement(NCA), signed on 15 October 2015, is neither fully implemented nor trusted. The NCA has
only 10 armed group signatories out of 16 or a potential 20 that signed with thegovernment: the All Burma Students’ Democratic Front, Arakan Liberation Party, Chin
National Front, Democratic Karen Buddhist Army - Brigade 5 (DKBA-5), Karen National
Union, KNU/KNLA Peace Council, Lahu Democratic Union, New Mon State Party, Pa-O
National Liberation Army, and the Restoration Council of Shan State. Over the past two
years, the Arakan Army has shown its growing strength and has increased attacks in the
broader Rakhine State, located on the Western coast. There are also pockets of armed
clashes between other armed groups that have resulted in the displacement of countless
civilians. The escalation of violence is complicating efforts for the returning Rohingya
refugees; the displacement of the Rohingyas due to violence has already raised the number
to 1,526,000 people.14
12 The Jakarta Post, ‘TNI soldiers killed in clash with West Papua liberation army’.
13 The Asia Foundation, State of conflict and violence in Asia.
14 United Nations Refugee Agency, ‘Myanmar factsheet’.

48Challenges in Developing a Risk Assessment Criteria for Arms Transfers in Southeast Asia
Philippines
The Mindanao region in the Philippines still suffers from armed conflict despite theattempts of former and current presidents to seal a long-lasting peace agreement with
Communist and Muslim insurgents. The five-decades-old conflict between the governmentof the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front has resulted in over 120,000
deaths on both sides as well as civilian casualties.15 The country also has one of the highest
numbers of internally displaced persons (IDPs) due to armed conflict in SEA, a large partof which are the conflicts in the southern part of the country. The Global Report on Internal
Displacement 2018 has put this number at 645,000 IDPs in Mindanao alone, whichconstitutes 25.5% of the national total of 2,529,000. 16 The Bangsamoro separatist
movement, settled recently through a politically-negotiated peace process, was followed by
the signing of the Bangsamoro Organic Law in 2018 and its ratification through plebiscites
held on 21 January and 6 February 2019. This political settlement will grant the new
Bangsamoro region expanded autonomy. So far, the attitude among the affected populations
has been positive, with higher confidence that the effects of the political agreements would
have a positive impact on reducing armed violence and displacement in the area. All thatremains is the political transition to the new autonomous region and addressing the threatof ISIS-inspired groups in the region. Unlike the peace talks with Muslim armed groups,
the Communist peace process has stalled and sees no immediate end in sight despite apromising cessation of hostilities during the early months of the Duterte administration.
ThailandConflict in southern Thailand due to the Malay-Muslim insurgency erupted in 2004 andhas already resulted in the deaths of 7,000 people. 17 Bombings and arson continue tothreaten lives in the area. Despite the signing of an agreement in February 2013 between
Thai government officials and the armed group Barisan Revolusi Nasional in Kuala
Lumpur, peace remains obscure. Efforts to address the conflict and increase understandingof its root causes do not appear to command a high priority on the country’s agenda.
The presence of ongoing armed conflicts in the four countries of SEA poses a risk that
arms transfers may be diverted to unauthorized end users and used in violation of the ATT.
As with the long history of armed conflicts in the world, human rights (HR) and IHL
violations occur in war-torn communities. The likelihood of armed groups obtaining
firearms from illicit sources, such as the events that surrounded the siege of Marawi City in
Mindanao, might increase due to a lack of more robust and strict regulation of arms andammunitions transfers in the region. There is a danger that similar cases may occur in otherstates where armed conflict is present, and thus may cause even more deaths and suffering.
Deaths caused by firearms can be difficult to measure due to a lack of peace and order thatwould enable field work to be conducted without interruption or risk, the preference ofsome civilians and victims of violence to withhold information out of fear of reprisal, andan overall lack of capability for doing so. However, a general picture can be drawn
regarding the extent of deaths that firearms cause. An estimate made by the Journal of theAmerican Medical Association (JAMA) is presented in Figure 4.

15 International Crisis Group, Philippines: addressing Islamist militancy after the battle for Marawi.
16 Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, Global report on internal displacement.
17 International Crisis Group, ‘Jihadism in southern Thailand: a problem menace’.

49

MITZI AUSTERO and PAULEEN GOROSPE
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Brunei

1.2

1.1

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

Cambodia

3.1

3.0

2.5

1.9

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.5

Indonesia

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

Laos

3.3

2.9

2.4

1.9

1.6

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.3

1.3

Malaysia

2.3

2.0

1.9

1.6

1.4

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.2

Myanmar

2.7

2.6

2.0

1.6

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.2

1.2

Philippines

7.4

7.5

9.2

9.9

8.7

8.8

8.8

8.6

8.5

8.5

8.4

Thailand

9.5

11.6

10.2

6.8

5.6

5.5

5.5

5.4

5.3

5.3

5.3

Singapore

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

Vietnam

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

Global

4.5

4.6

4.3

3.9

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

Brunei

Cambodia

Indonesia

Laos

Malaysia

Philippines

ThailandSingapore

VietnamGlobalMyanmarFigure 4 - Mean Estimate Firearm Deaths Per 100,000 Population (ASEAN)
Source: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 201818

The reasons for the firearms-related deaths cited in JAMA’s study include physicalviolence or assault, self-harm, and unintentional firearm injury, although the context underwhich these incidents were experienced are not provided. A more detailed documentationof the types of violence in SEA countries can be developed in future research in order tomore accurately depict the link between arms diversion and the exacerbation of internal
conflicts.

18 Nagavi, ‘Global mortality from firearms: 1990-2016’.

50

Challenges in Developing a Risk Assessment Criteria for Arms Transfers in Southeast AsiaV
SEA states generally experience four factors that could exacerbate the conflict- and nonconflict-based security issues in affected countries. First, internal armed conflicts are
ongoing, and their resolution has met mixed success, or they may not be a priority on thenational agenda. Second, the persistence of internal armed conflicts provides anenvironment where a lack of governance and the rule of law enable unauthorized parties,
such as non-state armed groups, to obtain weapons illicitly, contributing to the potential
extension of the conflict. Third, governments engaged in internal wars have fewer resources
to devote to peacebuilding and economic development, both of which are key programmes
in promoting peace in post-conflict situations. Fourth, as governments struggle individually
without a regional instrument or mechanism to assist in curbing and preventing the illicit
transfer of conventional arms, states have even less capacity to address the problem despite
the presence of informal networks among sub-national agencies and individuals in theregion.
These problems intersect not only domestically, between the risk of weapons diversion to
armed conflicts and the establishment of peace and order and development of progress incountries but also are impacted by national and regional means of addressing the problem.
At different levels, the adoption of sufficient risk assessment criteria and programmes havebeen slow due to reasons already cited, which causes more difficulty for national
governments already dealing with peace and order problems. To further universalize
treaties, such as the ATT, in the region, the means of adopting the risk criteria should
consider how both national and regional adoption can be synergized and how informalcooperation channels can strengthen the formalization of rules and regulations at theregional level. ASEAN’s preference towards non-intervention should not be dismissed asinimical to institutionalization. Non-intervention should instead be seen as the initial stepin establishing an arms control regime.
Institutional regionalism is an important lens to use in Southeast Asia since one of thebases for ASEAN’s formation is centred on non-interference and cooperation. 19
Cooperation among ASEAN Member-States has focused on the capacities each country has
contributed to help shape their individual nation-state building and achieve peace anddevelopment, especially in the earlier period of ASEAN’s establishment. Inextricably
connected to the need to establish counter-mechanisms to curtail and address the threat ofarmed violence and violent extremism, which threatens the very security of each MemberState in ASEAN, is the need to establish robust institutions to counter arms proliferation in
the region, an undertaking that is becoming more relevant. Southeast Asia formed ASEAN
to establish a regional identity in its quest for strengthening their sovereign states, which it
has achieved, but this need not necessarily be its only goal. There are greater benefits inutilising each state’s strength and expertise to ensure further peace and stability, something
for which the ATT can provide a structure.
Specific steps are essential to this process. A regional engagement should be initiated toencourage and ensure that mechanisms developed in the risk assessment process consider
the states’ problems concerning large-scale arms availability. The local context throughwhich diversion happens, and at what stage of the importation process it happens, must be
carefully assessed. An argument could be made that corrupt government officials are
responsible for diversion, but not the government institutions themselves, so this concept
has to be examined carefully. A regional mechanism where the verification of both import
19 Norkevičius, Regional institutionalism in southeast Asia, pp. 98-113.

51

MITZI AUSTERO and PAULEEN GOROSPE
and export licences can be made easier and more accessible to concerned agencies should
be developed and implemented. Enhanced regional cooperation among the implementing
agencies, such as the police, customs, trade, and other related agencies should be
developed. The mechanism should also build trust among the states in the region.
The term ‘overriding risk’ should be operationalized in developing risk assessment
criteria for SEA countries. At the regional level, the risk assessment should have strong
evidence-based criteria that will include multiple factors, such as (a) an accounting of HR
and IHL violations in the armed conflict-affected areas; (b) civilian casualties and genderbased violence in armed conflict areas; and (c) the displacement of civilians in armed
conflict-affected areas. The risk management process is essential for the region but should
focus on foreseen misuse that can be quantified through measurable evaluation. Risk
mitigation should be in place for the exporter and importer alike in such cases.
On the part of SEA countries, experts are tucked away in government offices, academic
and civil society organizations and are largely ignored or untapped. It is important to notethat the region’s experience with wars and internal conflicts should be harnessed and used
to prepare and establish solutions that can be implemented in unique domestic situations.
These same experts can also assist in specific steps towards treaty implementation. SEA
countries should come together to work on a framework for the region that will use theregion’s context and experience of armed violence, non-interference, and post-colonialassertion. Merely targeting the administrative requirements of regulating conventional arms
is a simplistic, one-dimensional solution that does not consider various motivations andinterests of SEA countries. The region is instead looking for a solution that will transcend
the issue of proliferation while working towards development and modernisation while
maintaining national integrity and establishing a stronger, more efficient region.
References
Arms Trade Treaty, https://thearmstradetreaty.org/hyper-images/file/ATT_English/ATT_English.
pdf?templateId=137253 (accessed on 30 March 2019).
Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, Global report on internal displacement (May 2018) http://www.
internal-displacement.org/publications/2018-global-report-on-internal-displacement (accessed on 20
April 2019).
International Crisis Group, ‘Jihadism in southern Thailand: A problem menace’, Asia Report, No. 291 (8November 2017) www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/thailand/291-jihadism-southern-thailandphantom-menace (accessed on 20 April 2019).
International Crisis Group, Philippines: addressing Islamist militancy after the battle for Marawi (17 July2018) www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/philippines/philippines-addressing-islamist-militancyafter-battle-marawi (accessed on 20 April 2019).
Nagavi, M., ‘Global mortality from firearms: 1990-2016’, The Journal of the American Medical
Association, 320:8 (2018), pp.792-814.
Norkevičius, M., ‘Regional institutionalism in Southeast Asia’, Societal Studies, 6:1 (2014), pp. 98-113.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Military expenditure database 2017 (2017) https://www.
sipri.org/databases/milex (accessed on 15 April 2019).
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI yearbook 2018: armaments, disarmament andinternational security (summary) (2018) www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/yb_18_summary_en.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2019).
The Asia Foundation, State of conflict and violence in Asia (Bangkok, 11 October 2017) https://
asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Indonesia-StateofConflictandViolence.pdf (accessed on
20 April 2019).
The Jakarta Post, ‘TNI soldiers killed in clash with west Papua liberation army’ (8 March 2019) https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2019/03/08/tni-soldiers-killed-in-clash-with-west-papua-liberation-army.
html (accessed on 1 May 2019).

52

Challenges in Developing a Risk Assessment Criteria for Arms Transfers in Southeast Asia
United Nations Refugee Agency, ‘Myanmar factsheet’ (February 2016) https://www.unhcr.org/protection/
operations/50001cf99/myanmar-fact-sheet.html (accessed on 20 April 2018).

53

History of Global Arms Transfer, 8 (2019), pp. 55-66

Preventing Diversion: A Challenge forArms Trade Treaty States Parties
By NICHOLAS MARSH*
This article examines the obligations contained in the Arms Trade Treaty forpreventing diversion, which is defined as the movement from authorized tounauthorized possession or use. It argues that in different places, the treaty covers
both diversions taking place during a transfer and after the transfer has been
completed. The article then considers the different ways that authorization can be
granted; it points out that a diversion can occur if any state involved in a transfer
has not provided authorization. The article then presents three examples ofdiversion in contemporary armed conflicts: the 2011 war in Libya; supplies to
Afghanistan and Iraq between 2003 and 2016; and an export of small arms andammunition from China to Nigeria, which was brokered from the United
Kingdom. In each example, the nature of a diversion is highlighted, as are thespecific issues for implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty. The article
concludes with the observations that states parties need to control the activities ofarms brokers, much more knowledge is needed by states parties to help thempredict when a diversion may occur, and a key priority for international
cooperation and assistance should be to enhance stockpile security andmanagement.
The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is the most important international document that governs
the trade of conventional weapons (such as armoured vehicles, aircraft, missiles, smallarms, and light weapons).1 The treaty establishes common international standards forregulating the arms trade with the aim of preventing illicit trafficking and diversion,
reducing human suffering, contributing to peace, security, and stability, promoting
cooperation and transparency, and building confidence.2 In particular, the treaty obliges
states parties to monitor their arms exports and ensure that they are not used in the violationof UN arms embargoes, to commit war crimes, or being used for other human rights
violations, exacerbate conflict, or diverted.3 The treaty was negotiated in 2013 and cameinto force in 2014. The current article first examines the obligations under the treaty
concerning preventing diversion (described in the following paragraphs). Because thetreaty only came into force in 2014, states parties are still establishing what their treaty
obligations actually mean in practice. The present article contributes to these discussions
by examining three high-profile examples of diversion (which mostly took place before thetreaty came into force), highlighting their implications for governments aiming to* Author’s Affiliation: Nicholas Marsh, Research Fellow, Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO).
1 The scope of the treaty is defined in Article 3. The phrase ‘conventional weapons’ usually excludes nuclear,chemical, or biological arms.
2 See Article 1 of the treaty.
3 See Articles 6, 7, and 11 of the treaty.

55

NICHOLAS MARSH
implement the treaty.

I
Article 11 of the treaty concerns ‘diversion’, and the first paragraph establishes the generalobligation that ‘each State Party involved in the transfer of conventional arms […] shalltake measures to prevent their diversion’.4 Subsequent paragraphs establish the means bywhich a diversion can be prevented, including assessing the risk of the diversion prior toissuing an export licence, establishing mitigation measures, and sharing information.
Despite preventing diversion being a central aim of the ATT, with a specific article
devoted to that objective, diversion is not defined in the treaty, nor is there aninternationally agreed definition elsewhere concerning a diversion in the arms trade.5
Nevertheless, the text of the treaty – and other widely used definitions – can be used toreach an understanding of what is meant by the term.
Some inferences can be made from the remainder of the treaty’s text. The preamble of thetreaty highlights ‘the need to prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms
and to prevent their diversion to the illicit market, or for unauthorized end use and end
users, including in the commission of terrorist acts’. Here, there is an implied definition ofdiversion that can be taken to mean moving arms from licit possession and into illicit
markets, from authorized end use to unauthorized, or from authorized end users tounauthorized end users.6 An ‘end user’ is the ultimate recipient of a weapon after it has
been transferred (i.e., that the weapon will not be retransferred to another party), while ‘end
use’ concerns the ultimate application of the transferred arms (e.g., some exporting statesrequire assurances arms will not be used for certain purposes, such as violations of humanrights).7
Article 11 has an emphasis on a diversion taking place during and after the transfer hastaken place. As mentioned above, paragraph 1 contains a general obligation to prevent adiversion; however, there is a narrower emphasis in paragraphs 2 and 3. Paragraph 2
focuses on the obligations of the exporting party to prevent the diversion of arms beingtransferred (i.e., while the export takes place),8 and paragraph 3 emphasizes the roles takenby the states involved in the import, transiting, and transhipment of arms.9 Paragraphs 4
and 5 have a wider scope and both concern the actions that should be taken if a ‘State Party
detects a diversion of transferred conventional arms’. The use of the past tense suggeststhat the treaty is concerned with a diversion after the arms have been imported and thetransfer has been completed. Paragraph 4 also indicates that state parties should address adiversion via, inter alia, investigation and law enforcement, something that is consistent
with the treaty covering the instances of a diversion taking place within a state’s
jurisdiction. Similarly, paragraph 6 concerns states reporting to each other on the effective
measures of preventing the ‘diversion of transferred’ arms.
4 As defined in Article 2 of the treaty, a ‘transfer’ concerns the activities of international trade that ‘comprise
export, import, transit, trans-shipment, and brokering’.
5 See Parker, ‘Article 11 diversion’, p. 348; Olabuenga and Gramizzi, ‘Article 11 diversion’, pp. 191-3.
6 See Parker, ‘Article 11 diversion’, pp. 348-9; Olabuenga and Gramizzi, ‘Article 11 diversion’, p. 191.
7 Definitions drawn from United Nations Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA), Glossary of terms,
definitions and abbreviations, pp. 10-11.
8 See Parker, ‘Article 11 diversion’, p. 351.
9 ‘Transit’ concerns the movement of arms through a state’s territory or waters (e.g., on a cargo ship), and‘transhipment’ concerns moving a cargo from one vehicle to another without the arms having cleared customs
and being formally imported.

56

Preventing Diversion: A Challenge for Arms Trade Treaty States Parties
The treaty’s text is in accordance with a widely used definition published by civil society
prior to the treaty being negotiated.10 For Greene and Kirkham:11
Arms diversion is the process by which holdings or transfers of arms that are
authorised by relevant states (and are subject to their legal controls) are delivered tounauthorised end-users, or are put to unauthorised uses by authorised end-users.
By including ‘holdings’, in other words the arms in lawful possession of a state or otherparties, as well as transfers, Greene and Kirkham’s scope includes the diversion of arms
that have been exported, as well as those being transferred. The implication from thedifferent types of language used in the preamble and in paragraphs 1-6 of Article 11 is thatsome parts of the treaty are specifically concerned with a diversion taking place during atransfer (paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 11), while others have a wider scope and are also
concerned with a diversion that takes place after a transfer (paragraphs 1 and 4-6 of Article
11). In addition to the obligations outlined in Article 11, states parties should also consider
diversion when assessing whether an export would contravene Articles 6 and 7. In
particular, paragraph 3 of Article 6 states that a state party ‘shall not authorize any transfer
of conventional arms […] if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that arms or
items would be used’ in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, or other war
crimes. The term ‘would be used’ is not limited to the initial recipient of the weapons. 12This prohibition would also apply to a case in which the exporter knew that the importer
was not the end user of the arms and that the arms would be diverted to another party who
would use them to commit war crimes or other acts covered by Article 6.
Article 7 obliges states parties to conduct a risk assessment before authorizing an export.
According to the article States parties should assess the likelihood that the arms exported
would ‘contribute to or undermine peace and security’ or could be used to commit or
facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law; terrorism;
organized crime; or gender-based violence. Exporters are supposed to consider ways tomitigate the risk of such acts. If there remains an ‘overriding risk’ of ‘negative
consequences’, the exporting state should ‘not authorize the export’. As with Article 7, adiversion would pose a risk that should be considered by a state party when considering
granting an export licence – especially the risk that the diverted arms might be used byorganized criminal organizations, terrorist groups, or by any party engaged in committing
or facilitating violations or more generally undermining peace and security.
When one takes into account the implications of Articles 6 and 7 and the language foundin the preamble and Article 11 (paragraphs 1 and 4-6), the scope of a diversion as coveredby the treaty includes a diversion that takes place after an export has been completed, as
well as during that transfer. To recap, the key element of a diversion in the treaty is that
there is a change in possession or use – from authorized to unauthorized.13 The remainderof this section considers what is authorized and unauthorized in an arms transfer.
In many cases, a diversion involves arms being taken out of a state’s control and into thepossession of unauthorized users, such as rebels or organized crime groups. For example,
prior to an arms export, forged documentation is presented by an arms broker, which
10 See Parker, ‘Article 11 diversion’, p. 349.
11 Greene and Kirkham, Preventing diversion, p. 9.
12 da Silva and Neville, ‘Article 6: prohibitions’, pp. 102-3.
13 The emphasis on diversion being a transfer to an unauthorized party can also be found in Schroeder, Close,

and Stevenson, ‘Deadly deception’, p. 114.

57

NICHOLAS MARSH
purports that the weapons are to be exported to the ministry of defence of another state.
However, after the export licence has been granted, the weapons were instead shipped to adifferent destination. In this case, the broker would be responsible for the diversion.
Authorization for an arms export will usually be granted by several different governments
or by international organizations. For example, the arms export approval would need to be
granted by each of the states involved in the export, import, transit, brokering, andtranshipment during an international arms transfer. To be properly authorized – and not adiversion – authorization would need to have been granted by all of the relevant
governments. For example, if a transfer was authorized by the ministries of defence of theimporting and exporting states, a diversion would still have occurred if either were thetarget of UN sanctions which prohibited their participation in the arms trade.
Authorization is a part of a complex international system of multi-level governanceconcerning the arms trade,14 so it could be granted by different state agencies and eveninternational organizations. For example, authorization could be granted by the police or
local government concerning civilian possession of firearms; government ministries, suchas defence, foreign affairs, or interior; regional organizations (can authorize arms transfers
in some cases, such via Articles 4, 5, and 6 of the Economic Community of West African
States’ Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons, Their Ammunition, and Other
Related Materials); and the UN Security Council, which may grant specific exemptions toarms embargoes. This complex web of national and international sources of authorization
can lead to situations in which authorization has been granted by one institution (e.g.,national ministry of defence) but may not have been granted by others (e.g., the exporting
ministry of foreign affairs).
After the transfer has been completed, the importing state usually authorizes parties tohold the weapons – for example, the members of state security services or members of the
public who can lawfully possess a weapon. Post-export commitments concerning the end
user or end use of arms are often made by the importer to the exporter before an export isauthorized. In such a circumstance, export authorization is conditional upon the importer
meeting the terms of the export licence after the transfer has been completed. If thoseconditions were broken, then a diversion would have occurred (unauthorized end use). For
example, consider a scenario where a state authorized the export of submachineguns on thecondition that they would be used by the importing state’s navy for the purposes ofprotecting military bases. Instead, if the guns were transferred from the navy to a special
police unit with a history of extrajudicial killing, then a diversion would have occurred.

II
Preventing human suffering plays a central role in the ATT. The parties involved incommitting violations are frequently non-state groups involved in political violence ororganized crime or are states that are not authorized by exporters or internationalorganizations to receive arms imports. Parties involved in in warfare have significant
logistical requirements,15 and especially in war, there is the need for a constant resupply of
ammunition to keep fighting and for arms to equip new recruits and replace battlefield
losses. For non-state groups, fighting against government forces often requires weaponsthat are not found among the civilian population, such as missiles, rockets, and launchers
14 Greene and Marsh. ‘Governance and small arms and light weapons’, pp. 164-180.
15 On the logistics needs of non-state groups see Hazen, What rebels want.

58

Preventing Diversion: A Challenge for Arms Trade Treaty States Parties
and mortars or artillery.16 Diversion from state stocks is a key means by which these groups
can obtain the arms they need.17
The news media tends to exaggerate the size and significance of arms trafficking. Most
arms trafficking is local (occurring within a country or between neighbouring countries or
those countries within a region) and involves small-scale transactions (though many ofthem can add up to significant flows). 18 Diversion from state stocks offers a plentiful
supply of the quantities and types of weapons that are difficult to obtain elsewhere.19
The following sections provide three examples of diversions involving countries involved
in armed conflicts. In addition to illustrating in detail how diversion can occur, theyhighlight complex issues that should be taken into account by ATT states parties when theyattempt to implement the treaty.

III
Taking place during and after the 2011 civil war in Libya, the first example concerns one of
the most dramatic and high-profile cases of diversion to have occurred in recent years.
During the decades prior to 2011, Libya’s president, Muammar Qaddafi, had amassed avast stockpile of arms. The weapons had mostly been supplied by the Soviet Union and its
allies prior to the 1992 UN arms embargo on Libya. After the EU and UN embargoes werelifted in 2003 and 2004 (respectively), there was a rush by European suppliers for renewingarms sales to Libya.20
Libya had relatively small armed forces, but it kept large stocks of arms and ammunition
stored in depots located around the country. The explanation for this apparent mismatch isthat Qaddafi apparently weakened his military (he had come to power via a coup andwanted to prevent anyone else from copying his example), so instead of a strong military,in the event of an invasion, he intended to use a ‘people’s war’ strategy in which arms
would be distributed to militias and the population in general. In 2010, the Libyan armed
forces were estimated to have 76,000 regular personnel in all services (50,000 in the army,
8,000 in the navy, and 18,000 in the air force) which were equipped with 2,205 tanks (halfof which were T54/55 models whose first production dates back to the 1950s and were heldin storage); 1,000 BMP armoured vehicles; 2,421 artillery pieces, and 490 anti-aircraft
cannon.21 It has been estimated that firearms (mostly Kalashnikovs) under government
control at the start of the war numbered between 400,000 and one million.22
The 2011 civil war started in February and ended remarkably quickly in September.
During the initial weeks of the war, arms and ammunition were appropriated fromgovernment depots (particularly in Eastern Libya) and used to equip a rapidly growing
opposition army. After Tripoli, the capital city, fell in late August, further large quantities
of arms were taken from the Qaddafi regime’s stockpiles. Weapons were also supplied to
opposition groups by states intervening in the war. The largest quantity was donated by

16 Marsh, ‘Conflict specific capital’, pp. 60-62.
17 Ibid.; Jackson, ‘From under their noses’, pp. 137-141.
18 Marsh, ‘Firearms seizures and trafficking: A local phenomenon’.
19 Jackson, ‘From under their noses’, pp. 137-145.
20 Hansen and Marsh, ‘Normative power and organized hypocrisy’.
21 IISS, The military balance 2010, pp. 262-3.
22 Marsh, ‘Brothers came back with weapons’, p. 80.

59

NICHOLAS MARSH
Qatar,23 and lesser quantities were supplied by France,24 Sudan,25 and the United ArabEmirates,26 and there are credible reports of transfers by Egypt and Italy.27 It is likely thatgiven the large stocks of infantry weapons amassed by the Qaddafi regime, the external
supplies were only a minority of the arms and ammunition circulating in Libya at the endof the 2011 war.
The 2011 civil war in Libya resulted in state military arms depots being opened and theircontents being distributed to armed groups. Alarm was raised during and after the war that
weapons that were poorly secured in depots controlled by armed groups or being openly
taken by members of the public. For example, in 2011, a Human Rights Watch team in
Libya reported that large quantities of weapons were unsecured and available to the general
population:
Among the unsecured weapons storage facilities that Human Rights Watch visited in
the vicinity of a Khamis Brigade base in the Salahadin neighbourhood of Tripoli is afarm compound holding approximately 15,000 antipersonnel mines and 500
antivehicle mines. A nearby storage facility housed more than 100,000 antipersonnel
and antivehicle mines, as well as large stocks of mortars, artillery, and tank shells; andan unfinished schoolbook-printing facility contained large stocks of surface-to-air
missiles (SAMs), antitank guided missiles, mortars, tank shells, artillery shells, andother types of ammunition.28
The arms taken from Qaddafi’s stockpiles were not just used in the Libyan civil war.
Soon after the conflict, they started leaking into Libya’s neighbouring countries, andproliferation of these arms from Libya played an important role in initiating the conflicts in
Mali and Sinai that started in 2012 and 2011, respectively (and continue at the time ofwriting in the spring of 2019).29
The diversion in Libya likely occurred in three different ways. Most dramatically, arms
were diverted when state stocks were distributed among unauthorized groups engaged infighting against the Qaddafi regime. Second, troops loyal to Qaddafi may have engaged inunauthorized use when they used weapons against civilians. In some cases Libya provided
assurances concerning the use of weapons that had been supplied by European statesmonths or a few years before the start of the war.30 However, it is not known whether there
were binding conditions of sale. Third, it is very likely that the arms supplied to antiQaddafi forces during the war were captured or retransferred to other groups in theaftermath of the fighting.
Libya provides some important lessons for ATT states parties. The first is the difficulty inpredicting a war and state collapse, like what took place in Libya in 2011. Arms had beenenthusiastically supplied to Libya between 2004 and 2011, despite the Qaddafi regime
23 Dickinson, ‘The gun smuggler’s lament’; CNN ‘The Emir of Qatar on arming Libyan rebels’.
24 Gélie, ‘La France a parachuté des armes aux rebelles libyens’, Le Figaro, 28 June 2011.
25 de Waal, ‘African roles in the Libyan conflict of 2011’, pp. 375-378.
26 UNSC, S/2013/99, pp. 19-22.
27 Ibid., pp. 21-6; Hooper, ‘Italian government blocks investigation into missing arms cache’, The Guardian(19 July 2011).
28 Human Rights Watch, Libya: secure unguarded arms depots.
29 Marsh ‘Brothers came back with weapons’, pp. 82-87.
30 For example, Libya stated to Belgium that exported FN2000 rifles would be used by the Khamis Brigade to‘escort humanitarian convoys to Darfur’. See Spleeters, D., ‘Tracking Belgian Weapons in Libya’, New YorkTimes, 28 December 2011, https://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/tracking-belgian-weapons-in-libya/(accessed 27 April 2019).

60

Preventing Diversion: A Challenge for Arms Trade Treaty States Parties
having a dubious track record that included human rights violations, war with neighbouring
states, and violating UN arms embargoes.31 A general presumption against supplying arms
to authoritarian states with similar records may also guard ATT states parties against therisk of a large-scale diversion in the event of a war.
The Libyan example also raises the risks of transferring arms to rebel forces engaged infighting a civil war. These groups clearly did not have the authorization to receive arms
from the Libyan government, so the transfers themselves could be constituted as adiversion. The issue is legally complex considering that the opposition had been
diplomatically recognized by some other states. It is very unlikely that the outside suppliers
could have conducted a proper assessment of whether the anti-Qaddafi forces could have
kept control over the arms they had been supplied. Even if they had, the rapidly changing
situation on the ground would have quickly made it obsolete. In the event, the 2011 civil
war was followed by intermittent violence between rival quasi-governments, warlords, anIslamic state group, and militias. The arms supplied in 2011 have undoubtedly fuelled thecontinuing violence in Libya.
Finally, commitments regarding the end use given by the Libyan government before thewar were easily broken after the war broke out. If a regime is fighting for its survival, thenit may not put much weight on the conditions set by exporters years before. When states
parties agree upon mitigation measures recommended in Article 11 (and in Article 7), theyneed to consider the risks that the importing state will renege on the agreement if theircircumstances change.

IV
The second example involves a high risk of diversion involving the United States andpartner arms supplies to Iraq and Afghanistan.
After the fall of the Taliban in 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United Statesorganized the rebuilding and reequipment of the Afghan and Iraqi security forces. Armed
conflict is ongoing in both countries, which has increased both the need for weapons andthe risks of diversion.
Data released by the United States government provide a picture of the vast numbers ofsmall arms provided to Afghanistan and Iraq. The data reveal that between 1 September
2001 and 1 September 2015, the United States organized the transfer of 1.45 million
firearms to various security forces in both countries. 32 These included over 112,000
machine guns, 978,000 assault rifles, and 266,000 pistols.33 Using alternative trade data
sources, it is possible to account for the transfers of some 446,000 firearms to Iraq, 34
including 126,000 pistols, 206,000 assault rifles, and 60,000 machineguns.35 About 138,000
firearms were reported as having been exported from countries other than the UnitedStates; these included 23,038 assault rifles from the United Kingdom, 9,810 pistols fromthe Czech Republic, and 15,492 machineguns from Serbia.
Export data reveal similar quantities having been reported as having been transferred to
31 Hansen and Marsh, ‘Normative power and organized hypocrisy’.
32 Chivers, C. ‘How many guns did the U.S. lose track of in Iraq and Afghanistan? Hundreds of thousands’,

New York Times Magazine, 24 August 2016.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Calculations by the author from the NISAT database of the small arms trade, nisat.prio.org, accessed 21
April 2019.

61

NICHOLAS MARSH
Iraq. Transfer data reveal that some 629,000 firearms were exported to Iraq, 36 including
520,000 from countries other than the United States; these exports included 86,000 assault
rifles from the Czech Republic and 52,000 from Slovakia and 35,000 machineguns from
Ukraine.37
The exports from countries other than the United States raise the possibility that many
more arms could have been provided than the 1.45 million mentioned by U.S. authorities.
The United States preferred supplying Afghanistan and Iraq with Soviet pattern weapons,
which were sourced from abroad, because these arms were familiar to Afghani and Iraqi
personnel, and the guns (especially Kalashnikovs) have a reputation for being more
hardwearing and better able to withstand use in harsher environments. The arms that were
exported could have been paid for by the United States (in which case, they would likely
have appeared among the 1.45 million). But the exports could also have been purchased
directly by the Afghan or Iraqi governments or provided as military aid (e.g., in 2006,
Hungary reported exporting 20,500 AMD-65 assault rifles as ‘government aid’).38 If thearms were not paid for directly by the United States, then they may not have been counted
by the United States government. In addition, the 1.45 million figure probably does notinclude any weapons issued directly by the United States armed forces or captured arms
reissued to Afghan or Iraqi forces.39
The transfers constitute a risk of diversion because the United States has admitted tohaving lost track of about half of the arms it supplied to Afghanistan and Iraq.40 In response
to a 2016 request for data from the New York Times, the U.S. Department of Defense
admitted that it only had records for 48 per cent (or 700,000) of the firearms supplied to
Afghanistan and Iraq.
A declassified 2008 U.S. Department of Defense Inspector General report notes that
Turkish police and military personnel have complained that arms supplied by the UnitedStates to Iraqi security forces had been found in the ‘hands of insurgents, terrorists, andcriminals in Turkey’. 41 It went on to note that U.S. forces did not maintain unbroken
accountability and control over the arms before they were handed over to Iraqi forces. In
particular, the arms were sometimes stored in unsafe areas vulnerable to theft or loss andthat lacked the facilities to process large numbers of items; sometimes, inventories of arms
(including taking down serial numbers) were not recorded before handover.42 Concerning
the Iraqi security forces, the Inspector General report states that they lacked enough skilled
personnel to adequately monitor weapons stocks and that overall, its logistics systems were
‘fragile’.43
Similarly, a 2014 report by the United States Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction outlined deficiencies in the U.S. Department of Defense’s monitoring andaccountability concerning the arms supplied to Afghanistan. 44 In particular, there was
missing or erroneous information in 43 per cent of the records in one logistics database on
474,828 weapons.45
36 Chivers, ‘How many guns did the U.S. lose track of in Iraq and Afghanistan? Hundreds of thousands’.
37 Calculations by the author from the NISAT database of the small arms trade, nisat.prio.org, accessed 21

April 2019. It is likely that there were also significant exports from Bosnia and Herzegovina.
38 Information from the NISAT database of the small arms trade, nisat.prio.org, accessed 21 April 2019.
39 Chivers, ‘How many guns did the U.S. lose track of in Iraq and Afghanistan? Hundreds of thousands’.
40 Ibid.
41 Inspector General United States Department of Defense, Assessment of the accountability, p. 1.
42 Ibid., p. 27-47.
43 Ibid., p. 73-4.
44 Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, Afghan national security forces.
45 Ibid., p. 4.

62

Preventing Diversion: A Challenge for Arms Trade Treaty States Parties
Despite attempts by the United States to set up inventory management systems for theAfghan security forces, the Inspector General reported that an Afghan National Army
database was missing data and ‘cannot be relied upon for accurate information’.46 Instead,
units entered weapons inventory data into ledgers (but without recording serial numbers).
The Afghani National Police, meanwhile, had ‘no standardized or automated system toaccount for weapons’.47
Chris Chivers, a New York Times journalist who investigated the transfers to Iraq and
Afghanistan, is unequivocal that ‘one point is inarguable: Many of these weapons did not
remain long in government possession after arriving in their respective countries’.48 He
highlights that in Iraq, the Islamic State captured arms and other equipment meant for
entire Iraqi divisions and goes on to cite equipment of a U.S. origin being offered for sale
online. He states the following:
These spectacular losses were on top of the more gradual drain that many veterans of
the wars watched first-hand — including such scams as Afghan National Armyrecruits showing up for training and disappearing after rifles were issued. They wereleaving, soldiers suspected, to sell their weapons.49
The examples of supplies to Afghanistan and Iraq highlight two risks of diversion. The
first is that poor management of arms could lead to theft or other losses during the transfer– such as during storage in unsafe areas prior to handover. The second is that after thetransfer was completed poor security and management by the Afghan and Iraqi security
forces created risks of large-scale losses from capture or theft or loss by police or military
personnel.
Although the United States has been the focus of this example, arms were also suppliedby ATT states parties (such as Germany, Hungary, or the United Kingdom). A key issue forstates parties is the need to prevent a diversion if they are supplying arms to highly fragile
states involved in warfare (such as Iraq or Afghanistan). If the recipient country lacks thefacilities and infrastructure and personnel trained to use them, then a diversion during or
after a transfer may be likely.

V
The third example of a diversion concerns an export of small arms and ammunition from
China to Nigeria. The transaction had been arranged by a UK-based arms broker who had
not been authorized to do so.
From 2005-7, UK citizen Gary Hyde and German citizen Karl Kleber set up an arms deal
involving the export of 70,000 rifles, 10,000 pistols, and 32 million rounds of ammunition
from China to Nigeria.50 Hyde acted as a broker, in that he was an intermediary who was toreceive a commission for arranging the arms deal, but he or his companies never bought orotherwise took possession of the arms themselves.51 It was a complex deal involving a
Chinese company (Poly Technologies Inc. and previously China Jing An), two companies
46 Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, Afghan national security forces, p. 6.
47 Ibid., p. 6.
48 Chivers, ‘How many guns did the U.S. lose track of in Iraq and Afghanistan? Hundreds of thousands’.
49 Ibid.
50 Royal Courts of Justice, ‘Transcript’.
51 For a definition of brokering, see UNGA, A/62/163, p. 8.

63

NICHOLAS MARSH
representing the Nigerian government (called Deftech and Pinimi) and EWH Consultancy
Ltd., which was controlled by Gary Hyde.52 Contractual documents signed by Hyde statethat a commission of USD 1,337,800 was due to be paid out for arranging the deal.53 The
shipment from China to Nigeria took place in November 2007.
The United Kingdom has regulations covering the act of brokering an arms deal (such as
what was undertaken by Hyde). Any person or corporate entity located in the United
Kingdom and wishing to broker an arms transaction must first obtain a trade control licence(which are issued by the Export Control Organization).54 The regulations cover arms beingtransferred from or to any part of the world (so long as at least some of the brokering
activity takes place in the United Kingdom).
Despite being a seasoned arms exporter, Hyde did not obtain a licence – possibly because
armed conflict and human rights violations in Nigeria may have meant that the United
Kingdom would have refused. Instead, Hyde started to broker the transaction and madesure do so from outside the United Kingdom. In particular, he arranged for a payment of
USD 400,000 to be made to a bank account in Liechtenstein.55
Prosecutors were able to prove that in March 2006 and December 2007, Hyde had
worked on renegotiating the transaction while he was located within the UK. After being
sentenced, Hyde was convicted to seven years imprisonment for brokering the deal with
Nigeria without the required licence and for concealing the payment to the Liechtensteinbank account from the UK authorities.
In this example, a diversion occurred because Hyde and his companies did not have thenecessary authorization from the United Kingdom to broker the deal. To recap, Article 11,
paragraph 2 of the treaty obliges states parties to ‘prevent the diversion of the transfer ofconventional arms’, and in Article 2, ‘brokering’ is defined as being one of the activities
that comprise a transfer. Similarly, Greene and Kirkham’s definition (see above) is followedwith the comment that ‘authorisation is required by both the exporting and importing state,
and also by relevant transit and brokering control authorities in other states’.56 Hyde’s caseshows that the transfer was not authorized by all of the states involved, even if China andNigeria had issued the appropriate import and export licences.
The issue for ATT states parties is that a diversion can occur and involve their citizens incontexts far removed from where the arms are actually located. A broker based on adifferent continent from the importing and exporting states can still play a key role in an
unauthorized arms transfer. States parties need to ensure that they have, as set out in Article
10, adequate laws and regulations concerning brokering; they also need to be vigilant anddetect unauthorized brokering activities.

VI
To conclude, diversion has a central place in the ATT, and preventing it is key to attaining
the aims of the ATT to reduce human suffering and contribute to peace, security, andstability. States parties need to fulfil their obligations and take active measures to prevent adiversion, including not allowing exports if the risks are too high and controlling theactivities of arms brokers. Transfers of arms to a non-state proxy at war in another country
52 Royal Courts of Justice, ‘Transcript’.
53 Royal Courts of Justice, ‘Transcript’.
54 See Article 4 of the UK’s Trade in Goods (Control) Order of 2003.
55 Royal Courts of Justice, ‘Transcript’.
56 Greene and Kirkham, Preventing diversion, p. 9.

64

Preventing Diversion: A Challenge for Arms Trade Treaty States Parties
would very likely be a case of diversion.
Preventing a diversion is difficult. For an exporter, assessing the long-term risks of adiversion poses many problems; the exporter may lack detailed information on theactivities of his or her own companies or on the ability of the importing state to secure arms
stocks. Even if systemic deficiencies are known, the imperative to support an ally fighting
a war may outweigh the fears that arms supplies could later be diverted. Cataclysmic events
such as a state collapse or civil war are difficult to predict years in advance. Much more
knowledge is needed by states parties to help them predict when a diversion may occur.
Many states, such as Afghanistan, lack the ability to control their arms stockpiles andprevent pilfering. If the importing states lack the ability to monitor their inventories ofarms and ammunition, they may be unaware of the extent – or even existence – of adiversion. A key priority for international cooperation and assistance should be to enhance
stockpile security and management. However, as the Afghanistan example shows, doing so
can be a long process.
References
Cable News Network (CNN), ‘The Emir of Qatar on arming Libyan rebels’ (14 April 2011). Transcript
available from http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/14/the-emir-of-qatar-talks-to-wolf-blitzerabout-weapons-to-libyan-rebels/ (accessed 27 April 2019).
Chivers, C. ‘How many guns did the U.S. lose track of in Iraq and Afghanistan? Hundreds of thousands’,
New York Times Magazine (24 August 2016).
da Silva, C. and Nevill, P., ‘Article 6: prohibitions’, in C. da Silva and B. Wood, eds., Weapons andinternational law: the arms trade treaty (Brussels, 2015), pp. 88-115.
de Waal, A., ‘African roles in the Libyan conflict of 2011’, International Affairs, 89 (2013), pp. 365-9.
Dickinson, E., ‘The gun smuggler’s lament,’ Foreign Policy (2 October 2015).
Greene, O. and Kirkham, E., Preventing diversion of small arms and light weapons: issues and priorities
for strengthened controls (2009).
Greene, O. and Marsh, N., ‘Governance and small arms and light weapons’ in O. Greene and N. Marsh,eds., Small arms, crime and conflict global governance and the threat of armed violence (2012), pp.
163-82.
Hansen, S. and Marsh, N., ‘Normative power and organized hypocrisy: European Union member states’
arms export to Libya’, European Security, 24 (2015), pp. 264-86.
Hazen, J., What rebels want resources and supply networks in wartime (Ithaca, 2013).
Human Rights Watch, Libya: secure unguarded arms depots, Press Release, September 2011.
Inspector General United States Department of Defense, Assessment of the accountability of arms andammunition provided to the security forces of Iraq. Report No. SPO-2008-001 (2008).
International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), The military balance 2010 (Abingdon, 2010), pp. 262-3.
Jackson, T., ‘From under their noses: rebel groups’ arms acquisition and the importance of leakages fromstate stockpiles’, International Studies Perspectives, 11 (2010), pp. 131–47.
Marsh, N., ‘Brothers came back with weapons: the effects of arms proliferation from Libya’, PRISM, 6(2017), pp. 79-96.
Marsh, N., ‘Firearms seizures and trafficking: a local phenomenon’, Strategic Trade Review, 1 (2015), pp.
73-87.
Marsh, N., ‘Conflict specific capital: the role of weapons acquisition in civil war’, International Studies
Perspectives, 8 (2007), pp.54–72.
Olabuenga, P. and Gramizzi, C., ‘Article 11 diversion’, in C. da Silva and B. Wood, eds., Weapons andinternational law: the arms trade treaty (Brussels, 2015), pp. 191-201.
Parker, S., ‘Article 11 diversion’, in S. Casey-Maslen, A. Clapham, G. Giacca, and S. Parker, eds., Thearms trade treaty: a commentary (Oxford, 2016), pp. 342–365.
Royal Courts of Justice, ‘Transcript of the handed down judgment. R. v Gary Hyde’. Case no: 201300289
B2; 201304192 B2 (15 April 2014) https://www.iclr.co.uk/document/2011208328/casereport_58987/html(accessed 22 April 2019).
Schroeder, M., Close, H., and Stevenson, C., ‘Deadly deception: arms transfer diversion’, in E. G. Berman,

65

NICHOLAS MARSH
K. Krause, E. LeBrun, and G. McDonald, eds., 2008 small arms survey: risk and resilience (Cambridge,2008), pp. 113-153.
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, Afghan national security forces: actions needed
to improve weapons accountability (SIGAR 14-84 Audit Report, 2014).
United Nations Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA), Glossary of terms, definitions andabbreviations (New York, 2018).
Official Publications
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), Report of the group of governmental experts establishedpursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/81 to consider further steps to enhance international
cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in small arms and light weapons,
UN Document A/62/163.
UNSC (United Nations Security Council), Final report of the panel of experts established pursuant toresolution 1973 (2011) concerning Libya, UN Document S/2013/99.

66

History of Global Arms Transfer, 8 (2019), pp. 67-82

Jet Age Feminism:
Emilio Pucci, Mary Wells, and the Braniff
Airways Stewardessof the 1960s†
By PHIL TIEMEYER*
This article considers the bold redesign of stewardess uniforms that designer
Emilio Pucci undertook at Braniff Airways in 1965. As part of a larger marketing
campaign to alleviate customer fears about the generic nature of jet travel, Braniff
promised “The End of the Plain Plane” through injections of color, high-end
style, and the objectification of stewardesses. The adoption of jet technology
thereby significantly impacted women, at a time when the United States was
experiencing the rise of a new feminist wave. What this article terms “Jet Age
feminism” is quite different from the radical feminism that not only sought parity
with men in careers but also demanded an end to the physical objectification of
women, contesting the stringent beauty norms placed on women even at work. In
contrast, “Jet Age feminism” was inspired by people like ad executive Mary
Wells, who masterminded the Braniff campaign, and Cosmopolitan magazine
editor Helen Gurley Brown. Braniff’s newly outfitted stewardesses embodied
much of these women’s feminist vision: promoting greater public mobility for
women without dismantling beauty culture. The end result was a compromised
feminism that benefitted wealthy career women like Wells, without freeing
Braniff’s stewardesses to attain the same access to life-long careers.
Whether for christening new routes or unveiling new aircraft, airport runways havesometimes supplemented their utilitarian purpose with something more festive. But in July
1965 aviation history marked a revolutionary moment on a different kind of runway: afashion runway assembled in a lavish ballroom of the Palazzo Pitti in Florence, Italy.
There, the famed designer Emilio Pucci, who attired celebrities such as Sophia Loren and
Jacqueline Kennedy, introduced his Fall haute couture collection. As part of the show, healso debuted the fruition of his months-long collaboration with Texas’ Braniff Airways: acompletely new ensemble of stewardess uniforms. Exceptionally colorful and formal-yetcasual, they were a sharp divergence from the monochromatic, military-inspired uniformsof elite carriers like Pan Am, British Overseas Airways, and Japan Air Lines.
The result, in the words of Vogue magazine, embodied the geographical fluidity andextraterrestrial yearning of the Jet Age: ‘In look, a combination of Texas, Florence, and† An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Research Institute for the History of Global Arms
Transfer in November 2018. The author is grateful to the members of the institute for their feedback, especially
Professors Katsuhiko Yokoi and Kaori Takada.
* Author affiliations: Associate Professor of History, Kansas State University, United States.

67

PHIL TIEMEYER
Mars, the clothes [Pucci] has worked out are meant to meet every possible exigency—
including the future’.1 Braniff’s public relations materials added a similar point about
Pucci: ‘As a decorated Italian pilot, he is blazing a new space-age trail for erstwhile earthbound fashions. His concept for in-flight hostess attire is completely new, completely
contemporary, and completely in accord with his credo: “When I design, I think of awoman in motion”’.2
Of course, this ornate presentation was motivated to generate publicity for the airline.
However, this fact does not diminish the importance of Braniff’s innovations, which further
exacerbated 1960s America’s cultural fault-lines of women’s liberation and sexual
revolution.3 As Pucci and Braniff outfitted their stewardesses for a Jet Age future that could
as easily involve Mars as it could Texas (in Vogue’s words), women at Braniff wererendered at once more empoweringly mobile, but also more restricted than before by malesexual privilege.
This essay’s first part examines how and why Braniff’s creative team, including Pucci,
refashioned stewardessing as part of its larger marketing campaign, aptly entitled the ‘Endof the Plain Plane’.4 The numerous changes responded to a deeper fear among airline
executives: that the jet, with its expanded capacity that made air travel less exclusive, wasspoiling customers’ sense of awe. Flying risked becoming ‘plain’ for customers, so
Braniff’s marketers sought to manufacture renewed excitement, including through thedramatic refashioning of its stewardesses. This overhaul was financially vital for Braniff,since its Board committed in 1965 to shift very rapidly to an expensive all-jet fleet.
Some of this essay’s narrative on the ‘End of the Plain Plane’ campaign has already beenchronicled by accomplished historians and journalists. Readers interested in a fuller
consideration of the subject should consult Victoria Vantoch’s The Jet Set: Airline
Stewardesses and the Making of an American Icon, which places the Braniff campaign inthe context of other US airlines’ efforts in the late 1960s to sexualize stewardesses as ameans to grow their customer base.5 In addition, William Stadiem’s Jet Set: The People,
the Planes, the Glamour, and the Romance in Aviation’s Glory Years offers the mostdetailed study to date of Braniff’s decisions that culminated in the ‘End of the Plain Plane’
campaign.6 Finally, Kathleen Barry’s Femininity in Flight: A History of Flight Attendants,
chronicles stewardesses’ multi-pronged fight against sexism in the workplace, whichbecame all the more intense due to the Braniff campaign and the various copycats that
followed in the US aviation sector.7 Overall, my work shares a common basis with thesepreceding contributions, while offering particular novelty in the analysis put forward in thesecond and third parts of this essay.
The essay’s second part examines Pucci’s and Braniff’s refashioning of stewardesses inrelation to American notions of feminism in the mid 1960s, rendering what I call ‘Jet Age
feminism.’ This term is firstly a chronological designation, referring to the status of
1 McCarty, J, ‘Beauty Checkout’ in Vogue, 15 Sept 1965, p. 62.
2 Vitra Design Museum, Alexander Girard Archives (hereafter AGA), Box ‘MAR 00105 D-4’, Folder ‘Girard

Press - 01/1964-12/1965’, Press release, ‘Emilio Pucci: Fashion Innovator’, 19 July 1965.
3 Works that chronicle the feminism and the sexual revolution in the 1960s include: Allyn, Make Love, Not
War; Bradley, Mass Media and Feminism; Cott, Grounding of Feminism; Ehrenreich, Hess, and Jacobs, ReMaking Love; Hill, Peacock Revolution; Kessler-Harris, Out to Work; Meyerowitz, ed., Not June Cleaver; Rosen,
World Split Open; Scanlon, Bad Girls Go Everywhere.
4 AGA, Box ‘MAR 00105 D-4’, Folder ‘Girard Press - 01/1964 - 12/1965’, Press release, ‘Announcing the Endof the Plain Plane’, November 1965.
5 Vantoch, The Jet Sex, pp. 153-85.
6 Stadiem, Jet Set, pp. 242-75.
7 Barry, Femininity in Flight, pp. 174-84.

68Jet Age Feminism
feminism in the United States in the first decade of civil aviation’s adoption of jet
technology (1959-69). Yet, it also more specifically refers to how notions of feminism
intersected with civil aviation culture during these years. Women could not serve as pilots
on US airlines throughout this first decade of jet travel, nor could they enter America’s
space program. Thus, stewardessing was the most a woman could aspire to, and Braniff’s
iteration was the first intentional effort by an airline to reshape womanhood in the Jet Age.
When Pucci and the person who commissioned him for Braniff, advertising executive Mary
Wells, offered women the mixed bag of greater mobility but also greater subservience tomen, they indicated that women’s ‘Right Stuff’ would be quite different from astronauts’.8
These women endured the erasure of risk as a valued workplace trait, and training for thejob became less tied to safety and more tied to personal grooming.
The essay’s final part contrasts the Jet Age feminism of stewardesses and that of Mary
Wells, the ad executive who masterminded Braniff ’s 1965 campaign. While both
encountered sexism in their work, the class difference between these women rendereddivergent fates. Wells successfully blended the competing pulls on Jet Age women towards
career, sexiness, and marriage. Ultimately, she and her new husband, Braniff’s President
Harding Lawrence, met at work and soon thereafter became one of America’s first dualcareer ‘power couples’, with husband and wife competing to take home the larger salary.
Meanwhile, Braniff offered a more limited version of Jet Age feminism to working-classwomen: marriage wasn’t for them an opportunity to advance their careers, but rather wascause for being fired. As such, even though both Wells and Braniff’s stewardesses became
paragons of a boldly modern way of being a woman in the Jet Age, neither was a truemodel for the more radical feminism that was gaining currency at the time. Jet Age
feminism, over time, gave way to something more inclusive.

I Democratizing the Jet Set:
Braniff and its Stewardesses Enter the Jet Age
1965 was a momentous year for Braniff International Airways, then a medium-sized carrier
based in the medium-sized, but growing city of Dallas, Texas. From its first flight in 1928,
Braniff subsisted as a regional carrier in the heavily regulated United States aviation
market, granted routes in Texas, eastwards towards New Orleans, and northwards towards
Kansas City. The years after World War II offered Braniff a first foothold outside themidsection of the US. A merger in 1952 expanded the route network to Chicago, while its
first flights between Dallas and the East Coast came a few years later. Finally, Braniff had
become an international carrier already in 1948. With the award of routes to Latin America,
Braniff became the Western Hemisphere’s equivalent of Trans World Airlines on European
routes: it served as the US’s second flag-carrier, alongside the much stronger Pan American
Airways, on routes as far south as Buenos Aires.9
Even so, Braniff had very little brand visibility in the US’s biggest cites or in Latin
America’s metropoles. Only three percent of potential customers in the New York area had
heard of the airline, putting it at a significant disadvantage in the largest consumer market.10
Moreover, Braniff was falling behind major airlines in the rush to transition to an all-jet
8 On the application of the term ‘Right Stuff’ to US astronauts, see Wolfe, Right Stuff.
9 For a history of Braniff, see Cass, Braniff Airways.
10 History of Aviation Collection, Braniff Collection (hereafter BC), Box 18, Folder 4, ‘Harding LawrenceMarkets an Airline’ in Media Decisions, Jul 1968.

69

PHIL TIEMEYER
fleet. It had secured ten Boeing 707-720 jets between the plane’s debut in 1959 and 1964,
enough to cover routes to Chicago, New York, and Washington, but its other routes
depended on a fleet of piston-engine planes. This lack was particularly glaring on Braniff’s
Latin American routes.
When Harding Lawrence took over as Braniff’s new President in March 1965, the new
executive team already was tasked to fully transition Braniff to the jet era. He therefore
unveiled a business plan that included purchasing dozens of new jets valued together at$160 million, of which $120 million was borrowed. Included were 14 new regional jets
(BAC-111s) and 17 new Boeing 727s for longer routes. By mid-1967, Lawrence promised,
all of Braniff’s non-jets would be retired.11 Overall, Braniff was set to expand its seating
capacity by 57 per cent by January 1966, with another 27.5 per cent increase by July 1966.
Executives then faced the daunting challenge of increasing ticket sales, in order to makethis investment pay off. Central to this strategy was a new marketing and advertising
campaign, for which Lawrence had already identified his chosen partner: advertising
executive Mary Wells of Jack Tinker and Partners. Wells details in her autobiography
Lawrence’s urgent plea, ‘Listen, Mary, I need a very big idea for this airline, something so
big it will make Braniff important news, overnight’. Behind this need for attention lay theupcoming jet purchases, ‘I’m going to buy a large fleet of jets and they’ll cost plenty … I
don’t want to fly a lot of empty seats around’. Lawrence reinforced his plea for a total
makeover, ‘I want to hire you people at Tinker to help me reintroduce Braniff to America.
Actually, I want you to introduce Braniff to the world’. 12 He then agreed to double theairline’s advertising budget, to $6 million, in the first year.13
Bold ideas started taking shape during Wells’ research into the state of air travel. In mid1965, her team spent time in airports, on planes, and at ticket offices, where theyinterviewed air travelers. The main finding was at once obvious and insightful: ‘All planes
looked alike; all terminals looked alike; all stewardesses looked alike. There was a great
prevalence of gray, a military hang-over’.14 Wells rightly perceived that many civil aviation
resources had direct ties to America’s military mobilizations in World War II and the Cold
War. Many airfields and terminals were hastily built during the early 1940s, and most pilots
were trained either in World War II or Korea.
The militarized stewardess uniforms, however, took root in the 1930s. Their dark colors,
stripes on sleeves, and lapels decorated with stylized wings were inspired by the US Navy,
which America’s first major airline, Pan Am, mimicked for its crew aboard the ‘flying
boats’ that navigated the skies at the time.15 Early air travel was also bumpy, cold, andfraught with the potential danger of crash landings; thus, a drab, heavyweight uniform thatconveyed authority in times of danger was appropriate. That such uniforms persisted
through the 1950s is partly a consequence of the accretion of tradition, but it also reflects
the resurgent connections between aviation and militarization during the early Cold War.
After all, the great innovations of Cold War-era civil aviation—pressurized air cabins,
improved radar navigation, and, most importantly, the jet aircraft—were all byproducts ofmilitary research and development begun during World War II and enhanced during the
11 AGA, Box ‘MAR 00110 D-5’, Folder ‘Girard Press - 01/1966- 12/1966’, Press Release (no title), 16 Jun
1965.
12 As quoted in: Wells Lawrence, Big Life in Advertising, p. 33.
13 BC, Box 34, Folder 2, Memo from Rex Brack to All Employees, 24 Nov 1965.
14 Mary Wells, as quoted in: Black,C., ‘Meet America’s Top Woman Exec’ in Honolulu Advertiser, 25 Mar
1975.
15 The history of the first flight attendants at Pan Am, who happened to be all-male, is described in: Tiemeyer,
Plane Queer, pp. 14-41.

70

Jet Age Feminism
first decades of the Cold War.16
In expressing her concerns about a ‘military hang-over’, Wells could have also noted that
her work for Braniff was happening in the middle of the US military’s mobilization in
Vietnam. In March 1965, right as Wells won the Braniff contract, US Marines made theirfirst landing at Da Nang, and the US Air Force and Navy commenced Operation RollingThunder, President Johnson’s gruesome aerial bombing campaign of North Vietnam
comparable in size to the raids over Japan and Germany during World War II. As such, thedecisions to “feminize” Braniff’s stewardess uniforms by adding lush colors, foregoing
stripes on the cuffs, and replacing the lapel’s streamlined wings with a curvaceous golden
dove—the symbol of peace—were quite timely. As historian Victoria Vantoch notes,
American society at the time had an entrenched masculine-feminine dichotomy that also
impacted Cold War notions of technology: the aviation industry ‘relied on polarized
descriptions of “cold” and “efficient” (read: masculine) aircraft technology versus “warm”
and “friendly” (read: feminine) service in ways that tapped larger Cold War discourse about
gender and technology.’ 17 As such, the ‘Right Stuff’ of Braniff stewardesses had to bediametrically opposed to the cold, hard, technical exploits of America’s men at war in
Vietnam if it was to succeed in elevating Braniff into the jet age via the expansion of its
customer base.
The initial inspiration for Braniff’s new campaign was color. Throughout her team’s
research, Wells was most struck by its stark absence in airports and on planes: ‘[T]here wasno color. This was the sixties, mind you, when color was a hot marketing tool … [Harding
Lawrence] liked thinking about color; he reminded me that Braniff would be flying toplaces associated with brilliant color, Mexico and South America’.18 Indeed, color also had
deeper importance in the 1960s as a widespread design fad. As fashion historian Shirley
Kennedy notes,
One could not help but notice color everywhere. Colors vibrated and seemed to
explode on the Pucci silks, as they did on the Pop Art canvases of Lichtenstein,
Warhol, Wesselman, and Rosenquist … psychedelic rock concert posters, and theBeatles’ cartoon movie, The Yellow Submarine.19
Color was playful, young, and, as Lawrence noted, it recalled the alleged simplicity ofthe pre-modern cultures. Mary Wells conceded, ‘Color was my idea, but not really. There’s
no magic talent in advertising. Too many people don’t do their homework and find theobvious need’. 20 The need, as she saw it, was to wed the ultra-modern jet with theprimordial wonder of color.
Color ultimately infused everything that Braniff remade under Wells’ direction: ticket
counters, airport lounges, stewardess uniforms, and ad materials. But the original burst thatstarted this colorful makeover involved the planes themselves. As Wells notes, she firstconsidered having a fleet all in yellow, or orange, or indigo. Her art director drew
renderings of planes in these colors, then placed them on the floor for the staff to critique.
‘Then I asked him to do one with all different-colored planes’, recalls Wells. ‘When thatsketch hit the floor of the reception it was a thunderbolt, there wasn’t a doubt in my mind
16 Tiemeyer, Plane Queer, p. 58.
17 Vantoch, The Jet Sex, p. 175.
18 Wells Lawrence, Big Life in Advertising, p. 34.
19 Kennedy, Pucci, p.98.
20 Black, ‘Meet America’s Top Woman Exec’.

71PHIL TIEMEYER… Seven colors looked like a big idea and wow and friendly and it would be big news’.
Sharing the concept with Lawrence was also a surprisingly easy success: ‘When he studied
the sketches of his planes in seven different solid colors he was quiet for a minute. I don’t
think I breathed. Then he laughed. He said, and I will never ever forget it, ‘That will doit!’’21
Wells then made a second vital decision, one which tied the universally accessible
inclination to embrace color to more exclusivist impulses from high society. After all, she
did not employ a child-like adoption of color as one might find in a nursery school, or eventhe notionally ‘primitive’ collage of color that one would find in Mexican textiles. Instead,she delegated the implementation of Braniff’s color infusion to two of America’s andEurope’s top-name designers, both of whom were famous for their use of color: Emilio
Pucci from the fashion world and Alexander Girard from the interior design realm. By
effectively purchasing their aesthetic for use at the airline, Wells assured that Braniff’s
colors had a patina of elitism.
Pucci’s explosively colorful cocktail dresses were famous primarily because of thecelebrities who wore them. He had a coterie of rich patrons who would buy directly fromhis boutiques in Italy. By the mid-1960s, he was also exporting to department stores in the
US. But, as the accomplished author and Cosmopolitan editor Helen Gurley Brown recalls,
Pucci’s price point was prohibitive: ‘I remember seeing my first Pucci dress in Burdine’s
department store in Miami in 1963 when I was on a book promotion. “How long has thisbeen going on?” I asked myself and, though I didn’t think I could afford one—$190 for one
little skimp of a dress—I tried on four in fifteen minutes for sheer pleasure’.22 That Brown,a best-selling author, ruminated about whether she could afford Pucci’s creations speaks to
his exclusivity.
Ironically, this deployment of an elitist aesthetic was Braniff’s tool for democratizing air
travel. Braniff’s new customers would be drawn from two divergent income groups. The
first was comprised of those wealthy enough to partake in Girard’s and Pucci’s worlds as
consumers. Since this group, mainly consisting of business executives and their spouses,
likely was already accustomed to flying by plane, Braniff’s embrace of Jet Set glitz may
have been enough to lure them away from their competitors.23 Yet, more numerous were
customers with considerably less spending power, many of whom were first-time flyers in
the 1960s. In their case, too, there was an allure to the Braniff aesthetic. In an aviation
market strictly regulated both domestically and internationally, customers found eachairline offering the same fares to any desired destination. The only difference was the typeof aircraft flown—hence Braniff’s desire to catch up to competitors with more jets inservice—and the quality of service.
As advertising executives for Braniff’s competitor Pan Am researched the habits oftravelers with limited budgets, they found the following: ‘Once they [are committed to] pay
full fare, they are prepared to shop among competitive airlines on the basis of the comfort,
service, and enjoyment aspects of the trip’.24 With its new jets and Wells’ stylish overhaul,Braniff seemingly offered these customers more for their money. They lounged in Girard21 Wells Lawrence, Big Life in Advertising, p. 35.
22 As quoted in: Kennedy, Pucci, p. 7.
23 On the usage of the term ‘Jet Set’ to refer to an elite class of celebrities in the 1960s, see Stadiem, Jet Set.
24 J Walter Thompson Company Collections, ‘J. Walter Thompson Company Account Files, 1885-2008 andundated’, Box PA10, Folder ‘Research Reports 1969’, ‘Preliminary Exploration of Consumer Perceptions of the
747 Plane in England, France and Germany’, November 1969, p. 18.

72

Jet Age Feminism
styled airports, boarded planes decorated with bold fabrics and Latin American artwork
chosen by Girard, and they were served by hostesses who sported the same sort of Puccidesigned outfits as movie stars. These middle-class and working-class customers were
thereby offered an opportunity to partake in the ambiance they saw in movies and readabout on celebrity pages.
Braniff’s Pucci-clad hostesses also addressed—or at least diverted attention away from—a growing personnel crisis tied to the democratization of the jet era. With larger and fasteraircraft, customers were beginning to fear that air travel would become like mass transit:
utilitarian rather than exclusive, crowded and impersonal rather than enjoyable. In theparlance of Mary Wells’ ad campaign, air travel increasingly occurred on a ‘plain plane’. A
report commissioned by Pan Am just a few years later, in 1969, concluded that middleincome consumers were disappointed by increasingly large jets: ‘The impression of masstravel … underlines their basic concern about de-humanization. They feel the individual
passenger will be one of a mob and will not have the kind of personal attention theyseek’.25 Jumbo jets with upwards of 400 seats would soon exacerbate these concerns. Yet,already the first models of jets, including the 727s Braniff purchased in 1965, stirred
misgivings. While Braniff’s largest pre-jet plane, the DC-7C, seated 75 passengers, the new
727s could accommodate 154. Inevitably, passengers desiring a personal touch would more
frequently be disappointed.
As such, stewardesses faced increasingly unattainable expectations. As the Pan Am reportsummarized, ‘[C]onsumers … desire to be treated as individuals. Some of them are evensensitive to ‘cookie cutter’ pleasantness on the part of the stewardesses … They want toreally feel that some one cares about them as individuals’.26 However, flight attendants in
the Jet Age cared for more people and undertook the same work in a reduced amount offlying time. In a way, Braniff’s stewardess outfits offered a potential remedy. By turning
the aisle into a fashion runway, passengers might think of themselves more as spectators
than guests deserving high-quality service. They could participate in Jet Set sophistication,
but in an impersonal way attuned to the Jet Age reality of mass transportation.

II Jet Age Feminism Takes Off
A new wave of feminism hit the United States in the early 1960s. As activist Betty
Friedan’s 1963 best-selling book Feminine Mystique described, many middle-class andworking-class housewives were awakening to a sense of depression, even as their families
prospered:
Each suburban wife struggles with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped forgroceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children,chauffeured Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night—she wasafraid to ask even of herself the silent question—‘Is this all?’27
The 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protected women from discrimination in hiring andfiring for the first time, allowed feminists to increasingly seek equality in the workplace.
Financial independence through a lifetime of work could create more opportunities for
25 Ibid., p. 16.
26 Ibid., p. 18.
27 Friedan, Feminine Mystique, p. 57.

73

PHIL TIEMEYER
women, not only outside the home, but even potentially outside of marriage andchildrearing altogether.
Braniff’s flight attendant corps did not fit this more radical iteration of feminism. The
airline kept rules in place so that stewardessing could not serve as a life-long career,
primarily by firing women when they married or became pregnant. As a result, the average
duration of a stewardess’ career totaled 18 months, a reality which continued for several
years beyond passage of the Civil Rights Act. Managers also maintained beauty-based
hiring standards, the same as they were before 1964. In 1962, Braniff hired only those
women who were no larger than ‘5’7” and 130 pounds’ and possessed ‘an attractive,
wholesome, well-groomed appearance’. It also openly promoted its no-marriage policy as
virtuous for stewardesses: ‘the wealth of knowledge and experience gained from theirenriching and challenging career as a Braniff hostess contributed immeasurably to theirlater success as a homemaker’.28
By 1968, these standards had changed only slightly, with women two inches taller andfive pounds heavier allowed to apply. Also, in sync with the nation’s growing divorce rate,
the no-marriage policy was loosened, but only slightly:[A] young lady is qualified for employment as a Braniff hostess if she is 20 to 27
years old; from 5 feet, 2 inches to 5 feet, 9 inches tall with weight in proportion to herheight and not over 135 pounds; single, or a childless widow or divorcee unmarriedfor one year or more; has 20/50 vision in each eye without glasses; has at least a highschool education and good character, and is blessed with sound judgement, an
attractive appearance with a clear complexion and an attractive smile, a pleasantdisposition, even temperament and a pleasant sounding voice.
With such a focus on cultivating rigid notions of beauty, mention of a flight attendant’s
most important work seemed almost nonsensical: ‘While very few hostesses will everencounter any type of emergency situation … passenger safety is their primary function’.29
Not surprisingly given their focus on beauty, Braniff’s marketers also openly mocked themore radical feminism of Betty Friedan and others. For example, when the airline opened a
new training academy for flight attendants in 1967, it was heralded as an ‘ultra-modern andbeautiful edifice [that] has been artfully designed with the feminine mystique in mind’.
This use of Friedan’s own term ‘feminine mystique’—which in her book referred to
women’s degradation via cultural expectations to be conventionally beautiful—was highly
ironic, with the airline professing to promote exactly what Friedan fought against.
And while radical feminists fought for women to proceed from university educations into
life-long careers, Braniff again sought the opposite. Its new training facility was
sarcastically christened the ‘Hostess College’, but contained only five classrooms. There
were instead more extensive facilities for beautifying the stewardesses-to-be. Highlights
included the ‘Powder Puff Room … where girls learn the secrets of makeup and flawlesscomplexions’. And in place of a library, studying at the ‘college’ took place at the ‘the rowsof electric hair dryers where she may do some homework on jet aircraft passenger
configurations while her hair dries’.30
While clearly opposed to radical feminism, there was another iteration of a more limited
28 BC, Box 26, Folder 1, Press release, ‘Exacting Qualifications Remain Unchanged as Braniff Hostesses Hold
Silver Anniversary Party’, June 1962.
29 BC, Box 26, Folder 1, Press release, ‘A Braniff International Hostess Is…’, undated.
30 Ibid.

74Jet Age Feminism
feminism in 1960s America that Braniff’s flight attendants did embody, at least to a certain
extent. This rival to Friedan’s Feminine Mystique also was introduced by a best-selling
book: Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex and the Single Girl from 1962.31 Brown’s book had a coremessage that, like Friedan’s, supported women who entered careers and strove for financial
independence. The two parted ways, however, with Brown’s more open stance towards thesexual revolution, especially as it impacted women at work. For Brown, it was a positivethat some workplaces were ‘sexier than Turkish harems, fraternity house weekends ... or
the Playboy centerfold’.32 Accepting male sexual advances in the workplace as inevitable,
Brown counseled women to utilize these moments to advance their careers. A successful
woman would develop the skill of playfully dismissing certain advances and accepting
others in exchange for career assistance.
Brown wrote Sex and the Single Girl mainly as a how-to guide to assist the growing
numbers of unmarried women, primarily younger women, who entered the workforce andintended to stay until retirement. As historian Patricia Bradley notes, ‘When Brown
published her book, women between ages twenty-five and fifty-four were on the cusp of
exploding into the workforce, a group that increased 45 per cent from 1962 to 1975’.33
Thus, Braniff’s stewardesses were typical of a wave of ‘single girls’ (Brown’s term)
entering the workforce, even if they couldn’t aspire to a life-long career due to airlines’
marriage bans and other restrictions.
Brown stayed in the public eye and promoted her version of feminism well after her book
was published in 1962 and Friedan’s a year later. She was again making waves in 1965,
when she became editor of Cosmopolitan magazine and revamped it to be a standard-bearer
for single women. From her editorial role, she developed the notion of the ‘Cosmo girl’ or‘single girl’ (synonymous terms Brown employed) to designate a woman who wasfinancially independent, while also comfortable being sexy, dressing in conventionallyfeminine ways, and being sexually active in ways the woman herself saw fit. As long as
they overlooked the temporary nature of Braniff stewardesses’ jobs, Brown and her
devotees could look to Emilio Pucci, Mary Wells, and Braniff stewardesses as innovatorsof the single girl lifestyle, as practitioners of Jet Age feminism.
Brown treated Emilio Pucci as an important liberator for women. She saw an almost
political ferment in his fashions, likening Pucci’s impact on women to the Flapper fashionsof the 1920s. As Brown writes, ‘I think Emilio, some thirty years later, had somewhat thesame effect on American women. No, we weren’t exactly constricted or restrained byfashion or society like those twenties women, but he did help us express ourselves …
experience a new freedom, a sensuousness we hadn’t felt or shown before. The dresses
were spare, sexy, and liberating!’34 These same traits were true of Pucci’s Braniff uniforms:
they allowed stewardesses to negotiate their workplace and other spaces of modern life
with agility and grace and were the envy of many women who flew on Braniff in theensuing years.
Pucci heavily focused on sportswear throughout his career. Inspired by his passion foraviation, which culminated in his service as a pilot in the Italian Air Force during WorldWar II, he thrived when designing fashion for bodies in motion. After all, pilots of Pucci’s
generation commonly flew in cockpits exposed to the elements, which in turn forced pilots
31 The most authoritative account of Brown as a messenger of a rival form of feminism is found in: Scanlon,
Bad Girls Go Everywhere.
32 Brown, Sex and the Office, p. 183ff.
33 Bradley, Mass Media and Feminism, p. 11.
34 As quoted in: Kennedy, Pucci, p. 8.

75

PHIL TIEMEYER
to modify their clothing choices to adapt to this harsh environment. Most prized in the
cockpit was a combination of warmth and mobility: leather jackets that were sturdy andwarm, yet form-fitting to keep one’s arms free, and equally tight leather caps and goggles
that mitigated the harshness of the wind while still allowing maximal head movement. Withhis piloting career cut short by injury, Pucci after the war applied his aerial fashion
knowledge to the next-best thing: the ski slopes, which also demanded the samecombination of warmth and dexterity in harsh conditions. As his new career as a designer
was taking off, Pucci opened one of his first studios in the ritzy village of Gstaad in the
Swiss Alps, a haven for the younger, more active elite among the Jet Set, who helped alpine
skiing take root as a stylish and increasingly popular postwar leisure activity. Pucci’s outfits
became de rigueur in these exclusive hide-outs, as they mixed the durability and casualnessof leisure fashion with a luster more reminiscent of high fashion.
More broadly, this ideal of promoting mobility had long been standard for male fashions,as with the embrace over the 19th and 20th centuries of fitted slacks, tighter suits, and fewer
frills. However, Pucci brought to women this same emphasis on streamlined, form-fitting
clothing that maximized flexibility. As fashion historian Shirley Kennedy summarizes,‘Emilio Pucci created clothing with the idea of the body always moving: clothes mustmove comfortably with the wearer, as though she were perpetually on the ski slopes, and,off the rack, they must fit as if custom made’.35 By the time of his collaboration with
Braniff, Pucci had updated his aesthetic for active women, employing miniskirts, tights, orboth in combination: ‘Motion and movement are very important in our lives. A woman can
run to get a taxi in a short skirt and still look elegant, but if she runs in a long skirt, she
looks gauche’.36 When author Marilyn Bender summarized Pucci’s importance, she focusedon jet technology. Noting that the early 1960s was ‘the threshold of the Jet Age’, sheclaimed: ‘the Pucci dress was both symbol and passport of the new era. Fragile-looking but
indestructible, chic and sexy, it was the capsule wardrobe for the mobile woman glorying
in the body beautiful’.37
For Pucci, the embrace of psychedelic color also stemmed from his passion for aviation.
In his World War II piloting missions, he would fly at low altitudes to avoid enemy radar.
‘Pucci clearly recalled the constant movement and the kaleidoscope of colors that spreadout before him on these long missions’. For the women who were wealthy enough to buy
his dresses, however, there was a different impulse tied to this color rush. The vibrancy—
still sophisticated, thanks to Pucci’s following among the Euro-American Jet Set—was alsorisqué. It made some women feel uninhibited: ‘How did women dare go around city streetsin the 1960s’, asks Kennedy rhetorically, ‘wearing very bright, short, sexy, tight, clingy,
wildly printed clothes?’38
Yet, Pucci’s personal ambivalence about feminism belied a multivalence regarding his
fashion innovations: they could indeed be perceived as liberatory, but they could also
reinforce male dominance. Pucci himself strongly disavowed any advocacy of a moreradical feminism. When interviewed in 1964, he started with a sentiment that radical
feminists might applaud, advocating a subtler form of feminine beauty: ‘America has beenleft with the idea that a woman is sexy if her bust sticks out or if she has a thin waist’.
Holding up the petite and androgynous Audrey Hepburn, Pucci instead insisted, ‘It’s not
the inches of bust that make the difference, but what is inside’. As for Hepburn, Pucci
35 Ibid., p. 46.
36 As quoted in: Ibid., p. 139.
37 As quoted in: Ibid., p. 46.
38 Kennedy, Pucci, p. 9.

76

Jet Age Feminism
insisted, ‘Everything she has is fire inside’.
At the same time, however, Pucci attacked women’s aspiring to equality, especiallythrough work. He continued, ‘What is natural to the American woman is to compete withthe man in all fields. I think this makes her unhappy. If the end of man is work and creation,
the end of woman is home, children, friends, and culture, things that man hasn’t time topursue’. He admitted that ‘American women won’t accept’ his views, steeped in the
traditional ideology of separate spheres. But, it was women’s naïve efforts to enter men’s
spheres and vacate their own, in Pucci’s view, that prevented certain American womenfrom attaining happiness.
Pucci then added a short sentence to the interview that warrants closer analysis. In
detailing the undesirability of mixing spheres, he theorized about an unhappy woman: ‘This
girl becomes a secretary, goes to dinner with the boss, gets married, gets pregnant, lives insuburbia and joins women’s clubs’. Clear in this account is Pucci’s scorn for women who
refuse to accept the incompatibility of a career with women’s happiness found in family
life. The inferiority a woman experiences at work—her diminished role as secretary—leads
her to desire the power and wealth of her boss and allow the work relationship to become
something erotic. The man and woman—boss and secretary—then go through theostensible steps leading to a woman’s fulfillment: dinner, dating, marriage, pregnancy, andsettling down in the suburbs. Yet, Pucci’s concern is that this domestic life fails to content
some women; they end up ‘join[ing] women’s clubs’ in search of fulfillment, involving
themselves in the world of feminist activism. While Friedan encouraged housewives topursue their yearning for something more, Pucci sees this discontent as absurd: ‘Somethinghas been missed over there [in America]’.39
Stewardesses were much like the secretaries Pucci attacked. Each struggled to be treatedas career professionals and instead was expected to find a wealthier man to marry and thenquit work. For stewardesses, these men typically came from the pilot corps, airline
management, or the airplane’s First Class section. To facilitate such, Pucci, in his designs
for Braniff, adapted the cuts and colors of social clothing—the cocktail dress—worn toaccentuate roles like hosting, socializing, and sparking attraction in men. Of course, theseroles undercut women’s aspirations to be treated as professionals, while instead enhancing
their desirability as future spouses.
Meanwhile, Pucci’s commitment to separate spheres for men and women led him to erase
the military elements that marked stewardess attire from the beginning. Gone were the drab
colors and androgynous fits, as well as the decorative stripes and wings shared with pilots.
In justifying this overhaul, Pucci suggested merely that the uniforms were outdated, ‘Most
airplane stewardesses are dressed as if they are traveling by bus in the year 1925’.40 Yet,
Braniff’s copy writers elaborated more fully. They claimed the airline’s first stewardess in1937 was attired inappropriately, ‘looking as if she probably could fly the plane herself’,
and then credited Pucci with replacing ‘the severe, mannish uniforms’ with the feminine
touches of color and ‘culottes, leotards, wraparound skirts, scarf hats, derbies, serving
dresses’.41 Pucci added to this sentiment by jettisoning the term ‘uniform’ and instead
calling his Braniff creations a ‘couture collection’.
This ‘collection’ allowed stewardesses to sport four distinct looks on the same flight: anexterior layer anchored by a winter coat, a full suit with a wraparound skirt and zippable
blazer, then a lighter layer of culottes and a turtle-neck blouse. The fourth item, nicknamed
39 As quoted in: ‘Hero, scholar, jet-age Renaissance man, Italian style-setter: Pucci’ in Life, 16 Oct 1964, p. 70.
40 As quoted in: Kennedy, Pucci, p. 154.
41 BC, Box 27, Folder 3, Press release, ‘A Braniff International Hostess Is…’, undated.

77

PHIL TIEMEYER
the ‘Puccino’, was a colorful smock worn when serving food. Each item embodied the
combination of elegance, casualness, and sophistication that made Pucci’s designs so
desirable among celebrities and the ‘single girl’ set: form-fitting, above-the-knee styles thatmade women attractive while in motion.
Pucci intended for his layered creation to express the wonder of jet travel. The way hesaw it, Braniff’s jets would enable a surprisingly quick half-day transition from the icy
climate of Chicago to the balmy beaches of Rio de Janiero. The stewardess, trying to work
hard and still look glamorous through these drastic climactic changes, would benefit fromlayering. She could embark with a thick coat, gloves, and even a space-age plastic bubble
helmet (inspired by astronaut gear) to protect her hair from rain or snow, and slowly
transition her outfit while in flight. When she landed a few hours and several costume shifts
later, she would be clad in culottes and a lighter blouse, ready to say farewell to herpassengers on a sweltering tarmac.
By employing form-fitting but breathable and easily washable fabrics, Pucci scrupulously
considered the demands of stewardesses’ nomadic lives. He was also particularly proudthat the entire ensemble fit into an overnight bag. ‘In the future’, he noted, ‘all aninternational traveler would need add to such an ensemble would be a dress or two andaccessories for evening occasions’.42 As women identifying with Helen Gurley Brown’s‘single girl’ became more prosperous, Pucci offered a way for both designers andconsumers to enable women’s Jet Age mobility. After all, by 1964, there were thirteen
million single women in the US and another 23 million married women working outside
the home.43 Air travel would inevitably increase, even for women unchaperoned by men. In
sum, Pucci’s layered ‘couture collection’ was an innovation closely aligned with women’s
Jet Age yearnings to move well beyond the home.
That said, when Pucci passed along his designs to Braniff’s lead ad executive Mary
Wells, she saw major potential for an alternative use for the layered collection, one that wasmore perniciously sexist than Pucci himself envisioned. Braniff’s most frequent fliers, whotypically paid for full-fare First Class tickets, were unaccompanied men flying on business.
These men also experienced the most fatigue with flying, so if the ‘End of the Plain Plane’
campaign was to succeed, they needed to shift their travel to Braniff. To this end, Wells
decided that stewardesses discarding layers of clothing as they flew southward should do
so in the aisles, in full view of passengers. She christened this attraction the ‘Air Strip’, andmade sure that it would be heavily promoted in Braniff ads.
Business Week, one of the most-read publications among well-heeled men, offered astrong endorsement of the ‘Air Strip’. After first quoting Harding Lawrence, who notedthat Braniff was ‘adding sheer pleasure to the experience of flight’, the author then added
his own perceptions: ‘Indeed, a passenger might easily feel that he’s attending an airborne
striptease show when, right after takeoff, the hostesses peel off their pink uniforms toreveal the blue ones underneath’.44 A correspondent with London’s Sunday Mirror went
one step further, linking the ‘Air Strip’ with the recently released hit movie ‘Boeing
Boeing’, in which actor Tony Curtis secretly dated three flight attendants at the same time.
‘The things they get up to in the air these days!’ begins the article, ‘There was I, minding
my own business, 32,000 feet up on a flight from New York to Mexico when ... BoeingBoeing. She did it’. He continues, ‘The air hostess. She started to undress. Bang in the
42 AGA, Box ‘MAR 00105 D-4’, Folder ‘Girard Press - 01/1964 - 12/1965’, ‘World Fashion Press Acclaims
Pucci-Braniff Flight Fashions’ in The Braniff B-Liner, July 1965, p. 4.
43 Scanlon, Bad Girls Go Everywhere, p. 144.
44 ‘Braniff refuels on razzle-dazzle’ in Business Week, 20 Nov 1965, p. 110-11.

78Jet Age Feminism
middle of the aisle. Fasten your seat belts. There’s more to this than meets the eye. Because
four other hostesses were doing a similar air strip in other parts of the giant Boeing 720
jet’. Adding to his analysis, the author quotes a stewardess: ‘Said Carol: “It’s zip zip zip all
the way. The passengers seem to love it, and we think many fly Braniff just to see our act”’.
The author then concludes, ‘You could be right, Carol. You could be right’.45
Mary Wells made sure the ‘Air Strip’ received prominent play in the ‘End of the Plain
Plane’ campaign. She devised a media plan that involved a two-step placement innewspapers: on the first weekend, color ads boasting the ‘End of the Plain Plane’ would run
in 41 newspapers in 33 cities. Then, ‘A week later our second color newspaper ad will run
in the same 41 newspapers headlined, ‘Introducing the Air Strip’.’ To maximize Braniff’s
exposure to businessmen for the ‘Air Strip’, Wells followed up with TV ads during
American football broadcasts.46 The ‘Air Strip’ television ad begins with whistling music
common to striptease acts and then focuses on a stewardess, suggestively smiling at thecamera, in the process of disrobing through her various layers of colorful minis. It
concludes with a male voice-over—in the deep, slow tone of an emcee at a strip club—
exclaiming, ‘The Air Strip is brought to you by Braniff International, who believes thateven an airline hostess should look like a girl’.47
The debut of the ‘Air Strip’ found no serious opposition in the mainstream media.
Instead, it played a key role in fulfilling Harding Lawrence’s goal of filling seats on
Braniff’s new jets. By June 1966, the airline’s passenger traffic was up 48.7 per cent overthe previous year. Its revenue in the first full year of the campaign similarly rose by 42 per
cent.48 Meanwhile, the media’s only consideration of the ‘Air Strip’ from the perspective of
Braniff’s stewardesses fit the mold of Helen Gurley Brown’s ‘single girl’. The stewardessstressed a new-found freedom in Pucci’s clothes: ‘We love the new outfit. It makes you feellike a real female and not a busboy’.49

III Mary Wells Lawrence and the Classist Legacy of ‘Jet Age Feminism’
In a passage reminiscent of Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex and the Single Girl, Mary Wells
confessed in her autobiography that her work with Braniff inspired romance. She traced thespark to the very moment in mid-1965 that Harding Lawrence agreed to her plans to paintBraniff’s jets in a rainbow of colors. ‘That had to be the moment I fell in love with him’.
Married at the time to other people, Harding Lawrence and Mary Wells started one ofAmerica’s most high-profile office romances. As they worked their way through divorces,
they also worked together to mold Braniff into one of America’s fastest growing airlines.
When they wed in November 1967, Harding and Mary Wells Lawrence became one ofAmerica’s most high-profile ‘power couples’, each keeping their careers and pulling insalaries of over $100,000 per year, near the peak of executive pay scales at the time.
Mary Wells Lawrence thereby served as a corporate-class expression of Jet Age
feminism, which is both similar to and different from the working-class variety embodied,45 ‘The Air Strip’ in Sunday Mirror, 20 Mar 1966, p. 21.
46 BC, Box 34, Folder 2, Memo from Rex Brack to All Employees, 24 Nov 1965.
47 ‘Braniff International Presents the Air Strip’, Television Ad, December 1965. https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=7TZXryuhSMg
48 On passenger traffic see Newman, C., ‘Color It Colorless: Black and White Gain in Fashions and Homes’ inWall Street Journal, 08 Jun 1966, p. 1. On revenue see Loomis, C., ‘As the World Turns—On Madison Avenue’in Fortune, December 1968, p. 114.
49 ‘Wild Hue Yonder’ in Life, 03 Dec 1965.

79

PHIL TIEMEYER
though imperfectly, by Braniff’s stewardesses. She wasn’t exactly a ‘single girl’ when she
met Lawrence, but she was still relatively young (aged 37) and very much a working
woman. In fact, she succeeded quite spectacularly in the otherwise male-dominated field of
advertising. She also exercised a sexual agency that would endear her to Brown, managing
the minefield of come-ons from powerful men in the office, and striving with both her firstand second husbands to make marriage work in a dual-career household.
Wells Lawrence was a polarizing figure in women’s liberation circles. She was at once
praised for her successful career in a male-dominated world and her bold reworking ofmarriage to accommodate her professional aspirations, while also scorned for building her
own success by promoting sexism in her various marketing campaigns. Amongst moreradical feminists, even her egalitarian marriage to Harding Lawrence constituted grounds
for attack. The famous author and activist Gloria Steinem quipped, ‘Oh, well, Mary Wells
Uncle Tommed it to the top’, attributing Wells Lawrence’s formidable career successes toher cozy relationship with men like Lawrence.50 Furthermore, in her assessment of Wells
Lawrence’s career, media historian Patricia Bradley finds that she, ‘took no position on
feminism, took no particular interest (judging by her memoir) in promoting professional
women’s careers at her agency, and was not involved in the push to change women’s
images in advertising’.51
Despite enjoying far more class privilege, Wells Lawrence still shared elements incommon with her working-class counterparts. She too experienced unwelcome come-ons
from men while at work. Indeed, one of her bosses hired her based in part on his attraction
to her, thereby copying a formula for success that Helen Gurley Brown introduced in Sex
and the Single Girl. This sort of wagering about the risks and benefits of her boss’s
attractions was all too familiar to Wells Lawrence’s working-class counterparts in the
stewardess corps. Those who were savviest could artfully negotiate flirtations from pilots
and customers. But, if the man’s unreciprocated interest escalated, stewardesses and women
executives alike were forced to manage an unwelcome and potentially dangerous workplace
distraction.52
Mary Wells Lawrence stayed on as Braniff’s account executive for about a year after her
marriage to Harding Lawrence. During this time, the couple moved Mary’s children to
Dallas to live with Harding, while Mary maintained her home and office in New York. She
flew back to Dallas most Fridays, often meeting the family at the airport, so they could allcontinue further southward on Braniff’s evening flight to Acapulco. Between homes in
Dallas, New York, Acapulco, Arizona, and the Cote d’Azur, the family led a decidedly nontraditional life: ‘Harding and I are both naturally nomadic and our timing was good’,commented Wells Lawrence. ‘The jet was cutting the world in half, in fact the world was
fast becoming small’. 53 As such, the Jet Age was stimulating the social forces that
unleashed not only new iterations of feminism, but new constellations of marriage andfamily.
At the end of the first year of marriage, however, Braniff’s board of directors determinedthat the Wells-Lawrence marriage constituted a conflict of interest. Thus, somewhat
similarly to stewardesses, marriage led to an end of Mary Wells’ work for Braniff. In her
50 Raine, G., ‘Creative fizz: Mary Wells’ memorable ad campaigns for such clients as Braniff and Alka-Seltzer
helped make her the first woman to run a publicly traded company’ in San Francisco Chronicle, 30 May 2002.
51 Bradley, Mass Media and Feminism, p. 213.
52 For accounts of sexual harassment and other forms of abuse against stewardesses, see Panter Nielsen, FromSky Girl to Flight Attendant and Barry, Femininity in Flight.
53 Wells Lawrence, A Big Life in Advertising, p. 59.

80

Jet Age Feminism
case, however, the exit was quite lucrative. She was resourceful enough to lure a rival
airline, TWA, to sign on with her ad agency. As TWA was a larger airline, the payout forthis exchange was impressive: ‘In economic terms, [Wells’] agency would give up about$7.5 million in billings…and take on $22 million’. 54 The day the deal was announced,
writes Wells Lawrence, ‘was the day some of Madison Avenue’s old guard decided women
were dangerous to the advertising community and that I was not only an arriviste but thequeen of black widow spiders’.55
For Wells Lawrence, marriage was, thus, an effective business tool, enhancing her handin the aviation industry by combining her impressive connections with those of her
husband. Rather than an off-ramp into a life as wife and mother, as was the expectation for
stewardesses, Wells Lawrence’s marriage propelled her career ever higher. She also
maintained her financial and personal independence. As Wells Lawrence explains, ‘In 1967
when Harding and I married it never entered his mind or mine that I would leave [my firm],
that we would have a traditional marriage living and working in the same town’. This
reality, for her, was vitally important to feminism, even to the radical feminists with whom
she often clashed:
Betty Friedan established NOW in 1966 and … the psychological shift that the
women’s movement brought to society had not yet changed it. Long-distance marriage
was major news, and we were forever being interviewed about the details of ours.
There was just enough awareness about what Betty Friedan called ‘the problem thathas no name’, the growing sense that motherhood and housework were not enough forsome women, that our marriage was examined with respect, if not awe.56
What is missing from Wells Lawrence’s assessment is a sense of cross-class solidarity.
She was proud that both her trailblazing career and her unconventional marriage opened
new pathways for women. Yet, her work for Braniff, especially the ‘Air Strip’ campaign,
only reinforced an already sexist culture in aviation. Working-class women at Braniff
thereby found no opportunity to emulate Wells Lawrence’s successes, whether on the job orin her marriage. As such, Jet Age feminism disproportionately favored women in thecorporate class.
Support for stewardesses ultimately came from radical feminists, including the National
Organization for Women. Already in 1965, as Wells was masterminding the ‘End of thePlain Plane’ and the ‘Air Strip’, NOW and other groups began to support stewardesses’
grievances from across the airline industry. Their fight boiled down to one central claim,
which even Braniff admitted but refused to fully accept: that flight attendants were first andforemost safety professionals. Over the next decade, this vision prevailed, as courts
ultimately ordered that flight attendants be endowed with fuller authority.57 Braniff andother airlines which had imitated them then jettisoned the colorful, sexy uniforms of the Jet
Age feminist era and replaced them with more professional attire. These activists also
forced airlines, including Braniff, to end bans on marriage or pregnancy and to refrain fromusing stewardesses’ bodies as marketing material. As such, Pucci’s and Wells’ efforts in1965 to stimulate profit by deploying sexual arousal would ultimately be superseded by amore profound commitment to women workers’ equality. But for the better part of a
54 Loomis, ‘As the World Turns’, p. 194.
55 Wells Lawrence, A Big Life in Advertising, p. 101.
56 Wells Lawrence, A Big Life in Advertising, p. 59.
57 See Barry, Femininity in Flight, pp. 144-73, and Tiemeyer, Plane Queer, 80-108.

81

PHIL TIEMEYER
decade, their creations comprised one of the hottest trends in American and global aviation,
spreading the deeply compromised notion of Jet Age feminism widely.
References
Allyn, D., Make Love, Not War: The Sexual Revolution, An Unfettered History (New York, 2000).
Barry, K., Femininity in Flight: A History of Flight Attendants (Durham NC, 2007).
Bradley, P., Mass Media and the Shaping of American Feminism, 1963-1975 (Oxford MS, 2004).
Cass, R.B., Braniff Airways: Flying Colors (Mt. Pleasant SC, 2015).
Cott, N., The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven CT, 1987).
Ehrenreich, B., Hess, E.,and Jacobs, G., Re-Making Love: The Feminization of Sex (New York, 1986).
Friedan, B., The Feminine Mystique (New York, 50th Anniv. Edn., 2013).
Delis Hill, D., Peacock Revolution: American Masculine Identity and Dress in the Sixties and Seventies(2018).
Gurley Brown, H. Sex and the Single Girl (New York, 1962).
Gurley Brown, Sex and the Office (New York, 1964).
Kennedy, S., Pucci: A Renaissance in Fashion (New York, 1991).
Kessler-Harris, A., Out to Work: A History of Wage-Earning Women in America (New York, 2003).
Meyerowitz, J., ed., Not June Cleaver: Women and Gender in Postwar America, 1945-1960 (Philadelphia,
1994).
Panter Nielsen, G., From Sky Girl to Flight Attendant: Women and the Making of a Union (Cornell NY,
1982).
Rosen, R., The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America (New York,
2006).
Scanlon, J., Bad Girls Go Everywhere: The Life of Helen Gurley Brown (New York, 2010).
Stadiem, W., Jet Set: The People, the Planes, the Glamour, and the Romance in Aviation’s Glory Years(New York, 2014).
Tiemeyer, P., Plane Queer: Labor, Sexuality, and AIDS in the History of Male Flight Attendants (Berkeley
CA, 2013).
Vantoch, V., The Jet Sex: Airline Stuewardesses and the Making of an American Icon (Philadelphia PA,
2013).
Wells Lawrence, M., A Big Life in Advertising (New York, 2002).
Wolfe, T., The Right Stuff (New York, 1979).

82

History of Global Arms Transfer, 8 (2019), pp. 83-97

Pakistani Civil Aviation and U.S. Aid toPakistan, 1950 to 1961†
By S. WAQAR H. ZAIDI*
This paper is a preliminary exploration of the nature and extent of U.S. aid forPakistani civil aviation in the 1950s, and the relationship of this aid to the wider
political and economic ties forged between the two countries at that time. It
suggests that the United States was central in shaping the development ofPakistani civil aviation in this period, and that U.S. aerial aid was part of thewider capture of Pakistan into the U.S. military-strategic orbit in the fifties. The
paper in particular posits a connection between U.S. aid for Pakistani civil
aviation and the usefulness of Pakistan as a military ally in the Cold War. The
paper suggests that the growth of international civil aviation in Asia was to acertain extent driven by the United States and its geopolitical and commercial
concerns.
The years following the Second World War were transformative for national civil aviation
networks around the world. Networks suspended during the war were restarted orreconstructed, and new networks and airlines were created or expanded in newly sovereignstates. The burgeoning postwar industry literature on civil aviation showed rapidly
increasing numbers of aircraft, passengers, passenger-miles, and airlines.1 This expansion
was particularly prominent in Asia. In the decade following the war, large numbers ofcountries gained their independence, and as they did so looked to stabilize their newly
emergent sovereign territories whilst also acquiring markers of status, prestige, andmodernity.2 A modern and modernized national civil aviation network, and particularly its
most prominent public components, national airlines and international airports, fulfilled
these roles. This transformation in civil aviation was driven by technological change too.
The war had led to the development of new types of aircraft that promised faster, safer, andmore comfortable travel. It also drove the expansion of aviation industries in Britain andthe United States, which by 1945 were looking for new markets for their commercial
transport aircraft.3 These factors pushed the development of civil aviation in Asia, including
the replacement of older aircraft with newer ones, and the refurbishment of aerial facilities† Previous versions of this article have been presented at a workshop at the Research Institute for the History
of Global Arms Transfer at Meiji University in November 2018, and at the Thirteenth Annual Humanities andSocial Sciences conference at the Lahore University of Management Sciences in April 2019. I would like tothank participants at the workshop and the conference for their comments on this paper, especially Professors
Katsuhiko Yokoi, Kaori Takada, and Phil Tiemeyer. This paper would not have been possible without generous
support from the Meiji University Research Institute for the History of Global Arms Transfer and the Faculty
Initiative Fund at the Lahore University of Management Sciences.
* Author Affiliations: S. Waqar H. Zaidi, Associate Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,Lahore University of Management Sciences, Pakistan.
1 See for example: The Department of State, International Civil Aviation 1949-1950, p. 3.
2 Davies, Airlines of Asia since 1920.
3 See for example: Engel, Cold War at 30,000 Feet.

83

S. WAQAR H. ZAIDI
such as runways, air terminals and air control centres, and ground navigation equipment.
Asian aerial networks also developed and expanded because of the military and geopoliticalconcerns of the leading international aerial and imperial powers such as Britain, the UnitedStates and the Netherlands. Aerial networks across Asia kept open trade and communication
links, as well as their supply lines to their military forces and colonies in Asia.4
Pakistan was one of the many sovereign Asian nation-states which looked to build a newnational aviation system in the decades following the Second World War. The country
emerged in 1947 with few industrial resources and even fewer of the markers of modernity.
Its leadership was keen to grow its economy and modernize the country as quickly as
possible, and to expand its armed forces in order to stabilize the nation and defend it
against its neighbours. Civil aviation quickly emerged as one of several areas that appeared
to require growth and investment. The state needed civil aviation for the fundamentals ofnational governance; to be able to, for example, move its officials from city to city and city
to province. Pakistan was split into two wings, East and West Pakistan, with regional rival
India in between, and land transport networks were poor within each of the Wings too.
Although Pakistan had a pre-existing Indian colonial-era aerial network it could build on(including the subcontinent’s largest civilian airport, at Karachi), creating a sustainablenetwork that could satisfactorily bind the nation together appeared to be beyond thenational technical and economic capabilities of the Pakistani state and private Pakistanienterprise. Pakistan had from its very beginning been reliant on foreign assistance for its
nascent civil aviation infrastructure, but in the 1950s the state turned to the United States
for assistance for a far reaching program of aerial network building.
This paper is a preliminary exploration of the nature and extent of U.S. aid for Pakistani
civil aviation in the 1950s, and the relationship of this aid to the wider political andeconomic ties forged between the two countries at that time. It suggests that the UnitedStates was central in shaping the development of Pakistani civil aviation in this period, andthat U.S. aerial aid was part of the wider capture of Pakistan into the U.S. military-strategic
orbit in the fifties. The paper in particular posits a connection between U.S. aid forPakistani civil aviation and the usefulness of Pakistan as a military ally in the Cold War.
There is a growing literature on twentieth century aviation which is now moving awayfrom earlier heroic narratives, and exploring its political, economic, and cultural aspects inexciting and informative ways, and connecting aviation history to the wider history of thetwentieth century.5 The development of aviation in Asia remains poorly explored in thisregard, however, and the role of transnational currents and connections even less so. R.E.G.
Davies’ classic work, Airlines of Asia since 1920, remains the only major synoptic
overview of civil aviation in Asia. Although wide-ranging, the book essentially consists ofseparate studies of national civil aviation systems, with little connection to international or
global wider social, political, and cultural currents.6 A steadily growing number of nationalcase studies are connecting to wider national socio-political currents, though totransnational connections are still scarce. Military connections and considerations moreoverremain largely absent or only obliquely alluded to this literature.7
4 See for example: Hingham, Speedbird, pp. 97-100, 111-116, 118-119, 130.
5 Some recent examples are: Hiatt, The Rarified Air of the Modern; Van Vleck, Empire of the Air; Piglia,‘“Carry our colours and defend our interests under the skies of other Continents”’; Taylor, ‘From Turbulent Skies
to Calmer Air Currents’.
6 Davies, Airlines of Asia since 1920. A more succinct and temporally limited overview is: Baumler, ‘Aviation
and Asian Modernity 1900–1950’.
7 On Asia see for example: Raguraman, ‘Airlines as Instruments for Nation Building and National Identity;
Young, Aerial Nationalism.

84

Pakistani Civil Aviation and U.S. Aid to Pakistan, 1950 to 1961
There is nevertheless a small literature on the politics of U.S. involvement in Asian
aviation which provides an important backdrop for this paper. This literature shows that theUnited States had a deep interest in aerial development in Asia for commercial andgeopolitical reasons. Jenifer Van Vleck has argued that U.S. aerial expansion in Asia (andelsewhere) was an ‘empire of the air’ which sustained U.S. influence or dominance,
military, cultural, and economic, around the world.8 Her study of U.S. funding for Afghan
civil aviation in the 1950s and 1960s points to the wider modernization and Cold War
impulses driving U.S. aid at that time.9 Jeffrey Engel has meanwhile explored AngloAmerican rivalry in commercial aviation in the decades following the Second World War,noting in particular the extension of this rivalry to the Soviet Union and China.10 On theother hand there are some significant case-studies of U.S. funding of aerial development in
the near east. James Gormly’s study of the U.S. construction of the Dhahran air base in
Saudi Arabia in late 1945 also emphasizes Anglo-American rivalry (this time in the Middle
East), and is noteworthy because of the connections it makes between military and civilian
aviation.11

I The Birth of Pakistani Aviation
Aviation in the Indian subcontinent has a rich history stretching back to early 1911, though
it was in the 1920s and 1930s when the British state developed an air route from Britain to
India, and eventually beyond to South East Asia. As well the British airline Imperial
Airways, local Indian airlines were also setup in the thirties and during the Second World
War, the most famous perhaps Tata Air Services (later Tata Air Lines) launched in 1932.
One such airline, Orient Airways, launched by prominent Muslim businessmen in May
1947, shifted from its base in Calcutta to Karachi following Partition, and became
Pakistan’s premiere civil airline. The airline was small. It operated mostly ex-U.S. military
Douglas ‘Dakota’ DC-3s left over from the war, and was soon joined by an even smaller
operation, Pak Air Limited.12
By 1950 however the Pakistani state had decided that Pakistan’s private airline industry
needed to be nationalized. Although the reasoning behind nationalization is yet to be
explored by historians, it is clear that, at the very least, a number of crashes and accidents
raised safety concerns, and ongoing tensions with India continued to cause anxiety over the
security of the existing air route between East and West Pakistan. Orient Airways Dakotas
flying from Karachi to Dhaka needed to stop en route in India for refuelling, which meantthat India could cut off the route at any time. Given ongoing tensions between the twocountries this was a real concern. In 1951 a new technical solution presented itself: thelaunch of the long distance L-1049 Super Constellation airliner by the U.S. aerospacecompany Lockheed. The airliner, though expensive, promised new levels of speed, comfort,
capacity, and operational range. Within three years it was in operation in the United Stateswith Eastern Airlines and Trans World Airlines, and internationally with Air France, KLM,
and Trans-Canada Airlines. Qantas and Air India acquired it too.13 Crucially for Pakistanipolicymakers the aircraft could fly nonstop between Karachi in West Pakistan to Dhaka in
8 Van Vleck, Empire of the Air, pp. 1-17.
9 Van Vleck, ‘An Airline at the Crossroads of the World’.
10 Engel, Cold War at 30,000 Feet, pp. 104-117, 187-215, 221-251, 277-289.
11 Gormly, ‘Keeping the Door Open in Saudi Arabia’.
12 Davies, Airlines of Asia since 1920, pp. 1-25, 63-66.
13 Francillon, Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, pp. 309 – 314; Breffort, Lockheed Constellation, pp. 82-89.

85

S. WAQAR H. ZAIDI
the east. The plane was however too expensive for Orient to lease, purchase, or maintain.
The State, it appeared, needed to step in and purchase the aircraft. This was duly done in
1954. The new non-stop L-1049C Super Constellation service connecting East and West
Pakistan was inaugurated in June of that year, and the concurrent nationalization of Orient
Airways was completed with the formation of the Pakistan International Airline
Corporation in 1955, into which Orient was incorporated. In February 1955 Pakistan
International Airlines (PIA) launched its first trans-continental air service, between Karachi
and London via Cairo and Rome, using the new long-distance aircraft.14 The acquisition of
the L-1049C Super Constellation, and the subsequent nationalization of the Pakistani civil
aviation industry and the creation of PIA was made possible, as the rest of this paper
shows, through loans, grants, and technical assistance from the United States.

II U.S. Aims for Military Aviation in West Asia
U.S. interest in the area subsequently known as West Pakistan, from an aerial point of view,
had in fact emerged as part of a wider interest in military aerial routes across Asia during
the Second World War. As early as 1942 the U.S. set about developing air routes across theMiddle East and India to supply Allied forces in the Far East. The establishment of the U.S.
Tenth Army Air Force in India by March 1942, and the closure of the lower portion of the
Burma Road for supplies into Burma and China, led to the development of a U.S. air routeconnecting the Middle East to India and then onwards to China. Pan American, which was
already supplying aircraft to the U.S. military for transport, transferred ten DC-3s from its
trans-Africa route to inaugurate the India-Burma-China route. The development of theroute involved investment in ground aerial facilities, road links, ports and otherinfrastructure, particularly at the six Indian airbases and airports which hosted large
numbers of U.S. army air forces. Karachi airport, then the largest commercial airport incolonial India, was one of the most important of these six. This airport was requisitionedby the Indian government for military use, and was extended and refurbished at significant
cost in order to carry and service the increasingly heavier troops, equipment, and supplies
heading east.15 The U.S. Tenth and Fourteenth Army Air Forces, as well as Air Transport
Command, used the airport extensively. Air Technical Service Command establishedextensive maintenance and depot facilities at Karachi, and its air strips were hardened andlengthened to accommodate heavy military transports and bombers.16
This interest extended readily from the exigencies of the Second World War to Cold War
concerns into the postwar period. On the one hand this extension was driven by the logic of
U.S. airbase construction and planning on the ground. The United States acquired andinvested in a number of foreign airbases, airstrips, and airports for military use during thewar. But in some cases airfields were not fully ready in time. This was the case for the
Dhahran airfield in Saudi Arabia. U.S. wartime interest in the construction of a large airbase in the Middle East to handle the increasing air traffic towards India (and onwards toChina and the Far East) led to negotiations with Saudi Arabia for the development of asmall pre-existing airstrip at Dhahran. Opposition from Britain, amongst other factors, led
14 Andrus and Mohammed, The Economy of Pakistan, pp. 66-67.
15 Craven and Cate (eds.), The Army Air Forces in World War II volume 2, pp. 7-8; ‘Memorandum by the Joint

Chiefs of Staff to the State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee’. The six major stations were: Karachi Airport,
Agra Airport, Kharagpur-Dudkhundi Air Base, Calcutta Air Base, Dum Dum Airport, and Barrackpore Airport;
see: ‘Memorandum by the Acting State Member, State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee (Hickerson)’.
16 Plating, The Hump, chapter 3; Daugherty III, The Allied Resupply Effort, pp. 63-65.

86Pakistani Civil Aviation and U.S. Aid to Pakistan, 1950 to 1961
to delays, and the war was already over by the time an agreement was reached with the
Saudis. The United States nevertheless continued with the construction of the Dhahran Air
base as part of its wider global aerial military infrastructure. The wartime rationale, that thebase was required to wage the war in the Pacific, was replaced by a postwar concern withsecuring supply lines to U.S. forces occupying Asia, and keeping Soviet power in check.
Construction was begun in late 1945 and completed in 1946. The base was run by the U.S.
military until 1962 when control was handed over to Saudi Arabia, though the basecontinued to be used by the U.S. military for many years afterwards.17
On the other hand, the United States military highlighted Asian air bases as a crucialcomponent of its strategic planning, during the war, for the postwar period. The usefulnessof foreign air bases had become apparent during the war, and the U.S. military beganplanning for the postwar period in 1943. The first detailed proposal (which included
deployed strength numbers) was produced in the American Air Force’s June 1944 Initial
Post-War Air Force Plan. The plan highlighted the need for a string of overseas air bases tocontain potential postwar threats to the United States, and to strike out at adversaries.
Planning continued into 1945, and soon involved the navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff aswell. By July 1945 American Air Force planners were hoping to acquire (at the very least)
military air transit and landing rights for more than 125 sites excluding those in U.S.
overseas territories, or more than 150 including U.S. overseas possessions. This planningincluded the requirement for rights for a string of Asian airports and bases in order tomaintain aerial connections from Europe eastwards into Asia. One Joint Chiefs of Staff
report prepared in January 1946 suggested a major east-west aerial artery from Casablanca
to Algiers, Tripoli, Cairo, Dhahran, Karachi, Agra, Kharagpur, Rangoon, Bangkok, Saigon,
and Manila. 18 In one November 1946 memorandum to the British Embassy the State
Department pointed out that the United States had contributed over USD 12 million for the‘enlargement of existing commercial air fields’ in Egypt, India, and Burma, and requested
that the United States receive similar military usage right as the British government to key
Indian airports and airbases: the Dudhkundi and Barrackpore airbases (now in the Indianstate of West Bengal), and Karachi Airport. The memo suggested that these rights include‘Rights for landing, fueling, repair and if desired, the continuing right to retain, or later
station, up to 100 air force personnel’ for Britain and the United States. This military use
was to extend to frontline offensive or defensive action: the bases, the State Department
suggested, could be used by Britain and the U.S. to carry out ‘such enforcement measures
as may be directed by the Security Council’.19
This planning extended to the use of atomic weapons. Early postwar war plans envisagedbombing raids into the Soviet Union from a string of airbases close to the country’s
borders. Asian bases were especially important as they allowed U.S. bombers to hit targets
deep within the Soviet Union which otherwise would not have been accessible. Air bases in
Egypt and north/north-west India were valued because of their generally excellent weather
conditions, and their ability to strike significant targets in the Soviet Union. War plans
highlighted Karachi as one such staging point for these strikes. U.S. bombers setting out
from Karachi airfields would have carried not only conventional explosives (and possibly
chemical weapons), but atomic bombs too – one March 1948 war plan emphasized Karachi,
alongside bases in the UK and Okinawa, as a crucial launching site for bombers laden with
17 Gormly, ‘Keeping the Door Open in Saudi Arabia’.
18 Converse III, Circling the Earth, pp. 51-55, 107-108, 135, 138; Leffler, ‘The American Conception of

National Security’; ‘Memorandum by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee’.
19 ‘The Department of State to the British Embassy: Aide-Memoire’.

87

S. WAQAR H. ZAIDI
atomic bombs.20 Karachi’s importance was boosted by the realization that bases in Turkey
and Egypt would be increasingly vulnerable to aerial attack as the Soviet Union developed
a new generation of longer range bombers in the late forties. The 1948 Frolic war plan, forexample, omitted Turkey and Egypt as launching sites for aerial strikes for this reason.21
There was also significant debate over whether or not a U.S. air base in Karachi could be
defended against Soviet attack. One criticism was that the defence of Karachi required themaintenance of supply lines across the Middle East, and so if the Middle East needed to be
defended anyway, it might be more efficient to concentrate U.S. defences there, along withthe country’s near east bomber fleet.22
Notwithstanding these concerns, Karachi’s port and proximity to the Middle East added
to its attraction as a base of military operations. One 1949 Joint Chiefs of Staff study notedthat ‘the Karachi–Lahore area in Pakistan may, under certain conditions, become ofstrategic importance. In spite of tremendous logistic difficulties, this area might be required
as a base for air operations against central USSR and as a staging area for forces engaged
in the defense or recapture of Middle East oil areas.’ The study suggested that the U.S.
‘endeavor to make commercial arrangements which would, in emergency, facilitate
development for operational use of base facilities in the Karachi–Lahore area.’ 23 Moredetailed military plans envisaged that in the event of Soviet hostilities in the Middle East,
carrier air and land-based air assaults would support amphibious assaults from Karachi
onto Bandar Abbas, Qatif, and Bahrain, and then onto Kuwait, Basra. 24 The military
recognized that Karachi air base would however need to undergo another series of(expensive) refurbishments to allow it to function as a base for atomic operations, and eventhough later war plans moved Karachi down the priority list of atomic air bases, themilitary nevertheless suggested that planning for this refurbishment should be undertaken.25

III U.S. Aid and Pakistani Aviation
The Pakistani state had been keen to align itself with the United States in return for militaryand economic aid since Partition. As early as May 1947, even before the creation of
Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah met with U.S. diplomats in India and requested U.S. aid,
arguing that Pakistan would promote U.S. interests by standing against the Soviet Unionand Indian expansionism.26 In October 1947, shortly after independence, the Pakistani
government issued a formal request to the U.S. State Department for military and economic
assistance. The amount requested was enormous, USD 2 billion over a five year period,
consisting of USD 700 million for industrial development, USD 700 million for agriculturaldevelopment, and USD 510 million for defence. The defence amounts included USD 170
million for the army, USD 75 million for the air force, and USD 60 million for the navy.
‘This would involve virtual U.S. military responsibility for the new dominion’ was one
20 Converse III, Circling the Earth, p. 113, 172. Ross, American War Plans, p.71.
21 Ross, American War Plans, p. 71. On the politics of the Abu Sueir airbase in Egypt see: Colman, ‘The 1950

“Ambassador’s Agreement” on USAF Bases in the UK’.
22 Ross, American War Plans, pp. 72-74, 87. See also: Cohen, Fighting World War Three From the Middle
East, p. 21, 22, 44.
23 ‘Report by the SANACC Subcommittee for the Near and Middle East’; McMahon, ‘United States Cold War
Strategy in South Asia’.
24 Ross, American War Plans, p. 88.
25 Ross, American War Plans, p. 74; Cohen, Fighting World War Three, p. 22. Karachi may have been moved
down the priority list because of British intervention, who pointed out adverse Indian reaction and probable
Pakistani demands for greater aid and diplomatic support. Cohen, Fighting World War Three, p. 22.
26 Venkataramani, The American Role in Pakistan, p. 1; Larson, ‘United States-Pakistan Relations’, p.15.

88

Pakistani Civil Aviation and U.S. Aid to Pakistan, 1950 to 1961
astonished response from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.27
U.S. policymakers believed that Pakistan could be of immense geopolitical value to theUnited States, but were not willing to upset India by acquiescing to Pakistan’s requests forlarge amounts of aid. A 1949 report by a White House staff assistant captured the wider
sense of Pakistan’s strategic significance for the United States. He emphasized its proximity
to both the Soviet Union and the Middle East oil fields; its potential to defend both theIndian Ocean and the Indian subcontinent; the fact that it was the most populous Muslim
nation in the world; and finally its army, which was substantially better than any in the
Middle East. 28 Nevertheless, India’s size and prominence could not be ignored in any
consideration of its reaction to support for Pakistan, and so U.S. assistance was largely of atoken sort in the late forties. In response to the 1947 request the U.S. only provided USD
10 million of emergency aid for refugees. This was followed in May 1948 by the provisionof 30 AT-6 military training aircraft and spare parts for the Pakistan army’s Stuart andSherman tanks and various tracked carriers.29
There was however more willingness to provide assistance to build up civil aviation in
Pakistan due to Karachi’s strategic position along the major Middle East to Asia aerial
route, and its location in relation to the Soviet Union. Support for Pakistani civil aviation
was part of a wider U.S. strategy to build up civilian aerial infrastructure in key allied
states in west Asia. An April 1950 (that is pre-Korean War) Department of State Policy
Statement on Pakistan emphasized the need to ‘assist Pakistan to maintain adequate air,navigation and communications facilities, together with a sound domestic air transportsystem’ in order to allow for maximum commercial aerial transit through the country, andeven the picking up of passengers in Pakistan for further travel east or west (the so-called‘fifth freedom traffic’). U.S. airlines, in addition, needed to maintain air services to thecountry.30 Through the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act (which provisioned for U.S. information andcultural exchanges abroad) and the International Aviation Facilities Act Congress
authorized the Civil Aeronautics Administration to send teams of advisors to foreigncountries to assess civil aviation needs. The first teams were sent to Turkey and Pakistan.31
One outcome of this visit was that Karachi airport received a state of the art USD 180,000
General Electric ‘High Intensity Runway and Approach Lighting System’ in 1949, giving
the airport one of the most advanced lighting systems in Asia.32
As concern over the spread of Communism in Asia grew from 1950 onwards, especiallyfollowing the onset of the Korean War, U.S. policymakers became more responsive tocontinuing Pakistani requests for economic and military assistance.33 More fearful ofCommunist aggression, and concerned with protecting Middle Eastern oil supply if a global
war broke out with the Soviet Union, policymakers once again focused on the possibility ofPakistani military support in the Middle East. State Department representatives meeting in
Colombo in February 1951 concluded that ‘the most effective military defense of this area
would be provided by strong flanks which on the west must include Pakistan…Pakistan
27 Venkataramani, The American Role in Pakistan, pp. 16-26; ‘Report by the SANACC Subcommittee for the
Near and Middle East’.
28 ‘Notes on Pakistan’ in Stephen J. Spingarn Papers (26 October 1949), cited in McMahon, ‘United States
Cold War Strategy’.
29 Venkataramani, The American Role in Pakistan, pp. 16-26, 48-50; Larson, ‘United States-Pakistan
Relations’, p.19; ‘Report by the SANACC Subcommittee for the Near and Middle East’.
30 ‘Department of State Policy Statement’.
31 Van Vleck, ‘An Airline at the Crossroads of the World’; Franck, ‘The Interchange of Government Experts’.
32 ‘News Digest’.
33 Larson, ‘United States-Pakistan Relations’, p. 44.

89

S. WAQAR H. ZAIDI
can provide important ground forces now, either directly in [Southern Asia] or to theMiddle Eastern flank.’ At a meeting at the Pentagon in May of that year the Assistant
Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African affairs flatly stated that ‘With
Pakistan, the Middle East could be defended, without Pakistan, I don’t see any way to
defend the Middle East.’34
U.S. military and economic support, however, was effectively blocked by British
concerns over the impact on relations with India and by a wider lethargy within the Truman
administration. Requests for military aid, such as that by a high-level Pakistani delegationin July 1952, went unfulfilled. It was only when Eisenhower won office that the U.S.
moved to cement an alliance with Pakistan. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles andMutual Security Administrator Harold E. Stassen visited Pakistan in May 1953 as part of athree-week tour of the Middle East and South Asia. They returned with the suggestion that
the U.S. abandon hopes for defending the Middle East through Egypt, as the British had
been suggesting, and instead invest in the ‘northern tier’ countries as the key to the defenseof the region: Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. By the time Commander-in-Chief of
the Pakistani army General Ayub Khan visited the U.S. later that year to (once again)
request military aid, U.S. policymakers were already moving towards the conclusion thatthey needed to supply Pakistan militarily. Ayub was assured that aid would soon beforthcoming. In January 1954 Eisenhower approved military assistance for Pakistan, and in
February Washington publicly announced this commitment. In May Pakistan and theUnited States signed the Mutual Defense Assistance (MDA) Agreement, which formallycommitted the U.S. to military and economic support for Pakistan. Pakistan also built
closer ties with U.S. allies and joined alliances sponsored by the United States. Most
prominently in September 1954 Pakistan joined the South East Asian Treaty Organization,and in 1955 the Baghdad Pact (later known as the Central Treaty Organization).35
Initially, in late 1954, the United States put together an official MDA aid package worth
USD 105.9 million, composed of USD 75.6 million in commodity assistance, USD 5.3
million in technical assistance, and USD 25 million for defense support. In addition asecond agreement committed the U.S. to equip four Pakistani army infantry and 1.5
armored divisions, to provide aircraft for six air force squadrons, and supply twelve naval
ships. This military aid was at that time costed at USD 171 million spread over several
years, of which USD 50 million was expected to be spent in the coming fiscal year.36 Overthe years the cost of fulfilling this commitment ballooned. U.S. reports in 1956 estimatedthat the October 1954 commitments would cost USD 505 million, with an additional U.S.
military aid commitment of USD 100 million per year.37 The financial appendix to NSC
5701 estimated a total Military Assistance cost of USD 410 million over the four years
1957 to 1960, and a Defense Support cost of USD 374.7 million over the same period.38
Although there were significant concerns over the swelling costs of the militarycommitment to Pakistan, as well as doubts about the country’s political and economic
stability (and even its ability to effectively deploy forces in the Middle East), the UnitedStates remained committed to its military promises. This was due not only to a sense thatthe administration would lose face by backing out, but also because of increasing tensions
34 McMahon, ‘United States Cold War Strategy in South Asia’.
35 McMahon, The Cold War on the Periphery, pp. 153-173; ‘Memorandum of Discussion at the 147th Meetingof the National Security Council’; Venkataramani, The American Role in Pakistan, pp. 301-303.
36 Kux, The United States and Pakistan, pp. 68-69; Venkataramani, The American Role in Pakistan, pp. 318,333.
37 Kux, The United States and Pakistan, pp. 83-84.
38 Venkataramani, The American Role in Pakistan, pp. 335.

90

Pakistani Civil Aviation and U.S. Aid to Pakistan, 1950 to 1961
with Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt (which would lead to a full blown crisis in July 1956
following Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal). There were concerns also thatleading pro-Western Pakistani politicians would lose domestic support if the U.S. watereddown its commitments.39
New technologies also made Pakistan more useful for surveillance of the Soviet Union.
In the mid-fifties Pakistan gave permission for the U.S. to set up a communications
intercept center at Badaber, ten miles from Peshawar. The facility, run by the U.S. National
Security Agency, carried out electronic monitoring of Soviet communications in the late
50s and 60s. More importantly, by 1956, the United States was ready to launch a new spy
plane, the Lockheed U-2, which could take high quality surveillance photographs whilst
flying at high attitude over the Soviet Union. Pakistan’s proximity to the Soviet Union
made it an ideal launching site, and U.S. interest in Pakistani military infrastructure, and air
facilities in particular, increased even further. By 1957 the Central Intelligence Agency wasregularly launching flights from a military airbase near Peshawar to overfly the Soviet
Union and China. It was also flying the U-2 along Soviet border areas (and occasionally
into Soviet airspace), and used airfields in Lahore (Pakistan), Adana (Turkey), and Meshad
and Zahedan (Iran) for this purpose, alongside Peshawar. The U-2 spy plane shot downover the Soviet Union in 1960, which led to the capture of the U.S. pilot Gary Powers andsubsequent crisis in U.S-Soviet relations, had taken off from Peshawar.40
As the idea of military support for Pakistan became increasingly acceptable to U.S.
policymakers in late 1953, interest in Pakistan’s aerial facilities also increased. An April
1954 RAND report, Selection and Use of Strategic Bases included Pakistan in its list of
possible locations for air bases for U.S. strategic (that is, nuclear weapons) use over the
coming six years.41 There was also concern with the growing reach of Soviet bombers: one
strategic report highlighted Karachi airport and Pakistani military airfields as now being
under Soviet threat. 42 There were press reports of U.S. interest in Pakistani air bases.
Military analyst Hanson Baldwin speculated in the New York Times in late 1953 that
Pakistan was to receive military aid because of it strategically located air bases which
would ‘make more vulnerable to attack Soviet positions in Southwestern Asia.’ China andthe Soviet Union formally objected to a military aid-for-air-bases deal, and there were
public demonstrations against this supposed deal in India.43
There was no aid-for-air-base deal. Nevertheless the 1954 Mutual Aid package did
include a small but not inconsequential amount for the improvement of military air fields:
one Senate report noted that USD 1 million was earmarked for the ‘improvement andexpansion’ of Pakistani aviation facilities for 1955.44 This and subsequent amounts would
not only be of use to the Pakistani military but to the United States as well. This use could
potentially extend much beyond the U-2, and along the lines envisaged in earlier U.S.
planning. One July 1959 interagency study highlighting Pakistan’s military value to theUnited States noted that Pakistani airfields and other military installations ‘constructedwith U.S. assistance and to U.S. specifications’ were of ‘potential value to U.S. strategic air
39 Kux, The United States and Pakistan, pp. 83-85, 91-92; McMahon, The Cold War on the Periphery, p. 208.
40 McMahon, The Cold War on the Periphery, p. 267; Polmar, Spyplane, pp. 108-110, 154. On Badaber see

also: ‘Airgram A–550 from the Embassy in Pakistan to the Department of State, October 6, 1969’.
41 Wohlstetter et al., Selection and Use of Strategic Air Bases, p. 40.
42 ‘U.S. Studies Middle East Airlines’.
43 McMahon, The Cold War on the Periphery, p. 173-75.
44 Mutual Security Appropriations for 1956, p. 669. Military aid for Pakistani air force facilities andinfrastructure would increase over the next few years; key project work included the development of airfields at
Karachi, Sargodha, and Peshawar: Grathwol and Moorhus, Bricks, Sand, and Marble, pp. 96-104.

91

S. WAQAR H. ZAIDI
operations in the event of hostilities’.45
By 1954 there was interest too in helping Pakistan develop its civilian aerial
infrastructure. By that time the U.S.’s development of national civil aviation networks andfacilities in the near east had already shifted much beyond Saudi Arabia. TWA wasmanaging Ethiopian Airlines as well as Saudi Arabian Airlines, Pan American was assisting
Middle East Airlines, and California-based Trans-Ocean Air Lines was involved with the
management of Iranian Airways and Air Jordan. There was however some dissatisfaction
with the lack of a co-ordinated U.S. policy for civil aviation in the region: later that year
the Civil Air Attaché for the Middle East would claim that ‘a regional rather than countryby-country program seems essential’ to overcome the structural economic and regulatory
problems that bogged civil aviation development in the region.46 In mid-1954 the Foreign
Operations Administration commissioned civil aviation industry experts to prepare a more
systematic approach to U.S. aid in the region (including in particular Pakistan). ‘Our
purpose is to build up these local carriers’, noted the lead consultant in an interview with
Aviation Week magazine, ‘for it has been realized that in order to contain communism wemust also build up the standard of living of the people.’ The consultants mostly had
experience working for U.S. airlines abroad, and were to apply their experience to the neareast. The lead consultant was a retired rear admiral and former President and generalmanager at United’s Mexican subsidiary. He was assisted by a former vice president ofAmerican airlines in Mexico, an economist also formerly employed by United’s Mexican
subsidiary, and a fourth consultant who had been a pilot for Overseas National Airways
during the Korean airlift, as well as for China Airways and Pan American. The lead
consultant noted that one successful model of assistance that the consultants would look toapply to the near east would be TWA’s management of Ethiopian Airlines.47
Aid for Pakistan’s civil aviation infrastructure was now possible because military
assistance had opened the doors for a vastly expanded program of non-military aid. Nonmilitary aid had already begun on a small scale in 1951 as part of Truman’s new ‘Point
Four’ assistance program. Named after point four of his 1949 inaugural address, theprogram was authorized by the 1950 Act for International Development, and sought toprovide technical aid and investment for economic uplift and prosperity. A somewhat
enlarged program was initiated in 1952 as part of the Mutual Security Program under theauthority of the Mutual Security Act of 1951. This aid was expanded greatly once Pakistan
became eligible for military assistance in 1954. In additional to military aid Pakistan was
now eligible for additional ‘substantial defense support designed to maintain economic
stability and strengthen defense capabilities’. Moreover, as a later report by the Comptroller
General noted, Pakistan’s status as a military ally now changed the tenor of the nonmilitary aid program. After 1954 the ‘nature and direction of United States aid wereincreasingly determined by military and foreign policy objectives. Since fiscal year 1955,
the program has been designed primarily to sustain and expand the country’s economy as ameans of maintaining political stability and strengthening military defenses in the area,
thereby contributing to the security of the United States and its allies.’ 48 In June 1954
45 McMahon, The Cold War on the Periphery, p. 267.
46 ‘Memorandum by the Civil Air Attaché for the Middle East (Thayer) to the Officer in Charge of Lebanon–

Syria Affairs (Allen)’. Also: Williams, ‘Commercial Aviation in Arab States’; Geiger, TWA’s Services to Ethiopia;
Oqubay and Tesfachew, ‘The Journey of Ethiopian Airlines’.
47 ‘U.S. Studies Middle East Airlines’.
48 Macekura, ‘The Point Four Program and U.S. International Development Policy’; Shenin, The United States
and the Third World; Afroz, ‘American Economic Aid to Pakistan, 1947-1960’; Comptroller General of theUnited States, Examination of Economic and Technical Assistance Program for Pakistan, pp. 2-3, 17, 18.

92

Pakistani Civil Aviation and U.S. Aid to Pakistan, 1950 to 1961
Stassen met the Pakistan Foreign Minister Zafrulla Khan and the Pakistani ambassador in
Washington and informed them that the U.S. was ‘prepared to extend technical assistant toPakistan on civil aviation, for development not only of technicians but of Pakistani civil air
management as well.’ He emphasized that this aid was to help the country develop civil
aviation both within each wing and, to the delight of the Ambassador, between them too.49
Pakistan received sizeable amounts of aid through the International Cooperation
Administration (ICA) of the Department of State (and its predecessor, the Foreign
Operations Administration (FOA)) in the fifties and into the sixties. Between 1952 and1958 the ICA and the FOA obligated funds of USD 406.9 million of aid to Pakistan. This
included USD 148.76 million for development projects, the rest being for commodity
imports, famine and flood relief, and a small amount for the administration of these funds.50
The development aid was allocated to around a hundred projects in agriculture, industry,
and transportation, and made the United States the single largest donor to Pakistan in thefifties. Aviation received the highest proportion of the USD 24.24 million allocated totransport projects in the period 1952 to 1958: USD 3.99 million for ‘improvement andexpansion of aviation ground facilities’, USD 3.07 million for the ‘development of civil airtransportation’, and USD 0.262 million for ‘aircraft overhaul and maintenance’.51
This aerial aid continued into the early 1960s, and was part of a broadened program ofaerial aid to strategically located Cold War allies. Over 40 countries received such aid
between 1956 and 1961, but only 12 countries accounted for 85% of this aid, with the fourlargest recipients being Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Chile, and Pakistan.52 The Pakistani portionof the aid between 1956 and 1961 totalled USD 27.663 million in the form of U.S. Dollar
loans and grants, and a USD 2.96 million loan in Pakistani Rupees. Pakistan received 9.6%of the total U.S. Dollar aerial aid allocated over this period by the United States. It was thisaid which helped PIA to build up its maintenance and technical capabilities, update its
airports, and, ultimately to become the first Asian airline to fly a commercial jet aeroplane.
This amount was split as follows: USD 3.654 million was provided as a contract to Pan
American for ‘training of PIA in jet operations and maintenance and for purchase of jet
aircraft’, with an agreement between PIA and Pan American being signed in May 1955. A
further USD 4.709 million was administrated by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration
to ‘provide aeronautical ground aids and air traffic control services, including training andsystem planning.’ This included the installation of and training for VOR short-range radio
navigation systems at two airports, including Karachi. The Development Loan Fund handed
out USD 3.915 million in U.S. Dollar denominated loans and USD 2.96 million Pakistani
Rupee loans for the ‘modernization of Karachi International Airport to accommodate jettraffic’ (USD 4.8 million of which was for the refurbishment and extension of Karachi’s
airstrip and tarmac to accommodate jet aircraft). Lastly the Import-Export Bank provided
USD 15.385 million in loans for the purchase of Lockheed Super-Constellation and Boeing
jet airliners. The only countries to receive more funds were Brazil (USD 51.5 million, of
which over USD 49.9 million were loans for the purchase of 19 aircraft from Lockheed,
Douglas, Convair, and Boeing), Afghanistan (a total of over USD 45.4 million, of which
over USD 40 million was to Pan American for the management and development of Ariana
49 ‘Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge, Economic Affairs, Office of South Asian Affairs(Fluker)’.
50 Comptroller General of the United States, Examination of Economic and Technical Assistance Program for
Pakistan, p. 18, 73.
51 Ibid, p. 77. On total aid to Pakistan see: Brecher and Abbas, Foreign Aid and Industrial Development inPakistan, pp. 24-26.
52 Heymann, Jr., Civil Aviation and U.S. Foreign Aid, p. 9

93

S. WAQAR H. ZAIDI
Afghan Airlines, construction of Kandahar airport, and other improvements to the country’s
air network), and Ethiopia (a total of over USD 34.7 million, of which USD 23.35 million
was earmarked for the construction and improvement of 4 major and 22 minor airports andfacilities and jet spare parts, and USD 10 million for the purchase of two Boeing jetairliners). 53
The actual work on the ground, it has to be said, often fell far behind that envisaged by
the aid schedules. A 1959 report on obligated versus spent aid found that between 1952 and1958 only 45% of the obligated aid for the improvement and expansion of aviation groundfacilities was spent, 94% of aid for aircraft overhaul and maintenance was spent, and only
64% of other aid earmarked for the development of civil aviation was spent. This failure tospend the allocated funds was part of wider issues with the aid program to Pakistan, andwas due, the report concluded, to technical and administrative limits to aid absorption, andthe aid effort being dispersed over too wide a range of projects.54

IV Conclusion
This paper has been a preliminary examination of U.S. funding for Pakistani civil aviationin the late forties and 1950s. It has suggested that civil aviation in Pakistan was supported
and funded by the United States not only for commercial purposes, but also because
Pakistani aerial facilities could be, it was thought, of use in a war with the Soviet Union.
West Pakistan’s location at the edge of the Middle East and just south of the Soviet bordermade it a promising launching pad for aerial operations, including nuclear weapons, both
northwards and westwards. Karachi’s location facing the Indian Ocean, meanwhile, kept it
safe from Soviet naval attack. Although U.S. policymakers were aware of the limitations ofusing Pakistan in this way, this paper has suggested that they were nevertheless willing tospend funds building up aerial networks for their key Asian allies, including Pakistan, inthe early 50s. The desirability of Pakistani air bases was boosted by the Korean War andthe rise of radical Arab nationalism in the Middle East. On the other hand, British and U.S.
concerns over upsetting Indian sentiments limited U.S. aid to Pakistan. The aid provided
was likely crucial for the creation of Pakistan International Airways. This paper has
suggested that without this aid, and the military and geopolitical sentiments that lay behind
it, it is unlikely that the Pakistani state would have been able to purchase and maintain the
Lockheed Super Constellation which formed the long-distance foundation of the national
airline from 1955 onwards.
More broadly, this paper has suggested that the growth of international civil aviation in
Asia was at least partially driven by the United States and its geopolitical and commercial
concerns. The need to win and keep allies in Asia led the U.S. to meet Asian states’
demands for aid for their civilian aviation networks. But these networks may also havebeen of use to the U.S. itself. Well-equipped airports could be used by U.S. airlines andeven the U.S. military for logistical and offensive purposes. The deepening Cold War andflashpoints such as the Korean War and the Suez Crisis played an important role in driving
53 Heymann, Jr., Civil Aviation and U.S. Foreign Aid, p. 6-8. Hearings Before the Subcommittee for Review ofthe Mutual Security Programs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, p. 236; The Sixteenth Semiannual Report on
the Operation of the Mutual Security Program, p.46.
54 Comptroller General of the United States, Examination of Economic and Technical Assistance Program for
Pakistan, pp. 1, 77. In hearings before Congress in 1958, the Civil Aeronautics Administration officer who wasformer head of the U.S. Civil Aviation Assistance Technical Group for Pakistan explained the issues faced by theGroup is getting its project off the ground: Hearings Before the Subcommittee for Review of the Mutual Security
Programs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, pp. 233-248.

94

Pakistani Civil Aviation and U.S. Aid to Pakistan, 1950 to 1961
U.S. aid to its allies, and so, this paper has suggested, could also have played an importantrole in building national (and international) civil aviation networks.
References“U.S. Studies Middle East Airlines”, Aviation Week (26 July 1954), p. 80.
“News Digest”, Aviation Week (29 Aug 1949), p. 9.
Afroz, S., ‘American Economic Aid to Pakistan, 1947-1960: A Reassessment’, Journal of South Asian andMiddle Eastern Studies, 15 (1992).
Andrus, J.R., and A.F. Mohammed, The Economy of Pakistan (London, 1958).
Baumler, A., ‘Aviation and Asian Modernity 1900–1950’, The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of AsianHistory (2017).
http://asianhistory.oxfordre.com/abstract/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore9780190277727-e-177?rskey=hhgClK&result=5 (accessed on 7 April 2019).
Brecher, I., and S. A. Abbas, Foreign Aid and Industrial Development in Pakistan (Cambridge, 2005).
Breffort, D., Lockheed Constellation: From Excalibur to Starliner Civilian and Military Variants (Paris,
2006).
Cohen, M.J., Fighting World War Three from the Middle East: Allied Contingency Plans, 1945-1954(London, 1997).
Colman, J., ‘The 1950 “Ambassador’s agreement” on USAF bases in the UK and British fears of US
atomic unilateralism’, Journal of Strategic Studies, 30 (2007), pp. 285-307.
Converse III, E.V., Circling the Earth: United States Plans for a Postwar Overseas Military Base System,
1942-1948 (Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, 2005).
Craven, W.F., and J.L. Cate (eds.), The Army Air Forces in World War II volume 2 Europe: Torch to
Pointblank August 1942 to December 1943 (Chicago, 1949).
Daugherty III, L.J., The Allied Resupply Effort in the China-Burma-India Theatre During World War II(Jefferson, North Carolina, 2008).
Davies, R.E.G., Airlines of Asia since 1920 (London, 1997).
Engel, J., Cold War at 30,000 Feet: The Anglo-American Fight for Aviation Supremacy (Cambridge, Mass.,
2007).
Francillon, R.J., Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913 2nd edition (London, 1987).
Franck, D.S., “The Interchange of Government Experts”, Middle East Journal, 4 (1950), pp. 410-426.
Geiger, T., TWA’s Services to Ethiopia (Washington, D.C., 1959).
Gormly, J.L., ‘Keeping the Door Open in Saudi Arabia: The United States and the Dhahran Airfield, 194546’, Diplomatic History, 4 (1980), pp. 189–206.
Grathwol, R.P., and D.M. Moorhus, Bricks, Sand, and Marble: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Constructionin the Mediterranean and Middle East, 1947–1991 (Washington, D.C., 2009).
Heymann, Jr., H., Civil Aviation and U.S. Foreign Aid: Purposes, Pitfalls, and Problems for U.S. Policy(Santa Monica, 1964).
Hiatt, W., The Rarified Air of the Modern: Airplanes and Technological Modernity in the Andes (NewYork, 2016).
Hingham, R., Speedbird: The Complete History of BOAC (London, 2013).
Kux, D., The United States and Pakistan, 1947-2000: Disenchanted Allies (Washington, D.C., 2001).
Larson, W.F., ‘United States-Pakistan Relations, 1947-1954’ (unpub. MA this, Univ. of British Columbia,
1994).
Leffler, M.P., ‘The American Conception of National Security and the Beginnings of the Cold War, 194548’, The American Historical Review, 89 (1984), pp. 346-381.
Macekura, S., ‘The Point Four Program and U.S. International Development Policy’, Political Science
Quarterly, 128 (Spring 2013), pp. 127-160.
McMahon, R.J., The Cold War on the Periphery: The United States, India, and Pakistan (New York, 1994).
McMahon, R.J., ‘United States Cold War Strategy in South Asia: Making a Military Commitment toPakistan, 1947-1954’, The Journal of American History, 75 (1988), pp. 812-840.
Oqubay, A., and T. Tesfachew, ‘The Journey of Ethiopian Airlines’, How They Did It 2 (2019), pp. 1-15.
https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/How_they_did_it_Vol_2_Issue_1.
pdf (accessed on 29 March 2019).
Piglia, M., ‘“Carry our colours and defend our interests under the skies of other Continents”: Argentinian95

S. WAQAR H. ZAIDI
Commercial aviation policy in the Peronista decade (1945–55)’, The Journal of Transport History(2019). DOI: 10.1177/0022526619829449.
Plating, J.D., The Hump: American Strategy for Keeping China in World War II (College Station, Texas,2011).
Polmar, N., Spyplane: the U-2 History Declassified (Minneapolis, 2001).
Raguraman, K., ‘Airlines as Instruments for Nation Building and National Identity: Case Study of
Malaysia and Singapore’, Journal of Transport Geography, 5 (1997), pp. 239-256.
Ross, S.T., American War Plans 1945-1950 (London, 2013).
Shenin, S.Y., The United States and the Third World: The Origins of Postwar Relations and the Point Four
Program (Huntington, New York, 2000).
Taylor, L.D., ‘From Turbulent Skies to Calmer Air Currents The Evolution of U.S.–Mexico Air Relations,
1910–1936’, Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos, 34 (2018), pp. 347-377.
Van Vleck, J., Empire of the Air: Aviation and the American Ascendancy (Cambridge, Mass., 2013).
Van Vleck, J., ‘An Airline at the Crossroads of the World: Ariana Afghan Airlines, Modernization, and the
Global Cold War’, History and Technology, 25 (2009), pp. 3-24.
Venkataramani, M.S. The American Role in Pakistan, 1947-1958 (Lahore, 1984).
Williams, K., ‘Commercial Aviation in Arab States: The Pattern of Control’, Middle East Journal, 11(1957), pp. 123-138.
Wohlstetter, A.J., F.S. Hoffman, R.J. Lutz, and H.S. Rowen, Selection and Use of Strategic Air Bases(Santa Monica, 1954).
Young, E.M., Aerial Nationalism: A History of Aviation in Thailand (Washington, D.C, 1995).
Official Publications
The Department of State, International Civil Aviation 1949-1950: Third Report of the Representative of theUnited States Government to the International Civil Aviation Organization July 1950 (Washington, D.C.,
1950).
Mutual Security Appropriations for 1956: Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations. House of Representatives. Eighty-Fourth Congress. First Session (Washington, D.C.,
1956).
Hearings Before the Subcommittee for Review of the Mutual Security Programs of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs. House of Representatives. Eighty-Fifth Congress. Second Session. Examination of
Selected Projects in Formosa and Pakistan (Washington, D.C., 1958).
Comptroller General of the United States, Examination of Economic and Technical Assistance Program for
Pakistan. International Cooperation Administration. Department of State Fiscal Year 1955-1957(Washington, D.C., 1959)
The Sixteenth Semiannual Report on the Operation of the Mutual Security Program for the Period Ending
June 30, 1959 (Washington, D.C., 1960).
‘The Department of State to the British Embassy: Aide-Memoire’, 6 November 1945, Foreign Relations of
the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1945, The British Commonwealth, The Far East, Volume VI,
document 104. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945v06/d104 (accessed on 31 March2019).
‘Memorandum by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee’, 11 February
1946, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, General; The United Nations, Volume I, document
587. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1946v01/d587 (accessed on 31 March 2019).
‘Memorandum by the Acting State Member, State–War–Navy Coordinating Committee (Hickerson)’, 24
July 1946, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, General; The United Nations, Volume I,
document 595. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1946v01/d595 (accessed on 31 March2019).
‘Report by the SANACC Subcommittee for the Near and Middle East’, 19 April 1949, Foreign Relationsof the United States, 1949, The Near East, South Asia, And Africa, Volume VI. https://history.state.gov/
historicaldocuments/frus1949v06/d3 (accessed on 31 March 2019).
‘Department of State Policy Statement’, 3 April 1950, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, The
Near East, South Asia, And Af rica, Volume V, document 837. https://history.state.gov/
historicaldocuments/frus1950v05/d837 (accessed on 31 March 2019).
‘Memorandum by the Civil Air Attaché for the Middle East (Thayer) to the Officer in Charge of Lebanon–
Syria Affairs (Allen)’, 15 December 1954, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, General:
Economic and Political Matters, Volume I, Part 1, document 139. https://history.state.gov/

96

Pakistani Civil Aviation and U.S. Aid to Pakistan, 1950 to 1961
historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v01p1/d139 (accessed on 31 March 2019).
‘Memorandum of Discussion at the 147th Meeting of the National Security Council, Monday, June 1,
1953’, Foreign Relations of The United States, 1952–1954, The Near And Middle East, Volume IX, Part
1, document 137. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v09p1/d137 (accessed on 31
March 2019).
‘Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge, Economic Affairs, Office of South Asian Affairs(Fluker)’, 22 June 1954, in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Africa and South Asia,
Volume XI, Part 2, document 1153. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v11p2/
d1153 (accessed on 31 March 2019).
‘Airgram A–550 from the Embassy in Pakistan to the Department of State, October 6, 1969’, Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume E–7, Documents on South Asia, 1969–1972,
document 38. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76ve07/d38 (accessed on 31 March2019).

97

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）
，99 － 125 頁

論説

戦前期日本の武器生産問題と武器輸出商社―泰平組合と昭和通商の役割を中心にして―纐纈 厚＊

Arms Production Problems and Arms Export Companies in Pre-War
Japan: The Roles of Taihei Kumiai and Shouwa Tsuushou
By ATSUSHI KOKETSU

This paper involves studies of the Japanese history of arms production problems fromthe 1920s to the 1940s. Presenting and analysing documents, we consider the purposes
for the establishment and expected roles of two arms export companies, Taihei Kumiai
and Shouwa Tsuushou, which were placed under the especially strong control of theJapanese Army. Focusing on Shouwa Tsuushou, we verify that the Japanese Armydeveloped policies for arms export and arms support centring on China and Thailand,
while international momentum toward disarmament was heightened. In this verification,
we clarify the arms production problems of the Japanese Army. We also note that not
only Japan but also Western countries advanced in arms export, including Russia, theUnited Kingdom, France and the United States, were extremely proactive in arms export
despite the emphasis on disarmament. Thus, the arms production problems intended tonurture domestic munitions industries and advance military alliances with partnercountries through arms export and import. Arms export and import secured multi-tiered
economic, diplomatic and military advantages. Therefore, arms production problems
could be described as “peacetime war,” and the proliferation of arms through arms
production problems was clearly part of the preparation for World War II.

１ はじめに 先行研究と課題設定
戦前期日本の武器輸出の歴史は明治初期から開始されるが 1）、本稿では第一次世界大戦（以下、ＷＷⅠと略す）中から本格的に開始された武器生産や武器輸出入の史的展開を追う。そこでは武器生産と武器輸出入を一括して〝武器生産問題〟として括り、武器生産の自立化や武器輸出体制の確立過程を、以下のような分析視角から追究することを目的としている。すなわち、ＷＷⅠを契機に起動した武器生産の民営化の動きを官民合同問題として取りあげ、満州事変（1931 年）期から、対英米蘭戦争の開始期（1941 年）迄の武器輸＊ 明治大学特任教授（Specially Appointed Professor of Meiji University）
1）坂本［1991］は、「1901 年に三井物産が朝鮮に 1 万挺の銃と実包 100 万発を輸出したのが武器輸出の最初である」と記している（27-28 頁）。

99

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

出入の実態を追いつつ、なかでも武器輸出を主導した日本陸軍の統制下に輸出業務を担った武器輸出商社の泰平組合と昭和通商の役割を検証していく 2）。
筆者はＷＷⅠにおける戦争形態の総力戦化に触発された日本の軍需工業の拡充が、兵器独立や官民合同（民営化）に結果していったと捉えており、ロシアからの武器注文など
外在的要因も手伝って、武器生産問題が特に 1920 年代に入り、一段と重大な課題としてクローズアップされていったことを念頭に置いている。同年代は軍拡と軍縮が鬩ぎ合う時代でもあった。そうした内外情勢に左右もされながら、日本における武器生産問題の変容を具体的に追う手段として、軍需工業動員法の制定による武器生産体制の確立と、それを平時から支える武器輸出専門商社の役割の相互連環性を主要な分析課題としている。
最初に本課題を検討するうで参考となる先行研究を要約紹介する。そこで論じられた問
題と、論じられなかった課題を併せて触れておきたい。

（1）先行研究の要約―芥川・坂本・名古屋・柴田論文を中心に―前期武器輸出の実態について、最も早くに着目し研究の対象として論じたのは芥川哲士の「武器器輸出の系譜―泰平組合の誕生まで―」3）を始めとする一連の研究であろう。芥川は日本政府が明治初期から武器輸出に強い関心を抱いていたと推測しつつ、当初は清国を対象に不要兵器の輸出で実績を積み、軍工廠創設以後は兵器生産技術の向上に伴い、
日清・日露戦争を経由し、ＷＷⅠ中にロシアからの武器輸出要請に対応すべく軍工廠の拡充を行ってきた経緯を克明に追った。その後、芥川は「武器輸出の系譜」を一貫したタイトルとし、武器輸出の史的解明に重要な足跡を残した。
芥川の論文のなかで、特に「武器輸出の系譜（承前）―第一次大戦期の武器輸出―」4）の分析と史料紹介を受けつつ、日本資本主義の軍事的性格を精緻に分析した坂本雅子の「第一次世界大戦期の対ヨーロッパ資本輸出と武器輸出（上・下）」5）がある。坂本は、Ｗ
ＷⅠ開始の翌年の 1915 年に日本は 1 億円に達する武器輸出を行った史実を指摘した 6）。特に日本陸軍がＷＷⅠ中の 4 年間にロシアだけでも総額 1 億 8000 万円程度の武器輸出の実績
2）戦前期日本における武器輸出商社は泰平組合や昭和通商だけに収斂されるのではなく、この二つの商社に大方が包摂されはしたが、三井物産や大倉商事、高田商会、安宅商会、鈴木商店、森岡商店、岸本商店なども広義における武器輸出商社と位置付けられる。これらについては、中川［1994］等参照。
3）芥川［1985］。
4）芥川［1987］。
5）坂本［1991］；坂本［1992］。なお、坂本はこれらの論文を含め、坂本［2003］として単行本化している。
6）坂本［1991］24 頁。因みに、坂本は日本の武器輸出が日清戦争期（1894-95）から開始されたとし、日露戦争以後には相当活発となっていたとしている。具体的には、「1901 年には三井物産が、朝鮮に対して 1万挺の銃と実弾 100 万発を輸出したのが武器輸出の最初である」（坂本［1991］27-28 頁）としている。

100

戦前期日本の武器生産問題と武器輸出商社（纐纈厚）を持ち、同国への武器輸出が日本の武器輸出総額の 95％に達したとしている。
日本海軍も同様にイギリス、フランス、ロシア三国合計で、9000 万円程の武器輸出を行ったとする。日本陸海軍及び山県有朋に代表される日本政府の指導層は、日英同盟に替わる〝日露同盟〟の締結の可能性をも見出すべく、ロシアへの武器輸出・武器支援に極めて積極的であったことを論証した。また、坂本論文は、「第一大戦期の武器輸出も、こうした軍工廠の経営維持と対外政策という二側面から、実行されたことは確かであった」7）と重要な指摘をしている。この二側面は、武器輸出・武器移転問題を論証するうで重要な検討課題であり、本稿もその側面を強調する。精緻を極めた経済史的アプローチを基軸にすえつつ、当該期の政治過程をも射程に据えて武器輸出も実態に迫っている。
しかし、ＷＷⅠ中から日本で取り組まれた軍需工業動員法などの法整備による軍工廠での武器生産の限界性を克服する政策が、強力に推進された事実への言及は殆どない。軍
需工業動員法や軍用自動車補助法などは、まさに坂本の指摘する二側面を補完する重要な政策であったはずである。この点について本稿で触れて行く。
次に名古屋貢の「泰平組合の武器輸出」8）がある。名古屋論文は、芥川哲士論文が言及していないＷＷⅠ以降の活動から、解散するまでの泰平組合の実態解明に取り組んでおり、その点で名古屋論文は重要な繋ぎ手役の位置にある。また、なぜに武器輸出商社として泰平組合が創設されたかについては、「陸軍の利点は、何か不祥事があった場合にも、自らは手を汚さなくてもすむ組織として組合があったことである。もともと兵器輸出は政治的色彩が強いため、日本の立場が問題となった場合、直接矢面に立たなくてもすむための方便であった」9）と指摘する。名古屋は同論文の「終りに」で、泰平組合が解散に追い込まれた理由として、欧米武器輸出国の武器水準に追随できなかったこと、「対支武器輸出禁止協定」が成立したこと、武器輸出対象として注目していた満州国軍輸出から排除されたこと、の三点を挙げている 10）。
そして、本稿の論述にあたり最も参考としたのが柴田善雅の「陸軍軍命商社の活動―昭和通商株式会社覚書―」11）である。柴田論文は泰平組合の解散理由を、「日中戦争期の中国占領地への兵器輸出を主たる目的として、陸軍省は昭和通商設置に向かうため、既存の泰平組合の廃止を決定した」12）とする。さらに、昭和通商設立の理由として、「軍配組合は兵7）坂本［1992］17 頁。
8）名古屋［2006］。
9）名古屋［2006］8 頁。
10）名古屋［2006］15 頁
11） 柴田［2004］。
12）柴田［2004］2 頁。

101

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

器を扱わず、そのほか兵器を取扱う占領地の物資統制組合は設置されないため陸軍の占領地政策の中で、兵器売却を行うための守秘義務を負わせた商社の設立が要と判断された」13）とする。柴田論文は昭和通商が泰平組合と比較できないほど広範な地域や諸外国と武器輸出に限定されず貿易を行っていたこと、その意味では軍命商社である昭和通商は、武器以外にも穀物から阿片に至るまで、単に武器輸出専門商社とだけは言い切れない側面を持っていたことを実証している。
同時に、「昭和通商は陸軍省の兵器の対中国輸出のみならず、欧州で調達した兵器の中
国占領地の傀儡政権への売却にも関わった。これは泰平組合にみられない昭和通商の従来の兵器取扱いの大幅な業務範囲の拡張といえる」14）とし、言うならば、陸軍という強力なバックを得て事業展開した総合商社的な側面を指摘している。また、中国の軍事占領地においては、例えば「蒙彊における兵器等の取引は陸軍省の支援を受けた昭和通商に限定される」15）としたように、陸軍と歩をひとつにした独占的な位置を占め続けたと言う。昭和
通商が如何に強力な組織であったかは、確かに、中支那軍票交換用物資配給組合（通称、軍配組合）との間で穀物調達業務において競合した折に、最終的には昭和通商に有利に展開していたことからも知れる 16）。
このように柴田論文は昭和通商が中国の軍事占領行政地における経済活動一般にも深く関与していたこと、また、武器輸出対象地域としてもヨーロッパだけでなく南米方面にも店舗を開設し、まさに国際的な商社としても再定義した点は頗る注目される。ただ、柴田論文は昭和通商が武器輸出商社としての役割に注目するあまり、武器輸入の実態については殆ど注目していない。柴田論文の目的外かも知れないが、武器生産問題全体を射程に据えるためには、武器の輸出入の実態と促進理由、その担い手を総合的に捉える視点も必要であろう。
その点を本稿の一つの課題として論じる .
13）柴田［2004］3 頁。
14）柴田［2004］7 頁。
15）柴田［2004］8 頁。
16）軍配組合は昭和通商と競合する事業にも参入した強力な組織であるが、最終的には昭和通商の後塵を拝したのは事実であった。軍配組合についての研究は多くないが、ここでは小林［2012］の「第三章 日本の中国占領地経営と企業 第二節 軍票工作と軍配組合」（83 － 94 頁）を挙げておく。なお柴田論文では昭和通商の圧倒的な支配権を強調するが、蒙彊政権への兵器供給で決定的な役割を果たした大蒙公司の役割を無視してはならない。これに関連して、森久男は、「（大蒙公司が）蒙彊政権に対する兵器供給、塩務統制、各種重要物資の流通統制等の他者がまねのできない分野で、なお大きな役割を果たすことができた」（森［2009］67 頁）と指摘している。森の指摘は、特に中国においては昭和通商と拮抗する恰好
で大蒙公司をはじめ、幾つかの商社が兵器供給（武器輸出）に動いた可能性を示唆しているが、これも今後の調査課題となろう。

102

戦前期日本の武器生産問題と武器輸出商社（纐纈厚）

芥川論文から坂本論文、そして名古屋論文を挟んで柴田論文を一貫して読み通すと、
日清戦争期から日本敗戦期までの武器輸入は別としても、武器輸出の実態と背景を把握できることになる。このように本稿は芥川・坂本・名古屋・柴田論文に多くを学びながら、
以下の視角から改めて武器生産問題絡む課題に迫ろうとするものである 17）。

（2）問題の所在と課題の設定
本稿が対象とする時期は、特にＷＷⅠ開始以降（1914 年－）だが、日本陸軍は、日露戦争を通して飛躍的な砲弾の消耗に悩まされ続け、その後も日露再戦の可能性が取沙汰されるなか、所謂砲弾備蓄問題として強く意識するところとなった。その過程で問い直されたのは、平時における武器生産体制の拡充であった。事実、当該期日本の軍需生産・調達能力の不充分性は明らかであった 18）。
そのために日本陸海軍は、ＷＷⅠ以後、既存の軍工廠に加え、民間企業に対して武器生産の委託を法的に担保する軍需工業動員法（1917 年 4 月 17 日制定・法律第 38 号）や軍用自動車補助法（1918 年 3 月 25 日制定・法律第 15 号）等により、軍需工業の裾野を広げる方針を打ち出すことになった。直接の契機は、後述するように大戦中のロシアからの武器注文であったが、これを教訓に民間企業に武器生産を恒常的に委託し、安定的な武器生産の実績を担保する武器輸出体制の構築が検討される。そこから中国やタイなど、近隣
アジア諸国への武器輸出政策が検討されることになった。
武器生産問題は軍事や経済の領域に限定されず、輸出対象国との武器を媒体とする友好あるいは同盟関係の促進という政治・外交の領域にも深く関わる課題としてあった。例
えば、「日中軍事協定」の締結による武器輸出を媒介とした同盟関係の構築は、その象徴事例である。その全体を一括して捉える方向性のなかで、武器生産問題を見ておくべきであろう。本稿は、そうした研究視角を前提としながら、武器輸出を推進した泰平組合と昭和通商という二つの武器輸出専門商社の実態について、史料を読み解きながら、その役割と位置を検証していく。そこでは、次の点を本稿独自の課題としておきたい。
第一に、日露戦争以後ＷＷⅠを挟んで、1920 年代の中国という武器輸出市場に向けて、

17）本稿と直接的に関わる論考ではないが、陸軍造兵廠における武器生産の実態についての最も詳細な研究成果としては、佐藤［1989-1992］と山崎［1994］などが先駆的研究としても挙げられる。
18）日露戦争当時における日本の軍需生産体制レベルについて、大江［1976］は「戦争の性格の、変化に対応するためには、日本資本主義の技術的基盤はすこぶるせまいものであった。技術的には精密機械工業に属する火器を中心とする兵器弾薬の生産は、陸軍では東京、大阪の二砲兵工廠、海軍では各海軍工廠造兵部および東京の海軍造兵廠がこれにあたり、民間機械工業はこれまで関与することがなかった。
」（401頁）と述べている。

103

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

文字通り官民合同のスローガンの下、軍需産業の民営化が急がれた。恐らく武器輸出市場の拡大のなかで、陸軍は政治的かつ軍事的な観点から、武器輸出に強い関心を示しつつ、その一方で武器輸出という特殊性から、民間企業に全面委任することは困難と考えていた。
それゆえに、武器輸出専門商社として、泰平組合や昭和通商を、その統制下に運用させた。そのことが可能となるためには、官民合同による軍需産業の民営化と同時に、そうした全体を包括する概念として、総力戦思想の普及を必要としたのである。本稿は、この点を特に強調していく。
従来の武器輸出の実態研究では、武器輸出自体を目的化する傾向が強く、その根底にある武器生産体制の充実による総力戦体制の構築という政治過程への踏み込みが弱かった。本稿は、武器輸出問題という個別具体的な課題を総力戦体制構築を基底に据えた武器生産問題として、より包括的に捉える視点を打ち出している。
そこでは特に武器輸出商社が日本陸軍の統制下に創設された根本の背景として、ＷＷⅠを契機とする戦争形態の変容、即ち内閣戦争から総力戦争への変容過程で、日本陸軍が武器生産と武器輸出入への関心を増大させていく実態を追う。同時に日本国内で武器生産の裾野を広げるために実施された軍需工業動員法制定の動きを踏まえつつ、武器生産への取り組みの実態を整理する。武器生産への関心を増大させ、それに迅速に対応することに腐心した日本陸軍は、民営企業との間に対立と妥協を繰り返しながらも、軍需工業の民営化に成功していく。ここでは軍需工業の民営化に積極的に動いた経営者などの発言から、当該期における武器生産と兵器独立に如何なる思惑が存在していたかを検証していく。これらの諸点は、先行研究では殆ど触れられていない。
第二に、第一で追った軍需工業動員体制確立前後における日本の武器輸出政策の実行組織として創立された泰平組合及び昭和通商が創設された背景について論述する。先行研究で多面的に論じられているが、そこで殆ど言及されなかった課題がある。それをキーワードで示せば、兵器独立・官民合同・総力戦体制である。そして現実の政策に兵器生産や武器輸出を担保する法整備として軍用自動車補助法や軍需工業動員法の制定がある。本稿では特に後者について言及する。同法が明治初期から開始された武器輸出と、武器生産の不充分性を克服するため、必要不可欠な法整備として位置づけられたことを強調していく。
第三に、1930 年代初頭の武器輸入の実態を論じていく。特にイギリスとの武器貿易は日本海軍が担うことになるが、満州事変により武器輸入が頓挫していくことは、武器技術の向上を構想していた海軍として極めて痛手であった。海軍統制下の武器輸入商社が介在していた可能性もあるが、海軍は仲介者の存在を認めない発言を行っている。俄かには信104

戦前期日本の武器生産問題と武器輸出商社（纐纈厚）

用し難いが、本稿で引用紹介する。
本稿は、全体としては泰平組合と昭和通商が担った武器輸出に軸足を置きつつも、武器輸出入史の総体を武器生産問題として捉える観点から、軍事史的かつ政治史的なアプ
ローチにより課題に迫ろうとするものである 19）。なお、引用史料については旧漢字を常用漢字に修正し、適宜句読点を付して読み易くしている。

２ 武器輸出への関心増大の背景（1）ロシアからの武器輸出要請
1914（大正 3）年 7 月 28 日から開始されたＷＷⅠは、それまでの戦争形態を一変させるほどの莫大な武器弾薬を必要とし、文字通り国家の総力により勝敗の帰趨が決定される総力戦として戦われた。潜水艦・航空機・戦車・毒ガス等の近代兵器が戦場に次々と登場し、陸上や海上だけでなく空中と海中にまで戦場域が拡がっていった。
先行研究の要約で紹介したように、日本陸軍が武器輸出に関心を抱いたのは、既に明治初期からとする芥川論文は、その後ＷＷⅠ下においてロシアからの膨大な武器輸入の要請を受け、日本が十分に対応できかった事実を明らかにした。武器輸出の絶好の機会を十分に活かし切れなかった課題が、1917 年制定の軍需工業動員法に繋がっていったと推測される 20）。
ところで、第二次大隈重信内閣（1914 年 4 月 16 日成立）は、ＷＷⅠ勃発直後から大蔵省を中心にして参戦諸国の政治経済体制の調査を実施していた。同時に大隈内閣は参戦諸国からの軍需品の膨大な注文に充分対応しきれない状況が顕在化するにつれ、日本経済の重化学工業化促進の経済政策を打ち出す 21）。すなわち、日本経済の重化学工業化策の一環として、化学工業調査会（1914 年 11 月）、経済調査会（1916 年 4 月）
、製鉄業調査会（同年 5 月）などの相次ぐ設置や、染料医薬品製造奨励法（1915 年 3 月）などの制定は、その具体策であった。
1916（大正 5）年 4 月 29 日、重化学工業化策の一環として、大隈首相は経済調査会第一19）武器・兵器・装備など多様な名称が混在するなか、本稿では個別的な物理装置の意味で原則として「武器」の用語を使用する。また、繰り返す必要もないかもしれないが、本稿における「武器移転」とは、「国家やそのほかの国際行為体の領域を越えて、武器や武器技術にかかわる所有権・使用権が移転する諸現象全般」を示し、「武器輸出」は「直接戦闘の用に供する装備品である武器を海外に売却すること」（川田・
大畠［1993］553-554 頁）を示す用語として用いることにする。本稿において特にタイへの武器輸出の実態に触れているが、それは事実上「武器支援」「武器援助」と同義語として扱っている。
20）第一次大戦期における日本の対ロシア武器輸出に関しては、バールイシュフ［2011, 2012］など参照。
21）「欧州列国の財政経済及社会上の現状調査に関する件」（『公文雑纂』〔国立公文書館〕大正 5 年、帝国議会 2 巻 24）を参照。

105

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）回総会で、次のような訓示を行なっている。すなわち、「此欧州大乱に因て日本の受けた利益は随分大なるものである。其中最も大なるものは軍需品の注文であります。日本に製造力さえ有れば、或は容易く原料品を得る事さへ出来れば、今日の三倍でも五倍でも供給する事が出来るのであります。
（中略）此の軍需品の供給は実に大なる利を得るものである」22）と。ここにおいて、大隈首相は重化学工業化促進の理由を、大量の軍需品注文に耐え得る経済構造への質的転換に求めたのであり、そのためには「官民相侯つて戦後の日本の産業の発展、経済の発展を図りたいと希ふ次第であります」23）と結んでいた。
それでこの間の経緯を記せば、総力戦状況のなかで、自国の兵器生産だけでは戦争継続が不可能となっていたロシアを筆頭に、ヨーロッパの参戦諸国は、日本に武器輸出を要請するに至っていた。これに応えるため、日本政府は東京と大阪の砲兵工廠の生産力増加のため、運転資本の増加を帝国議会に提案していた。いわゆる、「東京砲兵工廠大阪歩兵工廠ノ据置運転資本増加ニ関スル法律案」である。
1915（大正 4）年 12 月 22 日、その趣旨説明に担った当時の陸軍大臣岡市之助は、「今回ノ欧羅巴ノ戦乱ノ需要ニ対シテハ、其需要ト言フモノハ非常ナモノデ、ソレデ日本ニ注文
シテ参リマス注文トテモ、吾々ガ夢ダニモ考ヘテ居ラナカッタヤウナ数量デゴザイマス。
サテ此ノ沢山の需要ヲ充シ得ルカト云フト、是ハ決シテ充シ得ルコトハ出来マセヌ」24）と現実を赤裸々に述べていた。取り分けロシアからの武器注文は膨大であり、その受注量は当該期日本の武器生産能力を遥かに超えるものであった 25）。因みに、大戦中における対ロ
シア輸出総額は、実に 1 憶 8961 万に達していたのである 26）。
一方、海軍も武器輸出を当該期に活発に行っていた。これに関連して、1917（大正 6）
3 月 4 日、第 40 回衆議院決算委員会の場で古屋久綱議員から、「海軍ハ総高ドレ丈ヲ連合
国ニ御売渡シニナッタノデアリマスカ」との質問に、当時海軍省経理局長であった志佐勝は、「海軍省ニ於テ与国ニ譲渡シマシタル所ノ兵器ノ価格ハ二千六百万円ニナッテ居リマ
22）通商産業省編『商工政策史』第 4 巻、1961 年、141 頁。
23）通商産業省編『商工政策史』第 4 巻、144 頁。
24）国立国会図書館蔵『帝国議会会議録』（「第 37 回帝国議会衆議院 第五類第一号 東京砲兵工廠大阪歩兵工廠ノ据置運転資本増加ニ関スル法律案委員会議録 第 2 回 大正 4 年 12 月 22 日、9 頁）。
25）芥川［1987］によれば、大戦中における日本の英仏露三国への武器輸出には、武器売却・武器受託製造・
武器無償贈与の三パターンがあり、売却代価 1,124 万円、製造費代金合計 3,976 万円、武器無償贈与約 108
万 5000 円相当に達したとしている（33 頁）。さらに、1917（大正 6）年 11 月から 1918（大正 7）年 11 月までの約 1 年間の対中国向け武器輸出の実態は、合計 1,700 万円に達していた（芥川［1987］71 頁）。
26）陸軍大臣大島健一は、1918（大正 7）年 3 月 4 日開催の衆議院決算委員会の場で柏原文太郎議員の質問に、「（対ロシアへの武器輸出額が）一億八千万円許リノモノデ、大正三年ノ十二月ノ二十三日ガ始メテト見エマス、ソレカラ四年、此ノ二年間ハ一億五百万円余ニナッテ居リマス、ソレデ五年六年ヲ併セテ先程申上
ゲマシタ一億八千九百六十一万円ト云フモノニナリマス」と答弁している（国立国会図書館蔵『帝国議会会議録』（「第 40 回帝国議会衆議院 第二類第一号 決算委員会議録 第六回 大正七年三月四日、48 頁）。

106

戦前期日本の武器生産問題と武器輸出商社（纐纈厚）

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ス」と答え、併せて「海軍省ト与国ノ関係ニ於テ授受ヲ致シテ、其ノ間ニ仲介者ヲ挿ンデ
0

0

0

0

0

居リマセヌ」（傍点引用者）27）とも発言している。2600 万円は相当な額だが、陸軍における泰平組合のような武器輸出商社は介在していないことを仄めかしている。しかも、その売渡代金は陸軍と異なり、国庫に納めているとしていた。
ロシアからの武器注文に象徴されるように、ＷＷⅠで明らかとなった総力戦に備えるためには、国内軍需工業の充実は、ヨーロッパの主戦場に派遣された参戦武官からも強く要請されるに至っていた。それで軍需工業動員体制構築の要請は、軍部にとって緊急検討課
題となった。ＷＷⅠは、それまでの戦争形態を遥かに凌駕する戦争資源を必要とした。参戦諸国は、これを総力戦という戦争形態の本格的開始期と捉え、総力戦認識の徹底と総力戦体制構築に取り組み始めていた 28）。日本もその一環として、国内外の武器注文に対応可能な軍需工業の民営化をも含め、法整備を急ぐことになったのである 29）。
軍需工業動員体制とは、従来の軍工廠を中心とする生産・補給体制と現存物資および人
員徴発・徴用を目的とした徴発令（1882 年 8 月制定）体制に加え、平戦両時にわたり、大量の軍需品生産を可能とする工業動員体制の確立を基本的要件とするものであった。それ
で軍需工業動員体制構築の担い手は、単に陸・海軍や財界に留まらず、官僚・政党・学界等の諸勢力全体となるはずであった。その意味でＷＷⅠは、軍需工業の拡充や戦後の経済経営の在り様まで、大きな影響力を与えることになった。そこでは政府・財界・官僚・政党などが一丸となり、来るべき将来の総力戦に備えることが共通課題として強く意識されることになったのである。
より具体的に言えば、航空機・潜水艦・戦車・毒ガスなど近代兵器の登場や膨大な弾薬や燃料の消耗などは、国内工業の重化学工業化へと向かわせたことである。しかし、財界は最初から軍需工業の拡充に積極的でもなかった。将来、重化学工業部門で欧米と競い
27）『帝国議会会議録』（「第 40 回帝国議会衆議院 第二類第一号 決算委員会議録 第六回 大正七年三月四日、49 頁。
28）纐纈は長年総力戦体制研究に取り組んできたが、その最初は纐纈［1991］であり、その後社会評論社から 2010 年に復刻版、2018 年に同社から再復刻版を出版している。また、戦前期日本における総力戦体制
構築の政治過程については、Koketsu [2017] として発表している。
29）陸軍大臣岡市之助は、第 37 回帝国議会衆議院での「東京砲兵工廠大阪歩兵工廠ノ据置運転資本増加ニ関スル法律案委員会」での民間での兵器製造を緩和化する方向での陸軍の取り組みについて問われた岡陸軍大臣は、「兵器ノ製造ト云フコトニ付テハ、政府ハ別段禁止ハシテ居リマセヌ（中略）。兵器ノ製造ニ付テハ別ニソラ等ヲ禁止スル的ノ法律ハゴザイマセヌ、ソレデゴザイマスカラ、事実ニ於テヤリ得ル人ガ
アレバヤッタノデアリマセウ、今日マデゞモ又将来ヤルト云フコトニ付テハ、先刻御話シマシタガ、尚爾
後ノ事ニ付テハ、実ハ会議ヲシテオリマス」（国立国会図書館蔵『帝国議会会議録』（「第 37 回帝国議会衆議院 第五類第一号 東京砲兵工廠大阪歩兵工廠ノ据置運転資本増加ニ関スル法律案委員会議録 第 2 回
大正 4 年 12 月 22 日、9 頁）と述べ、軍需工業の民間委託への準備を陸軍内で進めていることを仄めかし
ていた。

107

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

つつ、アジア市場に進出する思惑を秘めていた財界ではあったが、それによって如何なる利益が確保可能かは、必ずしも確たる成算があったわけでなかったからである。
陸・海軍と財界は、その過程で軍需工業動員政策をめぐり、競合・対立の様相を呈しながらも、総力戦段階に対応する軍需工業動員体制の構築を共有可能な達成目標としていった。そして、最終的には陸・海軍との調整が図られ、協調を基軸とする関係に入っていく。それは大戦末期から、軍需工業動員法の制定を一つの頂点として、軍部と財界との間では、相当程度の合意が形成されていたのである。換言すれば、軍需工業動員をめぐり、軍財の双方がそれぞれの思惑を抱きつつも、相互補完的あるいは相互協力的な関係に入らざるを得ない状況となっていたということである 30）・
総力戦段階における陸軍の緊急課題は、軍需品（砲弾・火薬・兵器・糧秣・衣服等）の大量消費に耐え得る軍需品生産体制を確立することであった。それこそが総力戦での戦勝の必須の条件であることを、陸軍は参戦諸国の戦時経済・政治体制の調査・研究から教訓としていたのである。それで陸軍は、大戦勃発の翌年の 1915（大正 4）年 12 月 27 日、陸軍省内に臨時軍事調査委員会（委員長菅野尚一）を設置し、ヨーロッパ参戦諸国の戦時国
内動員体制の調査・研究と日本国内の軍需品生産能力の実態把握に乗り出すことになる 31）。

（2）
「兵器独立」と「官民合同」
各種調査機関の成果を踏えた当該期陸軍の軍需工業動員体制構想は、臨時軍事調査委
員会作成の『工業動員要綱』にほぼ集約されている。そのなかで「工業動員ノ眼目」として五項目が掲げられたが、その五項目目には、「平戦時ニ亙リ完全ナル兵器独立ヲ図ル為、基本原料就中鉄及石炭ノ資源を確保シ、尚官民共同自給策ノ考究及普及」32）することが肝要だとしている。
「兵器独立」に関して、歴代日本の陸海軍は軍艦から小銃に至る迄外国
兵器への依存率が高く、一貫して懸案となっていた。完全な〝兵器独立国〟となるため、必須の条件としての「兵器独立」、すなわち武器生産の自立化は、至極当然とする考えがあったからである。
同時に「兵器独立」による武器生産技術の確保は、軍拡の実現に直結する課題でもあっ

30）当該期の財界人が積極的に軍財関係の協力を説いた論考は数多く、例えば達堂（ペンネーム）は、「工
業動員は我工業家に取りて復た一種の利益を与ふるものである」（達堂［1918］411 頁）と記している。その他にも同様の主旨の論考として、富山［1918］、（日本鉄鋼協会会長）今泉［1916］、（王子製紙社長）藤原［1918］などがある。また、財界人以外にも、（農商務省工業課長）蔵川［1919］、（大蔵大臣）勝田［1917］、
森戸［1917］、（陸軍少佐）三宅［1918］などもある。
31）臨時軍事調査委員会については、纐纈［1980］を参照されたい。
32）臨時軍事調査委員会『臨時軍事調査委員第二年報」〔防衛庁防衛研修所蔵〕大正 7 年 1 月 20 日、267 頁。

108

戦前期日本の武器生産問題と武器輸出商社（纐纈厚）た。その意味でも工業動員は、日本経済の軍事化、つまり、国防を中軸に居えた経済構造（＝国防経済）への転換を図ること、国防経済の運営は「最高統帥部」の指揮命令による各行政機関の一元的支配の確立及び武器生産の自立化、資源確保を目標とする官民共同自給策の準備等により進められるものであること、軍需品の必要量を概算していくなかで達成が可能であること、などとした。
この構想は陸軍だけでなく、文字通り国家の総力を挙げることによって達成されるものとされていた。それゆえ陸軍は他の諸機関、諸勢力にもこの構想への支持・協力を求め、積極的な動きを見せるのである。陸軍は当面の現実的課題として取り敢えず、軍需品生産能力水準の調査・把握を一層徹底させる目的で、1918（大正 7）年 1 月、臨時軍事調査委
員会を設置する。
ところで軍需工業動員体制整備に不可欠な課題として軍需品生産部門の底辺拡大があった。大戦期までの軍需工業は、陸・海軍工廠を主軸とする官営工場を生産拠点としており、民間工場・企業への生産委託は極めて少量であった。その理由には、軍需工業の民間産業・技術の低位水準、兵器製造技術移転の困難さなどが考えられる。しかし、大戦の教訓は、より高度な武器・弾薬の生産技術の国家的規模での発展と、それらの大量生産・大量備蓄の緊要性を示唆していた。陸海軍は官民合同による総力戦体制の重要性を、大戦参加諸国の軍需工業動員の実態調査・研究から充分に認識していたのである。
すなわち、1917（大正 6）年 3 月 26 日、吉田豊彦大佐は、内閣経済調査課産業第 2 号提案特別委員会の席上、「軍事上ノ見地ヨリ器械工業ニ対スル希望ニ就テ」と題する講演で、「我国ノエ業ノ現状ヲ観察スルニ及ビマシテ、我軍事工業卜民間工業トガ如何ナル連繋ヲ確保シタナラバ、克ク国防卜産業トノ調和点、語ヲ換ヘテ言ヒマスレバ、此軍事工業卜民間工業トノ相関点ヲ発見スルコトガ出来ルカ、又軍事上ノ要求ニ如何ニスレバ順応スルコ
トガ出来ルカト云フコトニ就キマシテハ、官民共ニ全力ヲ傾注シテ、周密ナル研究ヲ遂ゲ
ルコトガ最モ必要ナリト信ズルノデアリマス」33）と述べ、「軍事工業卜民間工業トノ相関点」を求めた。総力戦は兵器の大量生産・大量備畜を強要する、という認識があったからである。
吉田はこの一年後に、「兵器の製造の困難にして且つ平時と戦時との需要率と云ふものが、平時に於ては想像し得られぬ程夥しきものであるが故に、此に於ては兵器民営化促
進を聞くに至ったのである」34）と記している。兵器民営化の促進が将来生起するであろう
総力戦への対応策であり、日本工業生産能力水準の向上には、平時から民間工場と官営工33）『各種調査委員会文書〈講演綴〉』国立公文書館蔵、第 36 巻、5 頁。
34）吉田［1917］67 頁。

109

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

場との連携、技術協力、共同開発・研究が必要であることを説いたのであった。
陸軍省兵器局にあった陸軍砲兵少佐鈴村吉一も、同様の見解に立ちつつ、「工業動員ノ第一要義ハ、民間工場卜政府トノ関係ヲ律スルコト、即チ是ナリ」35）と吉田とほぼ同様の見解を記していた。広範な軍需工業動員の実施には、民間工場の軍需生産能力向上が必要だとしたのである。その際には、民間工場への政府権限による生産管理・統制・徴発の体制の確立を諸前提とすべきだとした。これは軍需工業動員法に、そのまま反映されることになる。これ以後、同法制定後の主要な課題が、官民合同の実現を目標とする体制整備にあったことを明らかにした見解が目立っていく。
例えば、総力戦段階について、陸軍砲兵中佐近藤兵三郎は、「兵器ノ一部ヲ平時ヨリ民営ニ附スルガ如キハ最モ緊要時ナルガ、之ガ為メ第一ニ起ルべキ問題ハ、之ガ経営、指導ニ任スル恰好ノ人物ヲ民間ニ得ルコト至難ナル一事ナリ」36）と述べ、兵器民営化を実行する際、懸案とされた民間工場における兵器生産技術の低位性克服に向け、陸・海軍から技術者を出向させる処置を提唱した。ここには軍需工業動員実施には、軍財双方の技術協力を不可欠とする考えが明らかにされていたのである。
一方、海軍も官民合同あるいは兵器民営化に、強い関心を持っていた。例えば、海軍機関中将武田秀雄は、「官民相互に胸襟を開き相椅り相信じて、倶に国防の大義に努めざる
限り、動員法例如何に完備するも、其の大目的たる妙境に達するものにあらず」37）と述べ、
官民協力体制づくりを強調していた。同様の観点からする民営化論には、陰山登（工業之大日本社理事）が、「之を開放して民営に移し、之を経営せむる事を要す」38）と述べたように、平時における民間兵器生産技術の向上と、生産体制の確立を説く有力者が少なくなかったのである。
官民合同の一環としての兵器民営化への機運は、軍・財に留まらず、製鉄事業拡充の計画立案者として政府委員を務めた学者の間にも根強いものであった。例えば、東京帝国大学工科大学教授（造兵学・第一講座担当）で製鉄業調査委員会委員でもあった大河内
正敏は、「兵器の民営ということは、今少しく国民の生命に触れた国家其者の存亡安危に関する真乎国防上の重大問題であるということを悟らねばならぬ」39）と述べ、財界人の説
いた重化学工業発展の促進を契機とし、兵器民営化の根本要因を国防の充実に置く必要
35）鈴村［1918］18 頁。
36）近藤［1919］6 頁。この他にも辻村［1918］は、「挙国一致官民協同を以て、軍需員〔品〕の補給を敏速円滑に遂行すると云ふ精神に基いて居る」（30 頁）と同法制定の意図について記している。
37）武田［1918］22 頁。
38）陰山［1918］2 頁。
39）大河内［1916］。

110

戦前期日本の武器生産問題と武器輸出商社（纐纈厚）を説いていた。
それは、兵器民営化の目標とその内容は、国防の充実と言う国家的かつ軍事的考慮から規定されるべき性質のものであって、資本家的な利益追求を第一義とするものでない、とする見解であった。逓信次官内田嘉吉も、「国民の戦争であるが故に、国民は自ら進んで必要なる軍需品の製造供給に当る責任を負う可きである」40）と述べて、総力戦段階における国民的課題としても位置づけるべきだとしていた。
以上、軍需工業動員体制構築過程において、軍財間の争点となるべき自給自足問題、資源問題、官民合同問題については、当該期日本の政治経済構造に規定されつつも、いずれも軍財官の間において一致点を見出していく可能性が大きかったのである。軍需工業動員法制定は、実にその法的表現であった 41）。そして、時代は若干前後するが、多様な議論を踏まえつつ、軍需工業体制の確立が希求された歴史的背景として、何よりもＷＷⅠ前
後期からする武器生産と武器輸出への対応が緊急の政策課題となっていた国内外の時代状況にあったのである。

３ 第一次世界大戦前後期の武器輸出問題－泰平組合の役割－（1）武器輸出への対応
大隈首相が懸念した「軍需品の注文」への対応については、ＷＷⅠに先立つ日露戦争以後においても同様の状況が既に出現していた。当該期においては、特に辛亥革命前後は、中国が武器輸出市場として着目されており、日本政府も果敢に武器輸出の体制構築に腐心していた。そこで日露戦争終結の 3 年後にあたる 1908（明治 41）年 6 月 4 日付で、当時の陸軍大臣寺内正毅の命令により、それまで主に中国市場を対象に武器輸出において競合状態にあった合資会社高田商会、合名会社大倉組、合名会社三井物産に命じて合同して泰平組合を設立し、武器輸出事業を担わせることになった。
日露戦争の最中、日本の武器生産は東京・大阪などの軍工廠の規模拡大によって充当してきたが、戦争終結により飽和状態となっていた武器の生産と備蓄を保守し、同時に砲兵工廠の運転資金をも確保する目的で、主に中国やタイを武器輸出市場として位置づけていたのである。
そのことを示すものとして、外務省史料である「泰平組合ニ関スル件」（大正 14 年 4 月40）内田［1918］12 頁。
41）大河内［1918］は、軍財双方が協同して軍需品製造に従事し、これを調整統一機関として双方から独立した工務省設置を提言していた（109 頁）。

111

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

1 日 森島）には、「諸外国ニ対スル武器輸出ノ目的ヲ以テ」設立されたと明記している 42）。
そして同組合は、その後大正年間の末までに三次にわたり期限延長が繰り返された。各次の契約は全て陸軍大臣の命令条件に従って締結されたことから、泰平組合は事実上日本陸軍の〝御雇組織〟そのものであったことが判る。日本の武器輸出事業が日本陸軍の統制下に置かれたのである。
また、同史料には特に第二次契約時、寺内内閣による中国段祺瑞政権への援助政策を
43）
背景に、「大正六年年末乃至同八年春迄ニ約三千万円ノ武器ヲ供給シタル」と記されているが、ＷＷⅠ終了後には武器輸出額の減少が顕在化していく。当時、寺内内閣の段祺瑞政権支援政策は、武器輸出の増加という形で表れている。武器輸出額の増減は、その意味で対象国との外交関係の実態を可視化するものであり、そのこと自体が武器移転史研究の重要なアプローチともなろう。
昭和期に入り、泰平組合の継続に関しては、陸軍側と組合側とのやりとりが連綿と続いている。例えば、「泰平組合継続ニ関スル件」（密受第 408 号 受領昭和 5 年 6 月 18 日）には、泰平組合の三井物産株式会社代表取締役社長三井守之助と、合名会社大倉組頭取大倉喜七郎の連名で陸軍省に対し、「御願」44）が提出されている。昭和期に入り武器輸出総額の減少が影響しているのか、泰平組合に参加する商社の増加が期待できない状況のなかで、それでも継続依頼を申し出ている恰好となっている。文面上は泰平組合側の「御願」の形式を踏んではいるが、額面通りとは受け取れない。武器輸出政策を進めたい陸軍側の意向が背景にあったことは言うまでも無い。
それを証明する素材として、同日付で陸軍省兵器局が示した「泰平組合更改ニ関スル件」のなかに「意見」45）とする項目がある。そこには、泰平組合の現状に強い危機感を示す文言があった。政党政治が勢いを得て軍部批判を展開し、世論にも軍縮を求める機運が醸成されもしていた状況下である。この時点で現状を打破するためにも、陸軍内では兵器局を中心に泰平組合に代わる新組織設立が検討され始めていた。加えて、その文面からは
武器輸出商社の梃入れ策として、より徹底した陸軍の統制を必要とする意志が示されていた。
新組織の設立を求める背景には、陸軍当局の泰平組合への不満も存在していた。それは
42）アジア歴史資料センター（以下、JACAR）：レファレンスコード (Ref) B03030302100 REEL No.1-0089（外務省史料館蔵「戦前期外務省記録」）491 頁。なお、最後の頁数は、JACAR が整理上後付けした数字である。
なお、レファレンスコードが最初Ｂで始まるのは外務省資料館蔵、C は防衛省防衛研究所蔵を示している。
43）外務省史料館蔵「戦前期外務省記録」492 頁。
44）Ref.C01003813900（陸軍省「密大日記」昭和 3 年第三冊）1426 頁。
45）陸軍省「密大日記」昭和 3 年第三冊、1428-2429 頁。

112

戦前期日本の武器生産問題と武器輸出商社（纐纈厚）

外国からの兵器の注文様式にも原因があるとしながらも、「組合ガ注文引受後一ヶ年以内
ニ引渡ヲ完了セルモノ殆ンドナク、数ヶ年ニ亘ルモノ多シ」（「泰平組合更改ニ関スルル説
明参考」）46）と指摘していることからも窺える。その実例として、「支那ニ払下タル兵器」
である三八式歩兵銃と銃剣が、注文開始から引渡完了まで、一ヶ年四ケ月、タイに至っては、制式銃と実包の輸出が注文開始から引渡まで四ヶ年も要した、と記録している。他国との武器輸出競争の観点からも、こうした遅延の事態は、陸軍当局にとって深刻な問題と捉えていたのである。
しかし、新組織の設立まで一気に事を進める状況下でもなかった。それは徹底した陸軍による統制という強硬政策が、実際に効果を発揮するのかどうかについて、陸軍側でも確信を持てなかったからである。1930（昭和 5）年 6 月 21 日付で陸軍副官から陸軍造兵廠長
官への通牒「泰平組合継続ニ関スル件」では、期限の切れる同日から、向こう一年間以内の継続を承認する旨の記載がある。
同史料の「外国へ兵器売込ニ関スル件」（昭和 5 年 6 月 19 日 銃砲課）47）には、六点にわたり継続理由が示されている。改めて武器輸出商社の役割が何処にあるのかを確認する旨の内容である。特に英仏を中心に武器輸出諸国が対中国向けの武器輸出の動きを活発化させており、それに遅れをとらないためにも、武器輸出政策の充実が不可欠とし、そのため泰平組合に参入する商社の増加を期待している旨が明記されていた 48）。
満州事変勃発の前年に示された同文書からは、当該期における軍縮を求める世論の一方で、武器輸出に実績を挙げるための政策が押し進められていたことを窺わせる。そこには、軍縮世論に抗うように、武器輸出による中国への影響力浸透と国内武器生産体制の強化を図ろうとする意図が透けて見える。取り分け、日本陸軍には、軍縮世論に後押しされた民政党内閣の反軍姿勢への反発が蓄積されつつあり、それが国外クーデターとも言える
満州事変を呼び込み、同時に軍拡路線へと舵を切るための措置として、こうした武器輸出政策の梃入れが進行していたと考えられる。
次に主要各国の武器輸出の実態について概観しておく。1935 年 1 月に外務省調査部第二課が作成した「武器輸出禁止問題」（外務省調査部第二課作成）49）に示された数字を引用す

46）陸軍省「密大日記」昭和 3 年第三冊、1430 頁。
47）陸軍省「密大日記」昭和 3 年第三冊、1452-1453 頁。
48）泰平組合の役割期待について論じた論考は少なくないが、池田［1987］は「日露戦後における陸軍と兵器生産」において、「兵器売込をめぐる国内商社間の競争を排除し、売込組織を一本化して、ドイツ商社に対抗する体制を官（軍）・民一体となってつくりあげたのが泰平組合ともいえる」（41 頁）とし、ドイツ商社との輸出競争への対応策という点を強調している。
49）Ref. B1007038030（「外務省調査部作成 武器輸出禁止問題」（調 第 21 号／ 1935 年）017-018 頁。

113

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

る。1930 年における世界の軍需工業生産高は、イギリスを筆頭に上位 10 か国で世界の輸出総額の 9 割を占めるとしていた。以下、順位と占有率を示す。第一位イギリス 30.8％、第二位フランス 12.9％、第三位アメリカ 11.7％、第四位チェコ 9.6％、第五位スェーデン
7.8％、第六位イタリア 6.8％、第七位オランダ 5.4％、第八位ベルギー 4.4％、第九位デン
マーク 1.9％、第十位日本 1.9％となっている。
ここで明らかなように世界第十位の位置にあった日本の占有率は世界の 2％にも満たなかった。このことは、依然として日本の軍需工業生産能力の低位性を示すものであり、そのことが特に日本陸軍をして武器輸出増加を軍需工業の活性化に繋げたい、とする要求を強く意識させる理由ともなっていたと推察される。

（2）満州事変前後期日本海軍の武器輸入
満州事変前後期における武器輸出入問題を整理していくなかで、従来の研究では殆ど取り上げられなかった日本海軍の武器輸入の実態を最初に紹介しておく。当該期の日本が如何なる内容の武器輸入を実施していかを知るうでは、「米国ノ武器輸出禁止ニ関スル件」（昭和 8 年 3 月 13 日付 海軍艦政本部総務部第 2 課）50）の史料が参考となる。そこには、日本海軍が行った武器輸入の実数が様々なバージョンで記載されている。そのうちのいくつかを以下に引用しておく。
先ず、1930（昭和 5）年度、1931（昭和 6）年度、1932（昭和 7）年度の 3 年間における武器輸入相手国と購入額を示す。以下、各年度の輸入総額、上位三国名と取り扱い件数（ ）及び金額である。1930 年度は、合計額は 241 万 2,670 円で、イギリス（22）227 万 3,963
円、スイス（3）3 万 5,918 円、ドイツ（4）2 万 1,999 円の順、1931 年度の総額 224 万 6,656
円で、イギリス（18）122 万 6,637 円、フランス（6）82 万 0,794 円、アメリカ（9）8 万 7,484
円の順、1932 年度の総額は 710 万 4,041 円でフランス（11）309 万 0,869 円、イギリス（16）231 万 1728 円、ドイツ（11）139 万 2,204 円の順である。
満州事変以後、戦線の拡大に伴う武器弾薬の使用量の増大に比例し、輸入額が急激に増えている現実が数字で読み取れる。主な輸入相手国がイギリスとフランスであり、満州事変の翌年に輸入額でフランスがイギリスを上回っている意味は、満州事変を引き起こした日本への対応の姿勢が、輸入額にも反映されていると解釈可能である。
つまり、満州事変にはイギリスとフランスを代表とする国際連盟常任理事国である両国とも厳しい姿勢で臨み、特にイギリスのリットン卿を中心とする、所謂リットン調査団の50）Ref. C05022716800（海軍省「公文備考」昭和 8 年）0170 頁。

114

戦前期日本の武器生産問題と武器輸出商社（纐纈厚）

調査報告自体は日本に融和的な内容であったが、イギリスはフランス以上に対日警戒感が強かったことも、結果的に武器輸入額で 1932 年度にフランスが最上位となった原因と推察される。この点にも武器輸出入が当該期における武器輸出対象国との政治関係によって左右されることを示している。
次に武器輸入品目の実例を紹介しておく。その一例として、1931 年度にイギリスから輸入した日本海軍使用の武器の種類を以下に記しておく。
（ ）は数量、以下の数字は価格（円）である 51）。

留式七粍七機銃（三挺）
留式七粍七旋回機銃（一〇七挺）
航空用パーンヤ機銃（二挺）五、四一八
一四、七四六五三、三五八

畏式七粍七機銃（七〇挺）

一三六、二九三

同用普通弾薬包（三、五〇八、〇〇〇）

一七四、五一九

同用曳跟弾薬包（四〇二、〇〇〇）
畏式一二，〇粍機銃（二三挺）四九、七七一
一六九、六〇五

同用普通弾薬包（五五、〇〇〇個）

二〇、六〇〇

同用曳跟弾薬包（五，〇〇〇個）

四、〇三九

同式四〇，〇粍機銃（一〇挺）

二二二、三四六

同用普通弾薬包（六、五〇〇個）

七〇二二三

同用曳跟弾薬包（三、五〇〇個）

三一，二九三投射銃（肩当式）（三五挺）

八、〇八一

カーデンロイド軽戦車（六台）

六一、四六八畏式Ｃ・Ｔ・Ａ 一〇粍銅板（四〇噸）

五一、六三四高声電話機（九個）
ラウダーフオン（一組）

九四七
一、〇三四

これらの合計額が 122 万 6657 円と記されている。こうした武器内容から、当時の日本海軍が如何なる武器輸入に主眼を置いていたかが判る。なお、これら武器輸入は日本海軍が発注したものであり、泰平組合や昭和通商が関わっていたとは思われない。この点については後述する。

51）海軍省「公文備考」昭和 8 年、0110頁。

115

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

同史料からもう一つ引用する。
「昭和六年度外国武器」から、国別輸入額で多い順に挙げておく。第一位イギリス（125 万 3,713 円）、第二位フランス（82 万 2,881 円）、第三位アメリカ（20 万 9,245 円）、第四位ドイツ（10 万 1,021 円）、第五位スエーデン（5 万 3,839 円）、
第六位イタリア（2 万 8,000 円）、第七位スイス（5,626 円）で、合計額が 247 万 4,325 円と記録されている。先に挙げた史料との数値が若干異なるが、ほぼ同数となっていることから、武器輸入額は概ね実態を示した数字と判断して良いであろう。
武器の内容は、銃機及び機銃弾、拳銃及び拳銃弾、計器、飛行機部分品等となっている 52）。武器の種別及び金額では、1930 年度の数字だが、銃機及び機銃弾が約 105 万円、主砲弾丸が 50 万円、機雷が 27 万円、飛行機用部分品及び計器が約 40 万円、その他が約 58 万円の合計で約 280 万円となっている 53）。輸入額だけを見ても、満州事変勃発までのイギリスの位置が極めて大きかった。
イギリスは当該期における世界最大の武器輸出国であり、その武器輸出を通して相手国との経済的かつ軍事的関係の強化を図ることで、覇権主義の徹底化と国際秩序の主導者としての位置を占めていたのである。武器輸出は、その意味で国家の意志と方向性を示す可視的な政治行為であった。
そうした欧米の姿勢について、外務省は「満洲事変ニ際シ各国武器輸出取締関係雑件」54）を纏めていた。そこには例えば、武器輸出大国イギリスが満州事変の翌年以降、如何なる武器輸出入政策を示していくのかの一端を記録している。
例えば、「英国政府ノ日支両国ニ対スル武器輸出ノ解除」の項に於いて、「英国政府ガ二
月二十七日日支両国ニ対スル武器禁輸ヲ輸出ノ解除ヲ声明シタルニ対シテハ、英国諸新聞
中ニハ政府ノ措置ニ対シ賛意ヲ表スルモノアリタルモ、多数ノ新聞ハ其効果スクナキコト、
日支両国ヲ同等ニ取扱フコトノ不公平ナルコト等ヲ理由トシテ之ニ反対ノ評論ヲ掲ケタリ。
其ノ主ナルモノ左ノ如シ」55）として、『ロンドン・タイムス』（1932 年 2 月 28 日付）、『デー
リー・エキスプレス』（同）、『モーニング・ポスト』（同）、『マンチェスター・ガーディアン』（同）、『デーリー・テレグラフ』（3 月 3 日付）、『イブニング・スタンダード』（3 月 3
日付）、『デーリー・メイル』（3 月 4 日付）の各紙の論調を紹介している。
このうち『ロンドン・タイムス』では、「被害国タル支那ニ対シ、日本ト同等ノ取扱ヲ為スハ、不公平ナリト言フ点ニアルモ、右ノ点ニ関シ外相ガ目下単独ニテ行動シツツアル52）海軍省「公文備考」昭和 8 年、0111 頁。
53）海軍省「公文備考」昭和 8 年、0137 頁。
54）海軍省「公文備考」昭和 8 年、Ref. B04010625000（『戦前期外務省記録』Ｃ門弾薬、航空機、需品、満洲事変ニ際シ各国武器輸出取締関係一件、頁なし）
55）満洲事変ニ際シ各国武器輸出取締関係一件、0368 頁。

116

軍事 9 グ類

武器、

戦前期日本の武器生産問題と武器輸出商社（纐纈厚）

英国ニ取リテハ、交戦者ニ区別ヲ設クルコトハ実際上困難ナリト諭セルハ至極尤モナリ」
述べ、戦争当事国の片方に加担することの非合理性を説く論調を紹介していた。また、『デーリー・エキスプレス』（2 月 28 日付）では、「吾人ハ戦争ヲ嫌悪スル点ニ於テ人後ニ落ツルモノニ非ザルモ、武器ノ禁輸カ戦争ヲ終結セシムモノトハ考フルコト能ハズ。如何
ナル武器禁輸協定ヲ成立セシムルモ、日支間ノ紛争ヲ止ムルコトハ能ハザル可シ。政府ノ
禁輸政策ノ唯一ノ影響ハ英国ノ失業者ニ更ニ一段ノ失業者ヲ増加スルコトトナルノミ」とした。
結局のところ禁輸政策が失業者の増加に結果するとして、イギリス国民の経済生活への影響の観点からの反対論を展開していたとする。このイギリス政府が一時期採用した武器輸出禁止に同国のメディアは押し並べて批判的であり、なかには日英友好関係にも悪影響を与えるものとする論調のものもあった。
こうしたイギリス国内世論の動きを受けてか、イギリス政府は武器移転問題については融和的な姿勢を採ることになった。同外務省史料の「二、英国政府ノ武器禁輸声明事情」にも、イギリスにおける各新聞の報道内容とほぼ同一の説明がなされている。要するに、一時武器輸出禁止措置を採ったのは、武器輸出反対運動への一種の「ジェスチャー」だとし、イギリス政府の本音としては、「日支双方ニ対スル友好関係ヲ傷ケズ、又如何ナル場合ニ於テモ紛争ノ渦中ニ巻込マザルコトハ、飽迄之ヲ避クル方針ナル旨」56）としていた。
要するに、紛争に巻き込まれず、武器輸出による利益確保と失業者対策との両方にとって有益とする判断を示していたのである。

４ 昭和通商の役割と日本陸軍（1）昭和通商の創設
第一次世界大戦の期間中、泰平組合はイギリスやロシアに向け、1000 万挺を超える小銃を輸出した実績を残した。しかし、武器輸出額の減少傾向が顕在化すると高田商会が脱会し、それと交代するかのように航空機や装甲車両の製造を担っていた三菱重工業を傘下にもつ三菱商事が加入した。これを機会に泰平組合は、昭和通商と名称変更する。昭和通商（正式名称は、昭和通商株式会社）は、1939（昭和 14）年 4 月 20 日、陸軍省軍事課長
岩畔豪雄大佐の肝いりで設立された。泰平組合と異なり、業務上の指揮監督権や人事権まで全てにわたり陸軍省が掌握し、文字通り陸軍省直下の武器輸出商社としての性格を一層強めていた。

56）満洲事変ニ際シ各国武器輸出取締関係一件、0369-0372 頁。

117

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

「昭和通商株式会社ニ関スル件」によると、陸軍は昭和通商の役割を徹底するために、積極果敢に海外への武器輸出を促す通達を発している。その一例として、陸軍大臣板垣征四郎は、1939（昭和 14）年 7 月 27 日付で、
「昭和通商株式会社ニ与フル訓令」を関係各部隊に通牒した。そこには、「現下ノ時局ニ鑑ミ本邦製兵器ノ市場ヲ積極的ニ海外ニ開拓シ、以テ此種重工業力ノ維持並健全ナル発達ヲ遂ケシムル」57）ためと昭和通商設立の目的を明確にしていた。
そこには、泰平組合の役割期待と同質の目的が示されてはいたが、泰平組合がある程度組合構成員の自主性に委ねられていた点と比べ、主に陸軍の思惑が前面に出ている点が異なる。1930 年代から 40 年代という時代の相違性もあろう。軍需産業を支える重工業の安定的な運営のためには、武器輸出先の持続的確保を不可欠とする認識が明瞭にされていたのである。
昭和通商の業務内容については、同史料に収められた「覚書」に詳しい。そこには、「本
会社ノ営ムヘキ業務ノ範囲」として、（1）兵器及び兵器部品並軍需品ノ輸出、（2）同右ノ輸入、（3）特殊原材料及機械類ノ輸出入、を挙げていた 58）。また、ここで注目したいのは、陸軍が昭和通商に付与する便益として、「３．兵器及原品類ノ販路開拓為陸軍ハ事情ノ許ス限リ、積極的ニ優秀品ノ払下ヲ辞セサル外、相手国ノ希望ニヨリテハ事情ノ許ス限リ、制式品以外ノモノノ製造ニ関シテモ協力ヲ与フルモノトス」59）の項目である。陸軍が武器輸出に関し、極めて積極的かつ攻勢的な姿勢が露骨でさえある。要するに兵器購入の機会について、只管に注文を待つだけでなく、兵器の売り付けと武器使用のための指導官を派遣するというのである。泰平組合との違いがここに浮き彫りにされている。

（2）中国とタイへの武器輸出
先ず中国への武器輸出の実例を示す史料から見ておきたい。例えば、「官房機密第一三六四号

航空兵器輸出ニ関スル件」（仰裁

昭和 10 年 6 月 5 日決裁）には、中国をはじめとして、航空機購入希望の申し出があることを踏まえ、以下の見解が記されている。
特に重要と思われる三項目を引用する。

一、最近別紙㐧一、㐧二ノ如ク中華民国其ノ他ヨリ軍用機購入ノ希望申出アリ。
二、我国ニ於テハ飛行機ノ需要ガ殆ド軍部ニ限ラレ、海外ハ勿論国内ニ於テモ其ノ需57）Ref.C01007723900（陸軍省「陸機密大日記」昭和 14 年、第 2 冊）0641 頁。
58）陸軍省「陸機密大日記」昭和 14 年、第 2 冊、0649 頁。
59）陸軍省「陸機密大日記」昭和 14 年、第 2 冊、0650-065 頁。

118

戦前期日本の武器生産問題と武器輸出商社（纐纈厚）

要ナキトキハ、工業力維持ノ上ニ多大ノ不安アリ。延テハ戦時動員計画ニモ欠陥ヲ生ズルノミナラズ、一方機材ノ単価ヲ高メ、又飛行機制作技術ノ進歩ヲ阻害スル
主要原因ナリ。之等ノ不利ヲ除ク為ニハ、速ニ飛行機ノ販路ヲ海外ニ求ムルノ要アリ。
三、中華民国ニ対シテハ、各国競テ飛行機ノ売込ニ努メツツアルニ鑑ミ、日支外交好転転ノ徴アル今日、我国トシテモ先ヅ一石ヲ投ジ置ク要アリ 60）。

この時点でも航空兵器の輸出理由として航空機産業の活性化のためにも販路を海外に求め、それが同時に戦時動員計画遂行の円滑化と、航空機開発技術の向上にも結果すると明快な判断を示していた。また、中国が各国からの輸出相手先として競合状態となっており、同国への航空機輸出を媒介とする影響力確保の面からも、必要不可欠な武器輸出政策との認識を示していた。
1940（昭和 15）年 10 月 31 日、昭和通商株式会社起草の「航空兵器輸出ニ関スル件」61）には、タイへの航空機輸出の一例として以下の実例がある。先ず、昭和通商の専務取締役
堀三也の名で陸軍大臣東條英機宛に「航空兵器輸出許可御願」（昭和 5 年 10 月 19 日付）が提出されている。その内容は以下の通りである。

一、九七式軽爆撃機完全装備（武装不含） 全機用所要機材共

二四台

一、八九式固定機関銃

二四挺

一、八九式旋回機関銃

二四挺

一、八九式旋回固定機関銃 九二式焼夷実包挿弾子、紙函共一〇〇、〇〇〇発

一、八九式旋回固定機関銃 九二式徹甲実包挿弾子、紙函共三〇〇、〇〇〇発

一、八九式固定機関銃保弾子
一、五十瓩型投下爆弾

二五、〇〇〇個
二、〇〇〇個右之通リ泰国政府向輸出致度候間、何卒御許可可被成下度此段奉願上候也

この「御願」に対し、同年同日付けにおいて副官名で昭和通商側に許可する旨の通牒が通達され、同時に副官より陸軍航空本部長にその旨が伝達されている。書類上のやり取りだ
が、陸軍側と昭和通商側との連携ぶりを示す記録である。
日本の中立国であったタイへの航空機輸出は、対英米蘭戦争開始後も一定程度継続さ
60）Ref.C05034160500（海軍省「公文備考」昭和 10 年 6 月 6 日）0100 頁。
61）Ref.C01002443600（陸軍省「陸軍省大日記」乙輯第 2 類 昭和 15 年 兵器其 3）1066 頁。

119

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

れた。例えば、1942（昭和 17）年 4 月 9 日に陸軍航空本部第二部が起草した「泰国ヘ譲渡
ノ飛行機組立作業援助ニ関スル件」には、陸軍次官から南方軍総参謀長宛の電文として、「泰国譲渡中ノ九九式高等練習機九機（内六機三月十四日ノ朝昭和丸ニテ発送済、残三機
近ク発送予定）ノ組立作業ヲ昭和通商株式会社（盤谷支店）ト連絡ノ上援助セラレ度」62）なる内容が記されていた。
航空機を含めた武器輸出の目的として、平時における軍需生産体制の安定化と軍事技術の向上確保があることは、多くの記録で明らかであるが、この史料もその実態を示している。航空機輸出として、中国を相手とする以前から、タイが有力な輸出相手先と見積もられていたことは先に述べた通りである。1940 年 10 月 14 日付の「起草者

兵器局銃砲課

兵器売込ニ関スル件」には、「泰国親善使節一行軍需工業視察中、プロム大臣ノ言ニヨ
レバ兵器購買ハ帝国ニ依存スルコト確実視サルルヲ持テ、交渉慎重ヲ期サレ度」と記され、タイの実力者であったプロム大臣への接近策が功を奏し、日本の武器輸出の先行きに一定の展望が開けた現状を語っていた。
さらに「泰国兵器輸出ニ関スル件」（1940 年 10 月 8 日

航空本部受付）には、次官より泰国公使館付武官への暗号電報の形で、タイへ三八式歩兵銃、三〇年式銃剣、九六式軽機関銃、10 両の九五式軽戦車（三十七粍砲装備）、40 両の九四式軽装甲車（機関銃装備）、
他に航空機も空輸で輸出する、との内容である。そこにおいて「輸出価格ニ就テハ、昭和通商ニ示シアル範囲トシ度」としていた。
このように、タイ政府の日本からの武器輸入は極めて積極的であり、そのことを示す史料として、1940（昭和 15）10 月 4 日付で、総務部長から泰国公使館附武官宛の「電報」（秘
電報第 262 号）には、「泰国ト仏印間ノ状況切迫ニ伴ヒ、泰国ハ目下軍備増強ニ奔走中、
泰空軍ハ大至急ニ軽爆撃機二十四、五十瓩爆弾二千個ヲ至急入手シ度。直ニ積出シテク
レ。
（中略）已ムヲ得ザレバ、其ノ半数ニテモ即時積出シテクレト小官ニ懇請シ来レリ」63）と記されていた。
タイ政府はフランスを筆頭とする外国勢力から圧力を受けており、中立国の堅持が危ぶまれた状況下にあった。それで、自力で中立堅持のために、インドシナ半島にも触手を伸ばしていた日本からの武器援助に頼らざるを得ない状況にあったのである。タイ政府は指導者プレーク・ピブーン・ソンクラーム 64）の命令で、50 両に及ぶ軽戦車を至急日本から
62）Ref.C01000204000（陸軍省航空本部第二部「陸亞密大日記」第 12 号 昭和 17 年）0740 頁。
63）Ref.C01004903700（陸軍省「密大日記」昭和 15 年第 15 冊、昭和 15 年 10 月）2001-2001 頁。
64）プレーク・ピブーンソンクラーム（Luang Pibulsonggram、1897 年 7 月 14 日 -1964 年 6 月 11 日）は、タイの政治家である。首相を二度度務めた。立憲革命時代から第二次世界大戦を跨いで、タイの政治に大きな影響力を持ち続け、「永年宰相」と綽名された。

120

戦前期日本の武器生産問題と武器輸出商社（纐纈厚）

輸入するとことなった。
1940（昭和 15）年 10 月 5 日付で泰国公使館付武官から総務部長宛「電報」（第 264 号）には、「「ピブン」ハ泰国軍ノ使用兵器ノ補給ヲ、今後全部日本ニ仰グコトヲ決心セルヲ以テ、日本側ニ於テモ商売的見地ヲ離レ、政治的ニ考慮セラレ度」と記され、さらに「国際情勢ノ変転ニ絆ヒ、日、泰ノ軍事提携ハ着々進行シツツアリ。此ノ際我ガ方トシテモ、兵器売却問題ヲ戦略的ニ考慮スル必要アルニ至ル」とする判断を示していた 65）。
それで昭和通商は、如何なる役割を担っていたかを以下の史料から概観しておく。先ず、1941 年 1 月 13 日付で陸軍次官から泰国大使館付き武官に送付された「昭和通商株式会社
利用ニ関スル件」66）が、その役割の所在を端的に示している。なかでも注目されるのは、「一、泰国ヨリ注文セラルル軍用（民間用ニアリテモ軍用ニ準性質ノモノヲ含ム）兵器似品ヲ昭和以外ノ商社ヲ通シ内地ニ注文セラルル向アルモ、統制上不利ニ付、爾今兵器並ニ兵器類似品ノ取扱ハ、全部昭和通商ヲ通ズル如ク指導ヲセラレ度」の箇所である。
ここではタイに限ってかは不明だが、昭和通商以外の武器輸出商社の存在も窺わせながらも、結局武器輸出商社は陸軍傘下の昭和通商に一本化することが示されている。広範な武器輸出体制を整備し、陸軍の思惑を実行に移すためには、複数の商社を動員するのが合理的とも思われるが、統制上の観点から昭和通商に一本化する旨が明記されていたのである。特に陸軍が傾注していたのが昭和通商を媒介にしての航空機輸出であった。日本
陸軍としては次世代の主力兵器として航空機の存在を強く意識しており、航空機生産の高度化・大量生産化への観点から、日本における航空機産業の充実発展のためにも輸出体制の確立が急務と認識されていたのである 67）。
武器輸出先としてタイに限らず、陸軍はヨーロッパ方面にも触手を伸ばそうとしていた。
例えば、1940（昭和 15）年 2 月 7 日付けで、軍務局軍事課は、陸軍次官から駐在武官宛て電報文で、「「スカンジナビヤ」向ケ再供給ノ処アル兵器輸出ハ、国際情勢ニ鑑ミ差控ヘ度。又「バルカン」向兵器ハ直接取引セシメ度」68）と記すように武器輸出が国際問題化しないようにとの慎重姿勢を喚起しながらも、武器輸出策に積極果敢に取り組むように督促している。
そのことを示す一例として、1940 年 1 月 19 日付の「軍需品輸出ニ関スル件

軍務局軍65）陸軍省「密大日記」昭和 15 年第 15 冊、昭和 15 年 10 月、2003-2004 頁。
66）陸軍省「密大日記」昭和 15 年第 15 冊、昭和 15 年 10 月、2003-2004 頁；陸軍省「陸支密大日記」第 18 号、
昭和 16 年 1 月 21 日、0670-0672 頁。
67）戦前期タイに向けた日本商社の活動全般については、川辺［2008］を参照。
68）Ref.C01004879200（陸軍省「密大日記」昭和 15 年 2 月）0289 頁。

121

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

務課 起草」69）には、陸軍省軍務課がイタリア、ドイツ、フランス、イギリス、アメリカ、
ソ連、ポーランド、フィンランド、トルコ、ラトビア、ルーマニア、イラン、タイ、ブラジル、メキシコなどに駐在する武官に電報（陸密電）で、「輸出余裕アルモノハ、左記兵器特ニ弾薬トス。追テ輸出ハ昭和通商ヲシテ本年度総額概ネ一億円程度ナリ」と記していることである。これに航空機や戦車などの武器類を加算すれば、相当額の武器輸出が行われていたことになる 70）。ここで示された「左記兵器」とは、八八式高射砲・九四式対戦車砲、重擲、軽擲、弾薬、他に手榴弾、各種爆弾の類のこと、重擲とは、八九式重擲弾筒のこと
で、小隊用の軽迫撃砲である。
因みに、1940 年度の国家予算は 109 憶 8275 万円、直接軍事費は 79 億 4719 万円であった 71）。即断は避けねばならないが、戦前期日本の戦争行為の裏側で、相当規模の武器輸出が実行されていた事実が浮き彫りになる。戦争行為のなかで武器輸出が同時進行していたのである。戦争行為が武器移転、換言すれば武器拡散を常態化していく、一つの証左と言えるであろう。

５ おわりに 結論と残された課題
冒頭に挙げた課題設定を受けて、以上の論述により以下の結論を要約しておきたい。
第一に、明治初期から開始されていた日本の武器生産問題は、特にＷＷⅠ中におけるロ
シアを筆頭とする武器輸出要請に十分に対応しきれなかったことが、日本政府及び陸海軍をして、軍需工業動員体制構築の必要性を痛感させたこと。それは官民合同による武器生産問題への取り組みとなって政策化されていったことである。
第二に、武器生産・兵器独立などを担保する軍需工業の民営化が押し進められ、それがまた戦前期日本の武器輸出を活発にしていった。その直接的担い手として泰平組合と昭和通商とが、日本陸軍の統制下に創設されつつも、日本の武器輸出体制を日本敗戦に至る迄担い続けてきたことである。
第三に、日本陸軍統制下に置かれはしたが、あくまで民間商社の自主性が重んじられ、その活動が期待されてきた側面を否定できないことである。それはＷＷⅠの教訓から軍の主導性を中心とすれば、新たな総力戦への対応は不十分とする認識が軍の側にあったからである。しかし、1920 年代における国際軍縮の動きのなかで、軍主導による軍拡政策の採用を余儀なくされるに至り、そこから武器生産問題における軍の主導性が求められる
69）Ref.C01004878900（陸軍省「密大日記」第 15 冊 昭和 15 年 1 月 -2 月）0275 頁。
70）戦前期日本の武器輸出については纐纈［2018］を発表している。
71）藤原［2016］272 頁。

122

戦前期日本の武器生産問題と武器輸出商社（纐纈厚）

ことになったと考えられることである。
第四に、従来の研究では殆ど触れられなかった武器輸入問題から窺えるのは、日本の武器生産技術の相対的低位性を証明する輸入品目内容であった。そこには武器輸入による生産技術の習得と開発、そして生産の向上を図った足跡を看て取れることである。
最後に残された課題にも触れておきたい。昭和通商は軍との一体化路線によって、文字通り「軍拡の利益構造」を担保され、それ以外の選択肢は存在しなかった。欧米の民間軍需工業と異なり、1930 年代以降における日本の国際武器輸出ネットワークは脆弱であり、自立的な武器輸出を展開できた欧米の武器輸出商社とは、基本的に埋め難い格差が存在したからである。
但し、1930 年代における日本の戦争相手国は基本的に中国であり、それゆえに欧米並
みの武器生産と輸出の意向は必ずしも強いものではなかったことも事実である。すなわち、武器水準において、日本より劣位に位置すると判断した中国戦線では歩兵の戦闘力が重視され、戦車や大砲など火力や機動力充実への要求が必ずしも高いものではなかったからである。しかし、その判断が張鼓峰事件（1938）やノモンハン事変（1939）での日本軍の敗北を結果する。さらには、1940 年代に入り、高度兵器生産技術を持つイギリスやアメリカを相手とする戦争が予測されるに及び、先の対ソ連戦の教訓をも含め、軍事技術の高度化が急速に求められるに至った。
また、日本陸軍と同様に武器輸出入に乗り出していた日本海軍が、泰平組合や昭和通商に匹敵するような武器商社を自前で持っていた形跡は現時点で発見できていない。海軍の公式見解は、引用した通り「仲介者」は不在と言うことである。本稿では武器輸入の実態の一部を示す史料を引用紹介したが、特に 1920 年代以降における日本海軍の武器輸入の実態と、その担い手については今後の史料調査により明らかにしていきたいと考えている。

文献リスト（本文・脚注で引用・参照した研究文献。史 [ 資 ] 料等は除く。発行順）
今泉嘉一郎［1916］「民間製鉄業の欠陥と其振興策」『財政経済時報』第 3 巻第 5 号。
大河内正敏［1916］「兵器民営助長論」『時事新報』第 11629 号。
勝田主計［1917］「欧州戦争と我国の財政」『自由評論』第 5 巻第 12 号。
森戸辰男［1917］「経済国家主義と経済生活」『経済持論』第 1 巻第 2 号。
吉田豊彦［1917］「日本の工業家に希望す」『欧州戦争実記』第 99 号。
大河内正敏［1918］「工業動員に対する準備―工務省設立の最大急務―」『太陽』第 24 巻第 1 号。
陰山登［1918］「軍需工業動員法案」『工業之大日本』第 15 巻第 4 号。
内田嘉吉［1918］「軍需工業動員法に就いて」『実業之世界』第 15 巻第 7 号。
鈴村吉一［1918］「工業動員」『偕行社記事』第 524 号。

123

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

武田秀雄［1918］「軍需動員に関する所感」『大日本』第 5 巻第 11 号。
達堂［1918］「工業動員の方法と影響」『工業雑誌』第 48 巻第 626 号。
辻村楠造［1918］「工業動員法の運用と軍需産業」『財政経済時報』第 5 巻第 4 号。
富山雷太［1918］「工業戦ニ対スル日本ノ立場」『実業之日本』第 21 巻第 18 号。
藤原銀次郎［1918］「戦時工業と保護奨励」『国産時報』5 月号。
三宅覚太郎［1918］「欧州大戦より得たる吾人の第一教訓」『大日本』第 5 巻第第 8 号。
蔵川永充［1919］「戦時工業ノ趨勢ヲ論ス」『商工時報』第 5 巻第 4 号。
近藤兵三郎［1919］「工業動員平時準備ノ見地ヨリスル官民ノ協同ニ就テ」『偕行社記事』第 537 号。
通商産業省編［1961］『商工政策史』第 4 巻。
藤原彰［1961］『軍事史』東洋経済新報社。
大江志乃夫［1976］『日露戦争の軍事史的研究』岩波書店。
纐纈厚［1980］「臨時軍事調査委員会の業務内容」『政治経済史学』第 174 号。
纐纈厚［1981］『総力戦体制研究―日本陸軍の国家総動員構想―』三一書房。
芥川哲士［1985］「武器器輸出の系譜―泰平組合の誕生まで―」『軍事史学』第 21 巻第 2 号。
芥川哲士［1987］「武器輸出の系譜−承前―第一次大戦期の武器輸出―」『軍事史学』第 22 巻第 4 号。
池田憲隆［1987］「日露戦争後における陸軍と兵器生産」『土地制度史学会』第 114 号。
佐藤昌一郎［1989］「陸軍造兵廠の形成とその再生産機構−上−軍縮期の陸軍造兵機構分析試論」『経営志林』
第 26 第 2 号。
佐藤昌一郎［1990］「陸軍造兵廠の形成とその再生産機構−中−軍縮期の陸軍造兵機構分析試論」『経営志林』
第 27 第 1 号。
佐藤昌一郎［1990］「陸軍造兵廠の形成とその再生産機構−下−（1）軍縮期の陸軍造兵機構分析試論」『経営志林』第 27 第 2 号。
坂本雅子［1991］「第一次世界大戦期の対ヨーロッパ資本輸出と武器輸出（上）」名古屋経済大学社会科学研究会『社会科学論集』第 52 号。
佐藤昌一郎［1992］「陸軍造兵廠の形成とその再生産機構−下−（2）軍縮期の陸軍造兵機構分析試論」『経営志林』第 28 第 4 号。
佐藤昌一郎［1992］「陸軍造兵廠の形成とその再生産機構−下−（3）軍縮期の陸軍造兵機構分析試論」『経営志林』第 29 第 1 号。
佐藤昌一郎［1992］「陸軍造兵廠の形成とその再生産機構−下−（4）軍縮期の陸軍造兵機構分析試論」『経営志林』第 29 第 2 号。
坂本雅子［1992］「第一次世界大戦期の対ヨーロッパ資本輸出と武器輸出（下）」名古屋経済大学社会科学研究会『社会科学論集』第 54 号。
芥川哲士［1992］「武器輸出の系譜−第一次世界大戦期の中国向け輸出―」『軍事史学』第 28 巻第 2 号。
川田侃・大畠英樹編［1993］『国際政治経済辞典』東京書籍。
山崎志郎［1994］「陸軍造兵廠と軍需工業動員」福島大学経営学会編『商学論集』第 62 巻第 4 号。
中川清［1994］「明治・大正期における商社の研究」『白鷗大学論集』第 18 巻第 2 号。
坂本雅子［2003］「『財閥と帝国主義―三井物産と中国―』ミネルヴァ書房。
柴田善雅［2004］「陸軍軍命商社の活動―昭和通商株式会社覚書―」『中国研究月報』第 58 巻第 5 号。

124

戦前期日本の武器生産問題と武器輸出商社（纐纈厚）

名古屋貢［2006］「泰平組合の武器輸出」『東アジア』第 16 号。
川辺純子［2008］「戦前タイにおける日本商社の活動―三井物産バンコク支店の事例―」『城西大学経営紀要』
第 4 号。
森久男［2009］「関東軍の内蒙工作と大蒙公司の設立」『中国 21』第 31 巻。
エドワルド・バールィシュフ［2012］「第一次世界大戦期における日露軍事協力の背景―三井物産の対露貿
易戦略―」『北東アジア研究』第 21 号。
エドワルド・バールィシュフ［2012］「第一次世界大戦期の『日露兵器同盟』と両国間実業関係―『ブリネル＆クズネツォーフ商会』を事例にして―」『北東アジア研究』第 23 号。
小林英夫［2012］『「大東亜共栄圏」と日本企業』社会評論社。
鈴木淳［2014］「陸軍軍縮と兵器生産」横井勝彦編『軍縮と武器移転の世界史』日本経済評論社。
Koketsu, Atsushi [2017] “Total War and Japan: Reality and Limitation of the Establishment of the Japanese Total War
System,”History of Global Arms Transfer, No. 6.
纐纈厚［2018］「戦前日本の武器輸出―軍部の思惑と専門商社―」『世界』第 912 号。

125

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）
，127 － 156 頁

論説

イギリス海軍における節約と旧式艦の処分―クリミア戦争からワシントン海軍軍縮条約を中心に―
小風 尚樹

British Royal Navy’s Quest for Disposal of Obsolete Warships:
From Crimean War to Washington Naval Treaty
By NAOKI KOKAZE

In the era of rapid technological innovation c. 1850–1930, the British Royal Navy wasforced to maintain a surfeit of obsolete warships. To cope with increasing militarytension with France, Russia, and Germany, the expansion of armaments was necessary,
but under the contemporary slogans, e.g. ‘Retrenchment’ and ‘Efficiency’, obsolete
warships were waste to be disposed of in the highest priority. Although an examinationof the disposal of obsolete warships is crucial to understanding how the Navy addressed
the reconciliation of peacekeeping with retrenchment, previous studies on this topic havebeen limited to Sir John Fisher’s Reform (1905–). By contrast, this paper clarifies, bothin quantitative and qualitative approaches, two underlying issues: (1) to what extent andunder which financial system the disposal of obsolete warships contributed toretrenchment in naval finances; and (2) what types of obsolete ships were disposed ofintensively, mainly from the Crimean War (1854) to the Washington Naval Treaty(1922). The main findings are that the sale of old ships was a major means for theretrenchment since the 20th century; and that the technological innovations had a moresignificant impact on relatively new steamers than on obsolete wooden vessels. This
paper will give new insights on further studies, including the culture of historic shippreservation, the diplomacy of shipbroking, and the industry of British shipbreaking.

1 はじめに（1）問題の所在と課題設定
よく知られているように、19世紀半ばから20世紀前半にかけてのイギリス海軍の歴史は、
帝国主義諸国間の緊張関係をあおる世論の高まりと軍備拡張・海軍費の膨張 1）、それらに伴う民間軍需企業の台頭と軍事技術の革新の時代として描かれてきた 2）。
新しい技術の登場は、同時に既存の技術を時代遅れのものにする。急速な技術革新期にあったイギリス海軍も、大量の旧式艦を抱え込むことになった。例えば1905年のドレッ
1）Sumida［1993］; Lambert［2002］; 横井［2004］；藤田［2015］など。
2）Brown［2004］; Marchisio［2012］など。

127

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

ドノート級の登場により、154 隻もの軍艦が「実働軍艦一覧 List of Effective Ships」から一挙に登録を抹消された 3）。このような旧式艦の扱いや戦力外となった軍艦の処分について論じたイギリス海軍史の先行研究は、後述するように 20 世紀初頭のフィッシャー Sir John
Fisher 改革期を対象としたものに限られてきた。
しかしながら、旧式艦の処分という問題は、ヴィクトリアおよびエドワード期を通して、海軍史にとどまらず、イギリス国制・帝国史における重要なテーマと密接に結びつく論点である。そのテーマとは、19 世紀後半における「節約 Retrenchment」と世紀転換期における「効率性 Efficiency」である。どちらの標語も、国民の生活に利するような目的で国家財政が運用されることと、無駄が排除されることを追求した改革や政治運動を指す点で共通する 4）。イギリス海軍に関して言えば、高まる対外的な軍事的緊張状態への対策として軍備増強が求められていた一方で、軍事費削減要求を断続的に受けていたのである。まさにこの文脈において、イギリス海軍にとって旧式艦は切り詰めなければならない「無駄」の象徴であったと言えよう。したがって、旧式艦の処分の時代的変遷を明らかにしなければ、イギリス海軍がどのように平和維持と節約を両立しようとしていたのかについて充分に理解することができないのである。
基本的な歴史背景と先行研究の到達点を確認しておこう。当時のイギリス海軍は、1889
年の海軍防衛法 the Naval Defence Act における「二国標準主義 Two-Power Standard（他のいずれの二カ国の海軍力を合わせたものを下回らない方針）」の採用に見られるように、世論の後押しを受ける形で、フランスやロシア、そしてドイツ海軍を仮想敵とした海軍増強路線に舵を切ることを余儀なくされた。このように、ほかの帝国主義列強との間の建艦競争の渦に巻き込まれたイギリス海軍にとって、軍事技術革新は内発的なものというよりは対外的な危機への消極的対応であった 5）。この軍備増強政策に伴って膨張した海軍費の抑制を目的とした 20 世紀初頭のフィッシャー改革は、新型のドレッドノート級の建造と旧式艦の処分を二つの柱とした。このフィッシャー改革における旧式艦の処分は、1940 年に出版されたマーダー Arthur J. Marder の古典的著作以来 6）、主に海軍における人事システ
ム刷新に必要な経費を捻出する方策として説明されてきた 7）。
しかしながら、前述のように旧式艦の処分はフィッシャー改革期に限らず、さまざまな観点から重要な問題である。すなわち、まず旧式艦の処分がどの程度海軍費の節約に寄与
3）Ashworth［1969］p. 503.
4）Searle［1971］; Biagini［2004］など。
5）Grove［2005］Chap. 4; ムロイ［2006］96、112–113 頁；細谷［2006］165–169 頁。
6）Marder［1940］pp. 487-489.
7）Lambert［2002］; 横井［2004］102 頁；Smith［2011］; 藤田［2015］86 頁。

128

イギリス海軍における節約と旧式艦の処分（小風尚樹）

したのかという財政史的側面、さらには軍艦が処分されてイギリス海軍の手を離れた後、解体された資材がどのように再利用されたのかという産業史的側面、あるいは海戦では戦力にならなくとも修理・保全のうえ博物館などに展示されることはなかったのかという文化史的側面など、旧式艦の扱いについては検討の余地が幅広く残されている。
これらの問題をすべて詳細に論じることは本論文の範囲を超える。本稿では、旧式艦の維持や処分に関する費用がイギリス海軍費の中でどの程度の割合を占めていたのか、その基本的事実について財政史的観点から明らかにすることを第一の課題とする。加えて第二の課題として、イギリス海軍における旧式艦の処分についておおまかな全体像を提示する。
その際、フィッシャー期に限らず、木造艦の限界が露呈したクリミア戦争期から第一次大戦後のワシントン海軍軍縮条約締結期までの時期を中心に、イギリス海軍における旧式艦の処分について概観する。

（2）課題の詳細と本論の構成第一の課題は、イギリス海軍費における旧式艦売却額の位置づけを明らかにすることである。スミダ Jon T. Sumida によれば、旧式艦の売却は、予算以外で「海軍が支出できる財源を増やし、維持費を削減し、ほかの新型艦のために使用できる港湾設備を解放する」ことを可能にした 8）。ただしスミダは、旧式艦の売却で得られた収入は海軍の財源として組み込まれることによって予算の節約効果をもたらすことができたと示唆しているものの、それがどのように制度化され、どのような用途の財源として組み込まれたのかについては明らかにしていない。そこで 2（1）では、イギリス海軍費の推移や仕組みを概観した後、イギリス海軍費における項目編成および旧式艦売却額の位置づけの変遷について、特に財産売却額などから構成された受領金 Extra Receipts に着目して明らかにする。2（2）では、旧式艦売却額が造艦関連の決算費に対しどの程度節約効果があったのか、ほかの受領金の内訳と比較して明らかにする。主な史料として、毎年度末に予算と照らし合わせて実際の支出を報告する議会文書、すなわち 1868 年度までは『海軍支出入 Naval Receipt andExpenditure』、1869 ～ 1930 年 度 に つ い て は『 海 軍 議 定 費 決 算 書 Navy, Appropriation
Account』を通時的に用いる 9）。
第二の課題は、イギリス海軍旧式艦の処分の全体像を描くことである。そのために、関連する複数のデータセットを比較検討し、1850 ～ 1930 年の間にイギリス海軍が何らかの
8）Sumida［1993］p. 28.
9）House of Commons Parliamentary Papers (hereafter cited as HCPP), Naval Receipt and Expenditure; Navy,
Appropriation Accounts.

129

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

形で所有権を失った 3958 隻の軍艦データベースを作成した。このデータベースに基づき
旧式艦の処分方法を類型化した後、軍艦情報のうち軍艦のスペックや処分の詳細に関するデータを統計的に分析することにより、イギリス海軍における旧式艦の扱いを明らかにする。なおその際、本稿の論旨に関連する限りにおいて産業史や文化史的側面にも言及する。
2 イギリス海軍費と旧式艦売却額（1）旧式艦の売却に関する制度的変遷
19 世紀末に始まるイギリス海軍費の膨張は先行研究でしばしば論じられてきたが、旧式艦売却額の位置づけを検討するためにイギリス海軍費の総支出 Gross Expenditure の年推移を改めて確認する。図 1 の折れ線グラフは、海軍費総支出（上の線）と造艦関連支出合計（下の線）の年推移を示している。
図 1 イギリス海軍費総支出と造艦関連支出の年推移（単位：100 万ポンド）
図 1 イギリス海軍費総支出と造艦関連支出の年推移（単位：100
万ポンド）10）
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

1850 1855 1860 1865 1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930

表 1 イギリス海軍議定費（非実戦業務を除く）項目編成の基本的変遷
これら折れ線の増減傾向は、クリミア戦争中の1855 年および第一次大戦中の 1916 年を除
項番号 項目編成（1885 年）

項目編成（1905 年）

いてほぼ一致しているように見える。この傾向は、1889 ～ 1914 年において造艦関連費用
1 給与

給与

が海軍費膨張の主要因であったという吉岡の指摘と親和的である。吉岡によれば、造艦関
2 食糧・衣料
食糧・衣料
3 海軍省

医療施設・業務

4 沿岸警備・海軍予備隊

軍法

連予算が適切に見積もられているかどうかを判断するには高度に専門的・技術的な知識を
5 科学的業務
教育要したために外部監査が難しく、結果として同支出が肥大化し、イギリス海軍費総支出の6 海軍工廠（国内外）

科学的業務

8 医療施設（国内外）

造艦・修理・保全

膨張につながった 11）。本章は、この造艦関連支出に着目して考察を進める。
7 食糧補給・輸送拠点（国内外）
海軍予備隊
10）1914 ～ 15 年度における造艦関連支出の算出については注
13 を参照のこと。
目 I：人員11） 吉岡［1989］5–6 頁。
目 II：資材目 III：請負

130

9 海兵

武器

10 目 I：資材（建造・修理・艤装）工事・建物・修理（国内外）

目 II：蒸気機関・請負による造艦11 新規工事・改築・修理（工廠内）

雑役

12 薬剤・医療物資

海軍省

図1

イギリス海軍における節約と旧式艦の処分（小風尚樹）
イギリス海軍費総支出と造艦関連支出の年推移（単位：100 万ポンド）

400
350

ここでイギリス海軍費の基本構造を確認する。そもそも海軍費は、経費の用途に応じて
300

複数の項 Vote およびその下位分類としての目 Subhead が議定費として定められており、総250
支出はこれらすべての項を合計した純予算
Net Expenditure を基本とした。議定費は『海軍200予算説明書（前年比較）Navy
Estimates, for the Year, with Explanation of Differences』にて予12）算として提出されたのち議会の承認を得て国庫から割り当てられた。議定費の項目編成
150

は 1888 年度を境に大きな変更があり、その基本的内訳と変遷は表
1 に示す通りである。こ
100のうち造艦関連支出を構成したのは、87 年度までは項 6 および項 10 であったが、88 年度
50

以降は項 8 に集約された。この項編成の変化は、図 1 の折れ線グラフで示した造艦関連支013）1850 1855 1860 1865 1870 1875 1880
1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930
出の算出にあたっても反映されている。

1 イギリス海軍議定費（非実戦業務を除く）項目編成の基本的変遷 14）
表 1 表イギリス海軍議定費（非実戦業務を除く）項目編成の基本的変遷
項番号 項目編成（1885 年）

項目編成（1905 年）

1 給与

給与

2 食糧・衣料

食糧・衣料

3 海軍省

医療施設・業務

4 沿岸警備・海軍予備隊

軍法5 科学的業務

教育

6 海軍工廠（国内外）

科学的業務

7 食糧補給・輸送拠点（国内外）

海軍予備隊

8 医療施設（国内外）

造艦・修理・保全
目 I：人員目 II：資材目 III：請負

9 海兵

武器10 目 I：資材（建造・修理・艤装）工事・建物・修理（国内外）

目 II：蒸気機関・請負による造艦11 新規工事・改築・修理（工廠内）

雑役

12 薬剤・医療物資

海軍省

13 軍法
14 雑役

12）海軍予算案の作成過程や予算統制、関連部局・委員会についての制度的実証研究として、藤田［2015］
を参照のこと。
13）造艦関連支出の算出にあたって項 6・10 および項 8 に基づく手法は、Brown［2004］p. 205, Appendix 1 を参照した。なお図 1 の 1914 年度については、『海軍議定費決算書』に項 8 ～ 11 の支出が合算して記載されてしまっているため、同年度予算額の比率を参考に決算額から造艦関連支出を推計した。15 年度については、同年度予算額の比率すら明らかでないため、これも 14 年度予算額の比率を参考に決算額から推計した。
14）項目編成の訳語は、吉岡［1989］6 頁の第 1 表を一部参考にした。表 1 から除外した非実戦業務の項目には、退役士官や文官の年金・慰労金などが含まれる。

131

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

ただし、イギリス海軍総支出はこれら議定費に基づく支出だけで構成されるわけではな
かった。イギリス海軍には、議定費のように議会の審議・承認を経ることなく、歳出当局の裁量で執行可能な臨時財源が複数存在していたのである。これらの臨時財源は、予算提出時に概算で示されたとしても、実際に年度末の決算書で報告される額と大きく異なることがしばしばであったため、海軍予算と総支出との間の齟齬の原因の一つとなった。それらのうち、本稿の論旨と最も関係するのが支出補充金 Appropriation in Aids である 15）。支出
補充金は、公的資金の収支を一元的に管理した統合基金 Consolidated Fund を経由せずに、歳出当局が一時的に得た手数料や罰金、財産売却額その他の臨時収入を、表 1 で示したような関連する支出用途に対応した項目の経費として予算に上乗せできるものであった 16）。
さて、本題の旧式艦売却額の位置づけは、イギリス海軍が保有する財産の売却額とみなされ、当初は国庫に納付されたが、その後海軍当局に財源として留め置かれることとなった。すなわち、1848 年 5 月 2 日付の大蔵省覚書 Treasury Minute にしたがって 48 ～ 81
年度までは臨時受領金 Extra Receipts Money として国庫に納付されたが 17）、82 年 4 月 1 日に支出補充金が制度化されて以降は18）、造艦関連支出の支出補充金として海軍費に割り当てられたのであり、このことが議定費の節約に通じたのである。すでに述べたように 1888
年度に項目編成の変更があったため、旧式艦の売却額は 82 ～ 87 年度までは項 10（目Ⅰ）に、
88 年度以降は項 8（目Ⅱ・Ⅲ）に割り当てられることとなった。造艦関連支出および旧式艦売却額の扱いについて年度ごとの変遷をまとめると表 2 のようになる。なおこれ以降、臨時受領金と支出補充金を総称する場合には「受領金」の語を用い、両者の区別が問題になる場合にはそれぞれの名称を用いる。

15）ほかにも支出項目変更 Transfer of Votes、特別勘定 Special Fund、借入金 Borrowing が存在し、議会による財政統制に綻びをきたす原因となったが、本稿では立ち入らない。詳細は吉岡［1989］
3–5頁；藤田［2012］
25–27 頁を参照のこと。
16）Willoughby［1917］Chap. 5; 吉岡［1987］28 頁；藤田［2012］26 頁。
17）管見の限り 1848 年 5 月 2 日付の大蔵省覚書の原文を確認することはできなかった。ただし、1848 年度から 82 年度までは『海軍支出入』の覚書欄に、当該年度の「臨時受領金は大蔵省に納付された。これは、1848 年 5 月 2 日付大蔵省覚書に則ったもので、かつては海軍予算に割り当てられていたものの代わりとなるものである」との記述が見られる。HCPP, Naval Receipt and Expenditure, for the Year ended the 31st March
1849, 1850, p. 5.
18）支出補充金は 1891 年の国庫金決算・負担法 Public Accounts and Charges Act によって成文化された。
Public Accounts and Charges Act, 54 & 55, Vict. Ch. 24, Section 2 (3); Willoughby［1917］pp. 102–103; 吉岡［1989］
4 頁。

132

イギリス海軍における節約と旧式艦の処分（小風尚樹）

イギリス海軍費における旧式艦売却額の位置づけの変遷
表表22 イギリス海軍費における旧式艦売却額の位置づけの変遷

会計年度

造艦関連支出の項目

旧式艦売却額の位置づけ

1848~ 1861

項 6・10

項 10 の臨時受領金として国庫に納付

1862~ 1881

項 6・10（目Ⅰ・Ⅱ）

項 10（目Ⅰ）の臨時受領金として国庫に納付

1882~ 1887

項 6・10（目Ⅰ・Ⅱ）

支出補充金として項 10（目Ⅰ）に割当

1888~

項 8（目Ⅰ・Ⅱ・Ⅲ）

支出補充金として項 8（目Ⅱ・Ⅲ）に割当

図 2 受領金全体に占める旧式艦売却関連費（二重線・実線）と（2）受領金に対する旧式艦売却額の割合
食糧・衣料関連費（破線）の比率の推移比較（単位：%）
本節では、海軍総支出のうち造艦関連支出に対する旧式艦売却額の比率を算出するこ100とによって、同売却額の節約効果の程度を明らかにしていく。まずは、受領金の項別内訳に注目する。というのも、すでに説明したように、受領金は毎年度の項目編成に対応して
90
表2

イギリス海軍費における旧式艦売却額の位置づけの変遷

国庫か海軍当局に納付されたため、旧式艦売却額の節約効果を明らかにするには他の項目
80
会計年度

造艦関連支出の項目

旧式艦売却額の位置づけ

1848~ 1861

項 6・10

項 10 の臨時受領金として国庫に納付の受領金と比較する必要があるからである。毎年度の受領金の項目別推移を悉皆調査した
70
ところ、1882～1881
1904、1914年度を除くほぼすべての年度において旧式艦売却額を含む項
60 1862~
項 6・10（目Ⅰ・Ⅱ）
項 10（目Ⅰ）の臨時受領金として国庫に納付
1882~ 1887
項 6・10（目Ⅰ・Ⅱ）
10（目Ⅰ）に割当目の受領金が基本的に最も高く、次いで項2支出補充金として項の食糧・衣料に関する受領金が高い傾向に
50
1888~

項 8（目Ⅰ・Ⅱ・Ⅲ）

支出補充金として項 8（目Ⅱ・Ⅲ）に割当あった 19）。この傾向について図 2 に、1850 ～ 81 年度の臨時受領金全体に占める項 10
（二重
40
30

2 受領金全体に占める旧式艦売却関連費（二重線・実線）と図 2 図受領金全体に占める旧式艦売却関連費（二重線・実線）と

20

食糧・衣料関連費（破線）の比率の推移比較（単位：%）
食糧・衣料関連費（破線）の比率の推移比較（単位：%）10 1000901850 1855 1860 1865 1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

1850 1855 1860 1865 1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 193019）項 2 の支出補充金の内訳には詳しく立ち入らないが、たとえば 1905 年度の議定費決算書において最も多額の支出補充金として計上されたのは、水夫や海兵の人件費に対する課税、衣料・石鹸・タバコにかかる
税 金 や 控 除 額 な ど 36 万 4252 ポ ン ド で、 同 年 度 の 支 出 補 充 金 総 額 の 21.30% を 占 め た。HCPP, Navy,
Appropriation Account, 1905–1906, 1907, pp. 5, 10.

133

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

線）
および項2
（破線）
、1882 ～ 1930年度の支出補充金全体に占める項10あるいは項8目Ⅱ・Ⅲ（実線）、および項 2（破線）の割合の推移を示した。
図 2 で注目したいのは、1882 ～ 1904 年度において支出補充金に占める旧式艦売却額の割合が最大でないこと、すなわち旧式艦があまり売却されなかったことである。この時期
は海軍増強期にあたり、1884 年にペルメル・ガゼット紙 Pall Mall Gazette に掲載されたステッド W. T. Stead による「海軍についての真実とは何か What is the Truth about the Navy?」と題する記事をきっかけに、主にロシア・フランスに対するイギリス海軍力の深刻な不足を克服するための軍拡世論が支配的になった。イギリス海軍省はこの海軍恐怖 Naval Scareを背景に、1889 年の海軍防衛法における二国標準主義の採用を要とする一連の海軍増強計画を実現させた 20）。これに加えて、第一次大戦が勃発した 1914 年度にも項 8 の支出補充金比率が項 2 のそれを下回っていることから明らかなように、軍艦の需要の高まりと旧式艦売却額は反比例の関係にあった。
図 2 では、海軍増強期を除いて旧式艦売却関連費が相対的に高い比率を占めていたことが示されたが、これらは必ずしも旧式艦売却額だけから構成されていたわけではない。ここから項目ごとの内訳を分析して初めて、旧式艦売却額の節約効果を明らかにすることができる。表 3 は、対象年度における旧式艦売却関連費、すなわち 1850 ～ 82 年度における項 10 および 1905 ～ 30 年度における項 8 目Ⅱ・Ⅲに対応した受領金の基本的内訳をそれぞれ示したものである。
表3

項 10 および項 8 に割り当てられた受領金の基本的内訳一覧

表 3 項 10 および項 8 に割り当てられた受領金の基本的内訳一覧
項 10 内訳（1850～1882 年度）

項 8 内訳（1905～1930 年度）

兵舎貸借料

目 II

植民地分担金

古資材売却額資材供給手数料

資材供給手数料

旧式艦売却手数料

旧式艦売却手数料

古資材・機関売却手数料

旧式艦売却額

燃料供給手数料

船室および備品使用手数料

その他

その他

目 III

植民地分担金旧式蒸気船・機関・砲架売却手数料
その他

図3

1850～82 年度における項 10 臨時受領金額の推移（単位：千ポンド）

表 3 に見られるように、項 10・項 8 の受領金はともに、旧式艦売却額だけでなく売却に伴30020）Rodger［1976］p. 126; Chesneau, et al.［1979］pp. 1–2; 横井［2004］96 頁。
255.69

134

250

200

イギリス海軍における節約と旧式艦の処分（小風尚樹）

う手数料、そして資材や機関、燃料供給に関する収入も含まれていたことがわかる。ここで言われる資材とは、木造帆船時代における木材・マスト・タール・ピッチ・ロープといった船舶の艤装品のほかに、装甲艦時代に入って以降は銅や合金などが含まれたものである 21）。

表3

項 10 および項 8 に割り当てられた受領金の基本的内訳一覧

項 10 内訳（1850～1882 年度）

項 8 内訳（1905～1930 年度）

兵舎貸借料

目 II

次に、表 3 で示した受領金の金額詳細を検討する。今回作成した海軍費データベースに植民地分担金基づいて調査したところ、項
10 および項 8 の受領金に対して大きな割合を占めていたのは、
古資材売却額資材供給手数料
資材供給手数料
旧式艦売却手数料
旧式艦や資材の売却額・手数料、あるいは燃料供給手数料であった。1850～ 82 年度と旧式艦売却手数料

古資材・機関売却手数料

旧式艦売却額

燃料供給手数料

1905 ～ 13 年度、1916 ～ 30 年度では金額の規模がまったく異なるので、それぞれ別表にて金額の推移を示す。なお
1883 ～ 1904 年度については、項目編成の変更に伴って当該年
船室および備品使用手数料
その他
その他
目 III 植民地分担金
度の『海軍議定費決算書』に諸項目の支出補充金がまとめて計上されており、旧式艦売却
旧式蒸気船・機関・砲架売却手数料

高だけを取り出して計算することができないため、考察の対象外とする。
その他

1850～82
年度における項 10
10臨時受領金額の推移（単位：千ポンド）
臨時受領金額の推移（単位：千ポンド）
図 3図 31850～ 82 年度における項
300
255.69250

200132.799

150

100

50

0
1850

1855
古資材売却額1860

1865
資材供給⼿数料

1870

1875

1880

旧式艦売却額および⼿数料合計

図 3 によれば、項 10 に割り当てられた臨時受領金のうち、旧式艦売却額および手数料の合計額は、古資材売却額や資材供給手数料と比べて特段多いわけではなかった。確かに、
例えば 1875 年度には、旧式艦売却額および手数料の合計額が最大となり、額にして 13 万21）HCPP, Return of the Number of Ships Sold by the Admiralty from July 1859 to the Present Date, 1867, p. 12.

135

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

2799 ポンド、臨時受領金全体に対する割合は 33.43%、造艦関連支出に対しては 3.75% を占めたが、この時期は安定的に古資材売却額が高く、70 年には 25 万 5690 ポンドで臨時受領金全体のおよそ半分の 50.96%、造艦関連支出に対しては 7.22% を占めた。したがって、
1850 ～ 82 年度における旧式艦売却額は、項 10 の臨時受領金全体に占める割合を見ると、主要な節約策ではなかったと言える。
図図
4 4 1905～ 13 年度における1905～13
年度における
支出補充金額（項 88目
目II・III）の推移（単位：千ポンド）
II・III）の推移（単位：千ポンド）
支出補充金額（項350

328.121

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

資材供給⼿数料

古資材・機関売却⼿数料

燃料供給⼿数料

旧式艦売却額および⼿数料合計

1913

20 世紀初頭には、図 4 で示したように、旧式艦売却額および手数料の合計額が、古資材・機関売却額などを基本的に上回っており、主要な節約策としての位置づけを占めた。
これについては、次章で詳述するように 1904 年に第一本部長 First Sea Lord に就任した
フィッシャーによる大量の旧式艦処分が影響していると見るのが妥当である。フィッシャー自身の計算によれば、旧式艦の処分によって維持・修理費が不要になり、差し引き年額84万5000ポンドの節約を達成したという 22）。ただし、この時期に旧式艦売却額および手数料の合計額が最も多額の 32 万 8121 ポンドを数えた 1910 年度でさえ、支出補充金に対して 16.23%、造艦関連支出に対しては 1.63% を占めるにとどまり、改めて英独建艦競争期の支出規模が窺える。

22）Marder［1961］p. 40.

136

イギリス海軍における節約と旧式艦の処分（小風尚樹）

図図
5 5 1916～ 30 年度における1916～30
年度における
支出補充金額（項8目
II・III）の推移（単位：千ポンド）
支出補充金額（項8目
II・III）の推移（単位：千ポンド） 23）
18000

16653.418

16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000

5323.795

4000
2000
0
1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930
資材供給手数料

古資材・機関売却手数料

燃料供給手数料

旧式艦売却額および手数料合計

図 6 造艦関連支出に占める旧式艦売却額の割合の推移（単位：％）
続いて第一次大戦期を含む1916～ 30年度について図5から検討する。第一次大戦終結後、
14

特に 1920 年度には旧式艦の売却額が 532 万 3795 ポンドで支出補充金全体の 26.24%、造艦関連支出の1211.25% を占めた。しかし、それ以上にこの時期は燃料供給手数料がきわめて多額であり、1919 年度には 1665 万 3418 ポンドで支出補充金全体の 48.74%、造艦関連支出
10の 19.16% を占めるほどであった。燃料供給手数料がこのように多額になった原因は、バ8

ルト海や黒海における同盟国軍への石炭・石油の供給と、その供給にあたって定められて24）
いた市場価格の適性比率が廃止されたことにある。以上、燃料供給を通した同盟国に対6する戦争協力、あるいは戦争終結に伴う旧式艦の大量売却などに見られるように、イギリ
4

ス海軍は第一次大戦中、戦後にかけて、手数料の徴収や財産売却の面において戦時需要2を活用し、膨大に膨れ上がった戦費の捻出とその補填に支出補充金を充てることによって、実質的な節約を実現させたのである。
01850 1855 1860 1865 1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930

最後に、図 6 にて旧式艦売却額のみを取り出した造艦関連支出に対する比率を示す。

23）1914 ～ 15 年については、『海軍議定費決算書』に詳細な情報が記載されていないため受領金の内訳を分析することができなかった。
24）HCPP, Navy, Appropriation Account, 1919–1920, 1921, p. 33.

137

2000
0
1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

資材供給手数料

古資材・機関売却手数料

燃料供給手数料

旧式艦売却額および手数料合計

図 6 図造艦関連支出に占める旧式艦売却額の割合の推移（単位：％）
6 造艦関連支出に占める旧式艦売却額の割合の推移（単位：％）
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

1850 1855 1860 1865 1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930

図 6 によれば、造艦関連支出に占める旧式艦売却額の割合は、1920 ～ 22 年度の 6 ～ 12%を除けば 0 ～ 4％の幅に収まっていたことがわかる。19 世紀末から第一次大戦にかけて、海軍費自体が膨張していたため、もし金額の変遷を見ればこの推移とは違った印象が得られるはずだが、割合を見る限りでは、旧式艦売却額はそれ単体でイギリス海軍にとって常に主要な節約策になっていたわけではなかった。すなわち、平時には古資材の売却や資材供給手数料、第一次大戦時および戦後には燃料供給手数料が、それぞれ造艦関連支出の節約にあたって主な要素を構成した。そして旧式艦売却額は、フィッシャー改革期においては相対的に重要な節約策として、そして第一次大戦後においては量的・割合的にも燃料供給手数料とともに主要な節約策であったと結論づけられる。
3 旧式艦処分の全体像（1）データセットの選定
イギリス海軍における旧式艦処分の全体像を示すには、イギリス海軍の軍艦情報をなるべく網羅的に把握する必要がある。ただし、膨大な数の軍艦情報はさまざまな種類の一次史料に点在しており、時として相互に食い違うデータを考証した上で取捨選択せねばならないため、正確なデータセットを一人の研究者が構築することは不可能であるとも言われ
る 25）。広大な史料の海から情報をすくい上げ、網羅的で完全な旧式艦のデータベースを一から構築することは、少なくとも本稿の課題ではない。むしろここでは、これまでイギリ
25）Winfield［2014］p. vii.

138

イギリス海軍における節約と旧式艦の処分（小風尚樹）

ス海軍史研究で活用されてきた複数のレファレンスブックを比較検討し、それぞれの編集方針やデータセットとしての長短を見極め、旧式艦の処分の様相を明らかにするのに有益なデータを組み合わせることによって、独自のデータベースを構築することとしたい。
1850 ～ 1930 年におけるイギリス海軍軍艦の経歴を記載したデータセットのうち、今回検討したものは以下の4つである 26）。すなわち、① Conway's All the World's Fighting Shipsシ
リーズの第 1 ～ 2 巻 27）、②リヨン David Lyon とウィンフィールド Rif Winfield による The
Sail & Steam Navy List28）、同書の後を継いだ③ウィンフィールド British Warships in the Ageof Sail 1817–186329）、そして④カレッジ J. J. Colledge の研究を増補改訂したワーロー Ben
Warlow による Ships of the Royal Navy の第 3 版である 30）。
①のシリーズは、19 世紀半ばから 20 世紀末までの世界 40 カ国以上の海軍の軍艦情報を網羅的に集積し、時代や艦種ごとの技術的特徴についての解説を施した全 5 巻の資料集である。主要海軍以外をも扱うその網羅性から海軍力の国際比較を行うのに有効であり、同シリーズに依拠した研究は枚挙に暇がない 31）。ただし、データの信頼性を保証する情報に関しては、第一線の研究者が編集に参加している事実にとどまり、その網羅性の代償として「すべての情報源を列挙することは不可能である 32）」との序文の記述は看過できない。
②・③リヨンおよびウィンフィールドによる一連の研究は、特に帆船時代のイギリス海軍軍艦のデータを詳細に扱ったレファレンスブックである。ウィンフィールドは、リヨンが中心となって 2004 年に出版した②の後を引き継ぎ、データの修正を行った上で 18 世紀以前の軍艦情報について大幅に追加した全 4 巻のシリーズを出版した 33）。③は、同シリー
ズの 4 巻目に該当し、1817 ～ 63 年を扱っている。②および③は、イギリス海軍省史料 180番（ADM 180）
、すなわち軍艦の竣工から修理、処分に至るまでの記録を集約したプログ
レス・ブックを参照しており、個々の軍艦の経歴について事細かに記述しているため軍艦の伝記資料として有用である。ただし、本稿が対象とする期間のすべてを扱っているわけではない。
カレッジの研究を引き継いだワーローの功績により、④には 15 世紀から 21 世紀初頭に
26）海軍力の国際比較を行ったマクロ政治学者のモデルスキ George Modelski は、より多くの史資料群を挙げたが、本稿ではできるだけ刊行年が新しいデータセットを重視し、本論で言及した 4 つを検討するに至った。Modelski and Thompson［1988］p. 212, Table 8.3.
27）Chesneau, et al.［1979］; Gardiner［1997］.
28）Lyon and Winfield［2004］.
29）Winfield［2014］.
30）Colledge and Warlow［2003］.
31）Crisher and Souva［2014］など。
32）Chesneau, et al.［1979］Foreward.
33）Michell［2015］.

139

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

至る 1 万 8000 隻のイギリス海軍軍艦のデータがアルファベット順に採録されている。記載されている情報は、艦名・艦種・等級・艦級・建造元・竣工年・寸法・備砲・装甲・トン
数・推進源・船体の素材・経歴の概要・処分先などである。主な情報源は、上述の ADM
180 および、1815 年から年に 4 回政府が刊行してきた Navy List である。同書における軍艦の経歴に関する情報は、②・③ほど子細ではないが概要を知るには有用である。ただし、行論で明らかになるように、データの欠損率がきわめて高い箇所もあるため分析には注意を要する。
①～④のデータセットの検討を踏まえ、本稿では分析対象の時期をすべてカバーしている④を基本とし、データの欠損などを補完するために適宜①～③を参照することとした。
データベースに軍艦情報を採録するにあたっては、次の方針にしたがった。すなわち、（1）
イギリス海軍が何らかの理由で所有権を失った年が 1850 ～ 1930 年の範囲に収まっていること、（2）イギリス植民地海軍が所有する軍艦でないこと（※イギリス海軍から譲渡された場合は採録）、（3）竣工されたこと（※建造取りやめ・中止のものは除外）、（4）イギリス海軍の任務に就いたこと（※戦時に徴用された民用船や、戦闘能力を持たない船も採録）である。結果的に、3958 隻の軍艦データベースを構築した。

（2）旧式艦処分の内訳
まずは、旧式艦処分の内訳から概観する。表 4 左は、今回作成したデータベースに基づき、1850 ～ 1930 年の間にイギリス海軍が軍艦の所有権を失った理由の内訳とその件数および割合を示したものであり、7 割以上の軍艦が売却されたことがわかる。そこで表 4 右では、売却された 2945 隻の軍艦を対象に、可能な範囲で売却目的および転売目的を集計した。今回のデータベースでは、実に2627隻もの軍艦の売却目的の詳細が不明であるため、この点に関するデータの欠損率はきわめて高い（約 89%）。
ただし、軍艦の処分方法として解撤が主であること、そして解撤を目的とした転売が見られたことは表 4 から総合的に読み取れる。これは、イギリス海軍による旧式艦処分に商機を見出した関連産業、すなわち船舶解撤業 shipbreaker と船舶転売業 shipbroker の存在を示唆している 34）。

34）19 ～ 20 世紀のイギリス船舶解撤業の産業史的分析は、Bowen［1936］に始まり、White［1961］や
Buxton［1983; 1992］、Buxton and Dalziel［1993］、あるいは Tait and Tait［2016］などによって行われてきた。
ただ、これらのほとんどが個々の企業に着目した社史であり、イギリス海軍にとっての旧式艦処分の意義を論じたものではない。

140

イギリス海軍における節約と旧式艦の処分（小風尚樹）

表4

イギリス海軍軍艦の結末一覧および売却目的の詳細

表 4 イギリス海軍軍艦の結末一覧および売却目的の詳細
35）
表 4 内訳
イギリス海軍が軍艦の所有権を失った理由一覧および売却目的の詳細
隻数
割合（% ）
売却目的
転売目的
隻数

内訳
売却

隻数
2945

割合（%
74.41）

売却目的
解撤

解撤
売却

485
2945

12.25
74.41

転売
解撤

解撤

65
178

沈没
解撤

309
485

7.81
12.25

転売

詳細不明
解撤

33
65

難破
沈没

64
309

1.62
7.81

転売
詳細不明

3
33

譲渡
難破

46
64

1.16
1.62

改造
譲渡

21
46

0.53
1.16

転用

大破
改造

17
21

0.43
0.53

詳細不明
転用

2627
36

座礁
大破

10
17

0.25
0.43

計
詳細不明

2945
2627

転売
座礁
交換
転売

4
10
34

0.10
0.25
0.08
0.10

計

2945

その他
交換

543

1.36
0.08

計
その他

3958
54

100.00
1.36

計

3958

100.00表
表55 旧式艦処分先の属性一覧
旧式艦処分先の属性一覧
隻数
表 5 処分先
旧式艦処分先の属性一覧
民間業者
処分先
他国海軍
民間業者
イギリス植民地海軍
他国海軍
他国政府
イギリス植民地海軍
イギリス陸軍省
他国政府
イギリス海軍工廠
イギリス陸軍省

1581
隻数
28
1581
15
28
12
15
7
12
47

イギリス植民地政府
イギリス海軍工廠
イギリス商務省
イギリス植民地政府
詳細不明
イギリス商務省
詳細不明計

3483
1832

計

3483

3
4
1
3
18321

転売目的

隻数
178

転用
転売

33

転用

363

これらの産業とイギリス海軍の関連についても
う少し検討しよう。表 5 は、旧式艦を自発的に処分したと定義できるもの、すなわち売却・解撤・譲渡・転売・交換に該当する 3483 隻のデータを抽出し、処分先の属性一覧を示したものである36）。これによれば、詳細不明 1832 隻を除いては、ほとんどの旧式艦が民間業者によって処分されたことがわかる 37）。中でも主要な業者は、石炭・くず鉄の供給商として製鉄業者との関係を強化して船舶解撤
拠点をイギリス各地に保有した T. W. Ward 社（実績 280 隻）38）、木造帆船時代の軍艦解体で財を築い

35）「その他」の項目に含まれる理由は、リストから除外・返却・焼失・行方不明・売却リスト入り・遺棄・
転覆・廃棄リスト入り・廃船化・拿捕・艤装解除・艤装があり、それぞれ 10 件未満である。
36）海戦や自然現象といった外的要因に起因する軍艦の喪失、すなわち沈没や難破などの被害詳細については、本稿の主旨から外れるため関連研究に譲る。例えば、帆船および甲鉄艦時代にイギリス海軍が喪失した軍艦のデータセットを提供した Hepper［2006］や、イギリスにおける民用船を含めた海難の歴史について金澤［2013］などを参照のこと。
37）処分先の属性に含まれる「他国海軍」も検討に値する。イギリス海軍にとっては旧式艦と判断された軍艦でも、他国海軍の練習艦や現役艦として活用された事例はいくつも見られた。例えば、1860 年代の中国における太平天国の乱鎮定のために派艦された艦隊にも、イギリス海軍の木造艦が含まれていた（Wright［2001］pp. 15–20; 小風［2018］92 頁）。このような軍艦のやり取りを通じた外交や軍事交流は武器移転の観点から興味深く、稿を改めて論じたい。
38）Buxton and Dalziel［1993］p. 3.

141

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

た Castle 社（実績 152 隻）などがある 39）。
このような主要民間業者は、船舶解撤に必要な条件・設備を兼ね備えたプロフェッショナルであった。すなわち、船舶の建造工廠や廃材取引先の製鉄業者と地理的に近接することで船舶の輸送コストを減らしたり、解撤作業をしやすいよう船舶を浜に引き上げるに充分な潮の満ち引きがある作業場を有していたり40）、鉄船や鋼船の船体を焼き切るために必要な酸素アセチレンバーナーを低コストで使うための酸素供給プラントを開発したりするなど 41）、船舶解撤に適した環境を背景に高い廃材回収率を達成し、経営規模を拡大したのである。
他方、解撤や転売を通して旧式艦処分に関わった民間業者の大半は、イギリス海軍における技術革新や政策方針の変化の余沢にあずかった泡沫的な小企業であった。この点について、1850 ～ 1930 年において各年に旧式艦処分に携わった業者・組織数の推移を示し
た図 7 から検討する。
7 旧式艦の処分に携わった業者・組織数の時代的変遷
図 7 図旧式艦の処分に携わった業者・組織数の時代的変遷

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

1850 1855 1860 1865 1870 1875 1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930

1870 年、1906 年、1920 年にそれぞれ局所的増加が見られるが、これらはそれぞれイギリ
ス海相チルダース Hugh Childers の改革、第一本部長フィッシャーの改革、そして第一次大戦の終結に起因すると判断できる。というのも、横井が述べたようにチルダースおよび

39）Tait and Tait［2016］chaps. 5 & 11.
40）White［1961］pp. 1–3.
41）Bowen［1936］; Buxton［1992］pp. 9–10.

142イギリス海軍における節約と旧式艦の処分（小風尚樹）

フィッシャーによる海軍改革は、それぞれ主にフランスとドイツに対して高まる建艦競争の機運と緊縮財政を背景に、旧式艦の整理による維持費の削減と新鋭艦の導入を目的とした点で共通していたため42）、これらの改革の影響が旧式艦処分の業者数を増加させたと考えるのが妥当だろう。最も注目すべきは、図 7 に示されている第一次大戦終結後の急増が、戦後の鉄需要に起因する解撤業者バブルを示していることである。戦中は、民用船も含めて航行できるほぼすべての船舶が徴用されて海軍の任務に就役していたため、船舶解撤業は実質的に休止状態となっていた。しかし、戦中から戦後にかけて製鋼工場で銑鉄や鉄鉱が不足して鉄需要が急増すると、イギリス海軍は不要になった艦船を薄利多売で処分し始めた。これを機に多くの解撤業者が参入したが、そのほとんどは船体の価値を最大限に活かすことができないアマチュア集団であった。すなわち、機器を構成する非鉄金属、救命ボートやウィンチなどの再利用可能な艤装品、あるいは家具や柵にリサイクルすることのできる木材の活用方法について、彼らは充分に知らなかったのである 43）。
ここまで見てきたように、イギリス海軍による旧式艦の売却は、それらを購入した民間業者が解撤や転売を通して収益を得、そして製鉄業者が解撤によって得られたくず鉄などの廃材を原料として用いるという、一種の産業循環を生み出していたのがわかる。ただし、これは上下関係の存在する循環であって、民間業者にとっては旧式艦がイギリス海軍から安定的に供給されることを期待できるわけではなかった 44）。このことは、図 7 が示すように第一次大戦中における旧式艦の処分実績が低調だったことからも明らかである。にも関わらず、短命であっても民間業者がこぞって解撤業に乗り出すほどに、技術の粋を集めた軍艦は資材の宝庫だったと言えよう。そして何より、船舶解撤業を始めとする周辺産業の存在によってこそ、旧式艦は改めて価値を見出され、軍艦を構成していたそれぞれの資材が新しく生まれ変わっていったのである。

（3）艦種別にみる旧式艦の処分
次は、艦種の別に注目して旧式艦の処分の様相を明らかにする。表 6 は、1850 ～ 1930年における処分隻数とトン数を艦種別に整理したものである 45）。トン数が複数表示されているのは、艦種や年代によって測定基準が異なり、単純に合算することは不適当だからで
42）横井［2004］92–98 頁。
43）Buxton［1983］p. 152.
44）もちろん、船舶解撤業者も軍艦だけではなく民用船の解撤を扱って収益を得ていた。1920 年代後半か
ら一大船舶解撤業者となった Metal Industries の社史を見れば、同社による民用船解撤の実績が非常に多い
ことがわかる。Buxton［1992］pp. 61–100.
45）艦種の分類にあたっては、Chesneau, et al.［1979］pp. 1–113 と Gardiner［1997］pp. 1–104 を参照した。

143

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

ある 46）。総トン数が民用船の測定基準であるのに対して、トン数（bm）と排水トン数は軍艦の測定基準である 47）。bm は Builder’s Measurement の略で、トン数（bm）は 1873 年まで使用されていたが、造船業者独自の基準を統一するために、それ以降は排水トン数に取って代わられた 48）。表 6 において総トン数記載のある水上機母艦が存在するのは、民用船が戦時に徴用されたことを示している。なお前節の表 5 で示した処分隻数 3483 よりも 3 隻少ないデータとなっているが、これは 3 隻分の処分年が不明であることから、表作成にあたって欠損値として除外したことによる。
艦種別処分隻数およびトン数（測定基準別）
表表
6 6艦種別処分隻数およびトン数（測定基準別）

艦種

処分隻数

トン数（b m ）

排水トン数

主力艦

255

402,273

1,274,017

水上機母艦

7

巡洋艦

651

445,247

1,004,791

砲艦

612

112,385

220,442

水雷艇

167

13,125

駆逐艦

380

303,635

潜水艦

159

96,613小型水上艦艇

312

特務艦艇
その他
計

6,020

総トン数
6,734

4,099

242,767856

34,942

138,817130,53881

25,85542,513

7,465

3480

1,024,801

3,342,740

144,737

表 6 から読み取れることを整理する。まず、主力艦の処分隻数が 255 と比較的少ないものの、排水トン数の合計が 120 万トン超と圧倒的に大きい。本稿が対象とする 1850 年代以降の主力艦は、小野塚が示したように大砲や装甲板の進化、機関技術や推進器の発展によって大型化・高速化の一途をたどっており 49）、このことが一隻一隻の巨大さに現れている。一方で、処分隻数が 856 と最も多い特務艦艇は、戦時に徴用された民用船や沿岸警備のための小型船舶、掃海用のトロール船などから構成される艦種であるため 50）、サイズの46）Buxton, et al.［2015］p. 305.
47）トン数（bm）は船体の寸法に基づいて積載荷重を算出した単位であり、総トン数の測定方法の前身とみなされる（Winfield［2014］p. XVIII）。排水トン数は船を海面に浮かべた際に排除される水の重量に等しい（上野［1962］285–286 頁）。
48）Colledge and Warlow［2003］p. ix.
49）小野塚［2014］169–176 頁。
50）Gardiner［1997］pp. 101–104.

144

イギリス海軍における節約と旧式艦の処分（小風尚樹）

小ささがトン数の少なさに現れている。表 6 の中で最もトン数（bm）および排水トン数の大きい主力艦と巡洋艦については、イギリス海軍における技術革新の変化がよく現れていることが推察される。そこで、次節ではそれぞれの艦種の時代的変遷を検討するために、主力艦は「戦列艦」
、
「装甲艦」
、
「戦艦」
、
「巡洋戦艦」、巡洋艦は「帆走巡洋艦」
、
「機帆走
巡洋艦」
、
「装甲巡洋艦」と分けて分析する。
しかしその前に、すべての艦種を対象に処分の時代的変遷を把握しておく。すでに図 7の分析において、1870 年頃のチルダース改革、1905 年頃のフィッシャー改革、そして1920 年頃の第一次大戦終結に伴う局所的増加が見られたが、これらの要因は艦種別の処分にどの程度影響を与えたのだろうか。
図88 全艦種の処分隻数（1全艦種の処分隻数（1 年ごと）および艦種別処分隻数（5年ごとの合計）の推移
図年ごと）および艦種別処分隻数（5年ごとの合計）の推移

7 19301920～1924
年における主力艦・水上機母艦の処分トン数
図 8 上は、1850表～
年における旧式艦処分隻数を示した棒グラフ、図8 下は、艦種
年
1920
1922
1923
1924
別の処分隻数（左記区間における51921
年ごとの合計。ただし、紙幅の都合上1930 年分を除く）
主力艦- トン（b m ）- 排水トン

213,300

水上機母艦
- 総トン

6,131

10,167

4,270

3,322

4,000

298,300

165,400

37850

26,350145

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）をグレースケールの濃淡付きで示したヒートマップである 51）。ヒートマップの中で最も黒
く塗りつぶされている 478 隻と記載のあるセルは、1920 ～ 1924 年の 5 年間における特務艦艇の処分隻数合計が478隻であることを示しており、図8上を併せて参照することにより、第一次大戦終結に伴って掃海艇などの特務艦艇が最も多く処分されたことがわかるようになっている。このように見ていくと、1905 年のフィッシャー改革の柱となったドレッド
ノート級をはじめとする戦艦への対抗策として開発された潜水艦や駆逐艦52）、監視艇や掃海艇などの小型水上艦艇や特務艦艇が、第一次大戦終結に伴って多く処分されたことがわかる。
一方、主力艦・巡洋艦・砲艦は全期間を通して比較的まんべんなく処分されていたことが示されている。処分隻数の推移を見ると、1860 年代に巡洋艦や砲艦が比較的多く処分されている。1858 年にナポレオン三世治下のフランス海軍が建造した世界初の蒸気装甲艦グロワール号 La Gloire が進水したことに伴う衝撃や 53）、海外ステーションにおける木造旧式艦の大幅削減を柱としたチルダース改革が54）、イギリス海軍の軍艦編成に影響を与えたとすれば、それは 1860 年代における巡洋艦 148 隻および砲艦 192 隻という、各艦種の総数から見て大きい割合（それぞれ 22.73%、31.37%）の処分隻数に現れたと見てよい。
1905 年のフィッシャー改革の影響が全艦種の中で特に顕著に現れたのは、32 隻（同艦
種総処分数の 12.55%）が処分された主力艦、65 隻（同 9.98%）が処分された巡洋艦と、59隻（同 35.33%）が処分された水雷艇である。フィッシャーはとにかく効率性を追求した人物であった 55）。1904年に海軍軍人の最高位である第一本部長に就任したフィッシャーは、
その就任当日に、かねてより非公式の有識者組織「五人委員会 Committee of Five」としたためていた計画を『海軍に不可欠なこと Naval Necessities』と題する文書にまとめ、海軍省内で回覧した。そこには計画立案に至るさまざまな覚書が残されており、フィッシャー
の意気込みが窺える。
徹底的な改革が必要であることを示す例を挙げよう。1904 年 6 月 30 日（つい先月のことだ！）までの 12 ヶ月間で、本国艦隊と海峡艦隊、そして巡洋艦隊の軍艦は、ポー51）ヒートマップの作成にあたっては Dale［2017］pp. 307–308 を参照した。
52）小野塚［2003］26–27 頁。
53）Grove［2005］pp. 39–41; 細谷［2006］148–149 頁。
54）横井［2004］92 頁。
55）ドレッドノート期における「効率性」と「有効性」の文化的構築について論じたスミス Crosbie Smith は、
フィッシャーの効率性を追求する姿勢がプロテスタントとしての信仰心に起因するとしている。Smith［2011］pp. 158–159.

146

イギリス海軍における節約と旧式艦の処分（小風尚樹）

ツマス海軍工廠で 1 年の 30% 以上を過ごしていたのだ！分解されていて洋上任務に出られない状態にあるのだ！何が言いたいかわかるか！戦艦一隻を 1 年間維持するのには、修理するかどうかに関わらず、10 万ポンド以上の費用がかかる。しかしこれは資金を無駄にしているのではない！効率性を無駄にしているのだ！ 56）

フィッシャーにとって、有事には戦力にならないような軍艦が貴重な停泊スペースを使って維持・修繕を必要とすることは許せなかったのである 57）。フィッシャーが軍艦の効率性の有無を判断する基準として重視したのは航行速度であった。すなわち、戦艦は 21 ノッ
ト以上、装甲巡洋艦は 25.5 ノット以上、駆逐艦は 36 ノット以上、そして潜水艦は海面航行速度14ノット以上という基準を旧式艦の処分の目安としたのである 58）。フィッシャー改
革当時、主に兵器の発展によって水雷艇は駆逐艦と潜水艦に役目を取って代わられていたため 59）、フィッシャーの計画では速度の出ない水雷艇は建造年の古い順から 80 隻が「迅速に処分すべし」とされた 60）。このように、第一次大戦を除けばフィッシャー改革期は最も大量に旧式艦が処分された時期であって、そこにはフィッシャー個人の精力的な働きかけが影響していたと推測される。
旧式艦処分の観点から第一次大戦終結とともに注目すべきは、1922 年 2 月に批准されたワシントン海軍軍縮条約である。アメリカ・イギリス・日本・フランス・イタリア 5 カ国の海軍軍備制限を定めた同条約では、当時の三大海軍国であるアメリカ・イギリス・日本の主力艦（巡洋戦艦・水上機母艦を含む）の保有比率について、軍艦の排水トン数に基
づき 5：5：3 とした。この比率目標を達成するために、進行中の新艦建造計画をすべて廃棄するとともに、旧式艦の処分をもって主力艦の規模を縮小し、イギリス海軍にあっては
アメリカ海軍と同水準の 52 万 5000 トンに主力艦の合計排水トン数を収めることで合意が取り付けられた 61）。この合意の結果は、図8下ヒートマップにおける1920 ～ 1924年の主力艦セルに示された処分合計隻数 50（同艦種総処分数に対して最大の 19.61%）に端的に現れている。この時期に処分された主力艦および水上機母艦のトン数をまとめた表7によれば、排水トン数の合計に限って言うと 74 万 9871 トンにのぼる大規模な主力艦・水上機母艦の処分が行われたことになる。
56）Kemp［1960］p. 19.
57）Marder［1940］p. 489; Kemp［1960］p. 36.
58）Marder［1940］p. 490; Kemp［1960］pp. 27–30.
59）Chesneau, et al.［1979］pp. 86–87.
60）Kemp［1960］pp. 38–40.
61）西川［2014］38–41 頁。

147

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

表～ 1924 年における主力艦・水上機母艦の処分トン数
表77 1920
1920～1924
年における主力艦・水上機母艦の処分トン数
年

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

10,167

4,270

3,322

4,000

298,300

165,400

37850

26,350主力艦- トン（b m ）- 排水トン

213,300

水上機母艦
- 総トン

6,131

- 排水トン

2,950

3,070

2,651

（4）主力艦・巡洋艦の処分に見るイギリス海軍における旧式艦の扱い
続いて、前節で示した表 6 の中で最もトン数の大きかった主力艦と巡洋艦のスペックに注目し、より詳しく旧式艦処分の時代的傾向を見ることで、イギリス海軍における旧式艦の扱い方を明らかにしていきたい。19 世紀後半から 20 世紀初頭にかけてイギリス海軍事情に精通したジャーナリストとして活躍し、全 7 巻の通史を著したクロウズ William
Clowes は 62）、次のように述べている。
1867 年時点で最高の船は、1857 年に存在したイギリス海軍軍艦をすべて合わせたよりも優れていただろうし、また同じように、1877 年時点で最高の船は、たった 10 年前に建造されたすべての軍艦を合わせたものに対して、まったく同じとは言わずとも
戦闘および撃退能力においてほぼ等しかった。1890 年までに、1877 年製の軍艦はすでにほぼ時代遅れとなり、また 1900 年までには、1890 年製の最も優れた軍艦であっても、海軍の二流軍艦としての地位を占める価値は無きに等しかった。1900 年の終わりまでに、1890 年製の優れた巡洋艦は、相対的に重要でない海外ステーションへと配備されてしまったのである 63）

この引用から導かれる仮説的命題として、「時代が下るにつれて造船・軍事技術が進歩し、それを反映した新型艦が就役することに伴い旧式艦は淘汰されていった」と措定できるが、この命題を検証することによって本論を締めたい。
そこで、主力艦と巡洋艦に焦点を絞って、年代と処分時の艦齢の関係を掘り下げる 64）。
62）Fryer［2004］.
63）Clowes［1903］p. 68.
64）艦齢の算出方法については、進水を基準とする場合もあるが（上野［1962］243 頁）、今回は作成したデー
タセットの元となった Colledge and Warlow［2003］の記載が竣工年ベースであったため、（艦齢）＝（処148イギリス海軍における節約と旧式艦の処分（小風尚樹）

まず図 9 は、主力艦を 4 つに分類して、スペックごとに処分年と艦齢の関係を散布図（横軸は処分年、縦軸が処分時の艦齢、1 ドットは 1 隻を表す）で示したものである。
図図99 主力艦の分類と処分年・艦齢の関係主力艦の 44分類と処分年・艦齢の関係

各スペックを大別すると、戦列艦の多くは木造、装甲艦以降は鉄製あるいは鋼製の装甲板を備えているか船体が鉄鋼製の軍艦である。続いて図 10 も、巡洋艦を 3 つに細分化して、同じくスペックごとに処分年と艦齢の関係を示したものである。巡洋艦のスペック分類は
基本的に船の推進源で分けられているが、帆走・機帆走巡洋艦の多くが木造帆船あるいは木鉄船、装甲巡洋艦になると純汽船であることが多い 65）。図 9・10 によれば、ほとんどの分年）－（竣工年）と算出した。
65）主力艦・巡洋艦のスペック分類については Winfield［2014］を参考にした。

149

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

戦艦や巡洋戦艦、そして装甲巡洋艦が、1900 ～ 1920 年を中心に艦齢 20 ～ 40 歳で処分されていたことが示されている。
図図1010 巡洋艦の分類と処分年・艦齢の関係
巡洋艦の 33 分類と処分年・艦齢の関係一方で、艦種別の艦齢分布に関して、図 9・10 ともに軍艦のスペックが上がるにつれて処分時の艦齢の最大値が徐々に低くなっていることは注目に値する。すなわち、今回の分
析対象に限って言えば、戦列艦や帆走巡洋艦といった木造帆船の方が、処分されるまでの時間が相対的に長い傾向にあったと仮定できるのである。この傾向は、イギリス海軍における技術との向き合い方をよく示しているように思われる。そもそも 19 世紀後半は軍艦の動力として蒸気機関が導入され、しばしば「鉄と蒸気の時代」と呼ばれることはあっ150

イギリス海軍における節約と旧式艦の処分（小風尚樹）ても、帆走に比べて汽走は燃料コストがかさんだことから 66）、全体としては帆船（純帆船および機帆船）優位の時代であった 67）。実際、ドレッドノート級が開発された 1905 年まで支配的だった考えは、時代遅れの旧式艦であっても本国から遠く離れた海域のステーショ
ンにおける平時の任務は充分に遂行できるため、無理に新技術を導入する必要はないというものであった 68）。また、前節で述べたように特に主力艦が年々巨大化していったことから、軍艦の維持コスト削減のためには巨大な軍艦を処分する方が効果的であり、木造帆船を優先的に処分する動機が存在しなかったことが、木造帆船の艦齢の高さの主要因であると考えられる。
ただし、木造帆船が長持ちしたのもまた一つの要因であると考えられる。図 9・10 における主力艦や巡洋艦の木造船、すなわち戦列艦や帆走巡洋艦の処分時の艦齢に着目してみると、100 歳前後の長寿軍艦を見て取ることができる。例えば、1902 年に艦齢 98 歳で売却された 1 等戦列艦ハイバーニア号 HMS Hibernia は、1804 年に建造費 8 万 8800 ポンド（艤装費込み）を投じてプリマス海軍工廠で竣工され、本国海域やポルトガル沖、地中海などで旗艦として就役したのち、1819 ～ 25 年の間に大規模な再艤装を施された。これにより、当時としては最新鋭の 32 ポンド砲を 114 門搭載する軍艦として生まれ変わった結果、マルタのイギリス海軍ステーションにて 20 世紀初頭まで様々な海軍少将の指揮する旗艦として活躍した。その生涯で修理や再艤装にかかった費用の合計は 12 万 1999 ポンドであったのに対し、1902 年 10 月 14 日にマルタで行われた競売での落札価格は実に 1010 ポンドにすぎなかった 69）。多額の建造・艤装・修繕コストと華やかなキャリアに比べて、軍艦の去り際はかくも物寂しいが、よく手入れされて艦齢 100 歳前後まで永らえたのは木造帆船の際立った特徴の一つである。
一方、特に 20 世紀以降に建造された戦艦の多くは、止めどない技術革新の波にさらわれた刹那的な存在であった。1906 年にポーツマス海軍工廠で竣工され、軍艦の歴史に名を残す全主砲高速戦艦ドレッドノート号 HMS Dreadnought は、その登場により既存の軍艦を前時代の代物にした。しかし、排水トン数 1 万 8000 トン強、主砲口径 12 インチに射撃統制機能を備えたドレッドノート号も、建艦技術の進化から逃れることはできなかった。
第一次大戦中に軽微な改良が施され、1915 年にはドイツの潜水艦 U29 号を沈没させるな
ど戦艦として唯一無二の戦果を残すことはできたものの、20 年には艦齢わずか 14 歳で売66）Graham［1956］pp. 82–88.
67）小野塚［2003］20 頁。
68）Ashworth［1969］pp. 502–504; ムロイ［2006］85–86 頁。
69）Winfield［2014］pp. 7–8.

151

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

却リスト入りし、船舶解撤業者のWard社に引き取られた。しかも、23年までドレッドノー
ト号は解撤ヤードに移動することすら忘れられてしまっており、その登場とは比べものにならないほどひっそりとした最期であった。その頃までには主力艦の水準は、主砲口径 16インチ、排水トン数 4 万 5000 トンとなっており、ドレッドノート号もまた前時代の代物となってしまっていたのである 70）。これらの軍艦の生涯を見ても、実用的な観点から言えば、
イギリス海軍における技術革新の影響を大きく受けて新陳代謝が盛んに見られたのは、純帆走の木造艦というよりは、むしろ純汽走の装甲艦などの比較的新しい軍艦であったと言える。
このような実用的な観点以外にも、旧式艦には文化的・象徴的な意味合いがある。例えば、1817 年 に ボ ン ベ イ 海 軍 工 廠 で 竣 工 さ れ た 5 等 戦 列 艦 ト リ ン コ マ リ ー 号 HMS
Trincomalee は、北米や西インド海域あるいは太平洋で就役したのち、61 年に海軍予備隊の訓練船となり、97年には売却された 71）。売却当初は、ポーツマスの船舶解撤業者リード
Read によって解撤が開始されたが、炭鉱保有者で慈善事業家のコブ Geoffrey Cobb が購入
し、貧困層の少年が海兵あるいは水兵として入隊するための訓練船として再活用されることとなった 72）。第二次大戦の際にはイギリス海軍の倉庫として使用され、爆撃を受けるも1987 年まで再び訓練船として用いられた。1990 年にはダラムカウンティのハートルプー
ルにおいて、トリンコマリー号財団 HMS Trincomalee Trust によって建造当初の状態まで修繕する計画が始められ、2001 年 4 月に完了して観光客を集めている 73）。このような歴史的
軍艦の保全や展示といった事業の根底に窺えるのは、ナショナリズムに働きかける心性である 74）。トリンコマリー号の他にも、イギリスでは地方自治体、民間財団などさまざまな組織が歴史的軍艦の保全事業に資金を投じ、海とともにある国民としての「マリタイム・
ブリテン Maritime Britain」のアイデンティティ涵養に寄与している 75）。

70）Gardiner［1997］pp. 21–22; Grove［2011］pp. 165–166, 180–181.
71）Winfield［2014］p. 152.
72）Bellamy［2011］pp. 346, 359.
73）Brown［2016］pp. 34–35.
74）Bellamy［2011］p. 344.
75）金澤［2013］5–6 頁。

152

イギリス海軍における節約と旧式艦の処分（小風尚樹）

図 11 現在のトリンコマリー号 76）
図 11

トリンコマリー号

今回の分析対象期間における主力艦・巡洋艦の処分の傾向を見るに、戦艦や装甲巡洋艦などの新型艦は艦齢 40 歳以下で処分されることがほとんどであり、軍艦の新陳代謝が盛んに行われていた。一方で、戦列艦や帆走巡洋艦といった木造艦は時には 100 歳以上で処分されるなど、竣工から処分までの期間が相対的に長いことがわかった。加えて、このような木造艦は、処分されるまでの間に再艤装を施されたり練習艦として転用されたりす
るなど、軍艦としての第二・第三のキャリアを歩んだほか、一部は修繕の上展示されて現在に至るなど、海とともに生きるイギリス国民のアイデンティティを育むための文化的役割を担っているのである。
4 おわりに
本稿では、1850 ～ 1930 年のイギリス海軍における旧式艦の処分について、大きくわけて二つの成果が得られた。まず、イギリス海軍費に占める旧式艦売却額の位置づけと造艦関連支出に対する節約効果の解明である。当該期間において旧式艦の売却額は、イギリス海軍が保有する財産の売却額として、1881 年度までは臨時受領金として国庫に納付され、それ以降は支出補充金として海軍予算に上乗せして支出された。節約効果が比較的大きかったのは、フィッシャー改革期および第一次大戦後であり、その他の時期については古資材売却額や資材あるいは燃料供給にかかる手数料が重要な収入源であったことが明ら
76）HMS Trincomalee, by Chris Armstrong, 2014, National Historic Ships UK, https://www.nationalhistoricships.org.
uk/register/497/hms-trincomalee（2019 年 3 月 27 日閲覧）153

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

かになった。次に、旧式艦処分の全体像については、4000 隻弱の軍艦データベースに基づくマクロな視点からの統計分析により、海軍政策の大きな変化とそれに伴う派生的論点
が浮かび上がった。すなわち、チルダースおよびフィッシャー改革、第一次大戦終結とワ
シントン海軍軍縮条約締結といった各ターニングポイントにおいて、旧式艦として重点的に処分された艦種が明らかになるとともに、船舶解撤や転売という形で処分に携わった民間業者の活動の一端が窺えた。と同時に、個々の軍艦の生涯に着目するミクロな視点からの質的分析を織り交ぜることで、「時代が下るにつれて造船・軍事技術が進歩し、それを反映した新型艦が就役することに伴い旧式艦は淘汰されていった」という命題が発展的に修正されることとなった。すなわち、技術革新の影響を大きく受けたのはむしろ 19 世紀末以降に建造された比較的新しい軍艦であり、旧式艦の代名詞とされてきた木造帆船は、
度重なる修繕を経て新しいキャリアを歩むことがあったほか、一部は現在もなお展示されて文化的象徴としての役割を引き受けているのである。
一方で、展望的な課題も残っている。例えば、ADM 180 などの一次史料を用いた軍艦
データベースの批判的な改良、旧式艦処分の一手段としての他国海軍への売却とその外交史的意義や、紙幅の都合上、詳細に分析できなかった船舶解撤業者とくず鉄を中心とした産業循環などである 77）。これらについては別稿を期したい。

文献リスト（邦文文献）
上野喜一郎［1962］『船の知識』海文堂。
小野塚知二［2003］「イギリス民間企業の艦艇輸出と日本―1870 ～ 1910 年代―」奈倉文二・横井勝彦・小野塚知二編『日英兵器産業とジーメンス事件―武器移転の国際経済史―』日本経済評論社。
小野塚知二［2014］「戦間期海軍軍縮の戦術的前提―魚雷に注目して―」横井勝彦編『軍縮と武器移転の世界史―「軍縮下の軍拡」はなぜ起きたのか―』日本経済評論社。
金澤周作［2013］「海難―アキレスの腱―」同編『海のイギリス史―闘争と共生の世界史―』昭和堂。
小風尚樹［2018］「1860 年代中国海域における海賊鎮圧の外交史的意義 ―イギリス海軍主導による「国際協力体制」の再検討を通じて―」『軍事史学』53–4。
佐藤正之［2004］『船舶解体―鉄リサイクルから見た日本近代史―』花伝社。
西川純子［2014］「戦間期の軍縮―ウィルソンからフーヴァーまで―」横井勝彦編『軍縮と武器移転の世界史』
日本経済評論社。
藤田哲雄［2012］「世紀転換期におけるイギリス海軍予算と国家財政：1888/89 年予算～ 1909/10 年予算」
『経済科学研究』15–2。
藤田哲雄［2015］『帝国主義期イギリス海軍の経済史的分析 1885 ～ 1917 年―国家財政と軍事・外交戦略―』77）佐藤［2004］。

154

イギリス海軍における節約と旧式艦の処分（小風尚樹）

日本経済評論社。
細谷雄一［2006］「黄昏のパクス・ブリタニカ―後期ヴィクトリア時代の外交と海軍―」田所昌幸編『ロイヤル・ネイヴィーとパクス・ブリタニカ』有斐閣。
ギャレン・ムロイ［2006］「19 世紀の RMA」田所昌幸編『ロイヤル・ネイヴィーとパクス・ブリタニカ』有斐閣。
横井勝彦［2004］「イギリス海軍と帝国防衛体制の変遷」秋田茂編『パクス・ブリタニカとイギリス帝国』
ミネルヴァ書房。
吉岡昭彦［1987］「近代イギリス予算制度の特質 ―19 世紀後半〜 20 世紀初頭を対象として ―」『西洋史研究』
16。
吉岡昭彦［1989］「イギリス帝国主義における海軍費の膨脹 ―1889 〜 1914 年 ―」『土地制度史学』31–4。
（欧文文献）
Ashworth, William［1969］“Economic Aspects of Late Victorian Naval Administration,” The Economic History
Review, 22–3.
Bellamy, M.［2011］“Financing the Preservation of Historic Ships: Should the UK Taxpayer Pay? An Overview ofPast, Present and Future Policy,” The Mariner’s Mirror, 97–1.
Biagini, Eugenio F.［2004］Liberty, Retrenchment and Reform: Popular Liberalism in the Age of Gladstone, 1860–
1880, Cambridge, UK.
Bowen, Frank［1936］“The Shipbreaking Industry,” Shipping Wonders of the World, 2–40.
Brown, D. K.［2004］Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development 1860–1905, London.
Brown, P.［2016］Britain’s Historic Ships: A Complete Guide to the Ships that Shaped the Nation, London.
Buxton, I.［1983］“A Century of British Shipbreaking: The Growth and Decline of an Industry,” in A. J. Ambrose, ed.,Jane’s Merchant Shipping Review, London.
Buxton, I.［1992］Metal Industries: Shipbreaking at Rosyth and Charlestown, Windsor.
Buxton, I. and Dalziel, N.［1993］Shipbreaking at Morecambe: T. W. Ward Ltd., 1905–1933, Lancaster.
Buxton, I., et al.［2015］“Measuring Britain’s Merchant Shipbuilding Output in the Twentieth Century,” The Mariner’s
Mirror, 101–3.
Chesneau, R., et al.［1979］Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships, 1860–1905, London.
Clowes, W. Laird, et al.［1903］The Royal Navy: A History from the Earliest Times to the Present, vol. 7, London.
Colledge, J. J. and Warlow, Ben［2003］Ships of the Royal Navy: The Complete Record of All Fighting Ships of theRoyal Navy, London.
Crisher, B.B. and Souva, M.［2014］“Power at Sea: A Naval Power Dataset, 1865–2011,” International Interactions,
40–4.
Dale, K.［2016］Data Visualization with Python and JavaScript, Sebastopol, CA.
Fryer, S. E.［2004］“Clowes, Sir William Laird [pseud. Nauticus], (1856–1905),” Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/32455.
Gardiner, R.［1997］Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships, 1906–1921, London.
Graham, G. S.［1956］“The Ascendancy of the Sailing Ship 1850–85,” The Economic History Review, 9–1.
Grove, E. J.［2005］The Royal Navy since 1815: A New Short History, Basingstoke.
Grove, E. J.［2011］“The Battleship Dreadnought: Technological, Economic and Strategic Contexts”, in Robert J.
Blyth, et al., eds., The Dreadnought and the Edwardian Age, Farnham.
Hepper, D. J.［2006］British Warship Losses in the Ironclad Era, 1860–1919, London.
Kemp, P. K.［1960］The Papers of Admiral Sir John Fisher, London.
Lambert, Nicholas A.［2002］Sir John Fisher’s Naval Revolution, Columbia.
Lyon, David and Winfield, Rif［2004］The Sail & Steam Navy List: All the Ships of the Royal Navy, 1815–1889,155

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

London.
Marchisio, G.［2012］Battleships and Dividends: The Rise of Private Armaments Firms in Great Britain and Italy, c.
1860–1914, Doctoral Thesis, University of Durham.
Marder, Arthur J.［1940］The Anatomy of British Sea Power: A History of British Naval Policy in the PreDreadnought Era, 1880–1905, New York.
Marder, Arthur J.［1961］From the Dreadnought to Scapa Flow: The Royal Navy in the Fisher Era, 1904–1919, vol.1,
Oxford.
Michell, Jeremy［2015］“(Book Review) Rif Winfield, British Warships in the Age of Sail 1817–1863. Barnsley:
Seaforth Publishing, 2014,” International Journal of Maritime History, 27–1.
Modelski, G. and Thompson, W.R.［1988］Seapower in Global Politics, 1494–1993, Seattle.
Rodger, N. A. M.［1976］“The Dark Ages of the Admiralty, 1869–85. Part III: Peace, Retrenchment and Reform,
1880–85”, The Mariner’s Mirror, 62–2.
Searle, Geoffrey R.［1971］The Quest for National Efficiency: A Study in British Politics and Political Thought,
1899–1914, Berkeley.
Smith, C.［2011］“Dreadnought Science: The Cultural Construction of Efficiency and Effectiveness,” in Robert J.
Blyth, et al., eds., The Dreadnought and the Edwardian Age, Farnham.
Sumida, Jon. T.［1993］In Defence of Naval Supremacy: Finance, Technology and British Naval Policy, 1889–1914,
London.
White, Horace［1961］Battleship Wharf: A History of Hughes Bolckow Ltd., Shipbreakers. With Illustrations, London.
Willoughby, W. F., et al.［1917］The System of Financial Administration of Great Britain, New York & London.
Winfield, Rif［2014］British Warships in the Age of Sail 1817–1863: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates,
Barnsley.
Wright, R. N. J.［2001］The Chinese Steam Navy 1862–1945, London.

追記
本稿は、2018 年 1 月 27 日に明治大学で行われた第 60 回兵器産業・武器移転史フォーラムの報告内容に加筆修正を施してまとめたものである。また、JSPS 特別研究員奨励費 17J06536 の助成を受けた。

156

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）
，157 － 161 頁

書評

渡辺昭一編著『冷戦変容期の国際開発援助とアジア― 一九六〇年代を問う―』（ミネルヴァ書房、2017 年）
脇村 孝平
大阪経済法科大学教授

本書は、いわば「国際政治経済史」とでも呼称すべき領域の作品である。本書に収録された諸章は、主として外交資料に基づきつつ、極めて歴史学的かつ実証的な手法で、1960 年代におけるアジアの開発援助をめぐる諸問題を様々に論じており、モノグラフの集成としても非常に価値がある。しかしながら、本書評では、本書全体から受け取れる
メッセージをできるだけ抽出し、「アジア経済史」の視角から論評を試みることで責めを塞ぐことにしたい。
本書を執筆した研究グループは、既に共同研究の成果を『コロンボ・プラン』の刊行を通して、世に問うている 1）。本書は、その続編と言ってよい。本書は、前著に比べると分析の枠組みが明確化した点に特徴がある。序章「欧米の対アジア開発援助の展開」
（渡辺
4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

昭一）では、「帝国の論理」、「冷戦の論理」、そして「自立化の論理」という三つの論理が分析の枠組みとして提起されている。それによると、「帝国の論理」とは主にイギリスによる覇権維持のための努力を指し、「冷戦の論理」とはアメリカによるソ連・中国に対する対抗戦略を意味し、さらに「自立化の論理」とはアジア諸国の政治的・経済的ナショナ
リズムの動きを表している。かかる三つの論理に加えて、日本やオーストラリアなどの地域の要因、さらには世界銀行・インド援助コンソーシアム・エカフェ（ECAFE）などの国際機関という要因も組み合わされて、重層的な把握が試みられている。
本書は、序章を除くと、南アジア・東南アジア・東アジアの地域別の三部構成が採られ
4

4

4

4

ている。以下、私の理解に引きつけて概要を紹介する。南アジアに関しては、まず初めに「帝国の論理」の帰趨が明らかにされている。すなわち、1960 年代後半にアフリカにおける植民地を喪失したイギリスは、インドに対する開発援助に集中したが、実態は「戦略」のない場当たり的な対応に終始したものに他ならず、要するに「帝国の論理」は全く体をなさなかった 2）。他方、インドは、ソ連の軍事援助などを積極的に受け入れつつ、イギリ
スをはじめとする西側の援助とのバランスを取った。
「冷戦の論理」の狭間で半ば漁夫の1）渡辺昭一編［2014］『コロンボ・プラン－戦後アジア国際秩序の形成』法政大学出版会。評者による書評が、『西洋史学』267 号（本年刊行予定）に掲載される予定。
2）第 1 章「帝国解体期イギリス援助の変容」（前川一郎）。

157

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）

利を得つつ、とりあえず「自立化の論理」が貫徹したことになる 3）。しかしながら、このようなインド側の「自立化の論理」の追求が払った代償が決して小さいものではなかった。
インドに対する開発援助は、1960 年代になるとイギリス主導であった「コロンボ・プラン」の枠組みから、世界銀行中心の「インド援助コンソーシアム」枠組みへと変化したが、そのなかで露呈したのは、インドの債務返済における困難化の問題であった 4）。
4

4

4

4

4

東南アジアに関しても、「帝国の論理」の帰趨が明らかにされている。1950 年代のマレー
シアにおいて、イギリスはマラヤ大学の設立によってマレー人・華人・インド人の民族統合を意図したが、これは自らの影響力の維持を狙った「帝国の論理」に他ならなかった。
しかしながら、結局のところ民族間の対立、すなわち「自立化の論理」の副産物によってイギリスの意図は挫折した 5）。1960 年代の半ばまでは緊密な関係を維持していたイギリスとマレーシアの関係はその後、援助をめぐって次第に軋みが目立つようになった。イギリス主導の「マレーシア構想」は 1965 年のシンガポールの離脱によって頓挫し、イギリス
はマレー人が主導するマレーシア、そして華人が多数派を占めるシンガポールとの間で、いわば股裂き状態となった。ここでもまた、「帝国の論理」は、民族間の対立という「自立化の論理」の副産物によって挫折したのである。その後、マレーシアは援助および貿易の主たる相手先をアジア太平洋経済圏の方向に求めていくことになり、とりわけ日本との関係が緊密になっていったという 6）。
4

インドネシアに関しては、本書の分析の枠組みとなっている三つの論理とは異なる「地
4

4

4

4

域の論理」
（評者の言葉）の問題が明らかにされている 7）。すなわち、1960 年代のインドネ
シアに対する開発援助へのオーストラリアの関与の問題が取り上げられている。オースト
ラリアは、この時期、かつての白豪主義から脱して、近隣の東南アジア地域へのコミット
メントを強めていった。インドネシアの 1960 年代は、マレーシアとの対立、そしてスカ
ルノ時代からスハルト時代への移行などの動乱の時代であったが、オーストラリアは、その国家的出自に関わるイギリスとの関係、および次第に結びつきを強めていたアメリカとの関係の両者から相対的に自立した援助政策を展開していった。なお、19 世紀に独立を保ったタイは、冷戦期の地政学的状況もあって 1950 年代以降にアメリカとの結びつきを

3）第 2 章「インドの軍事主導型重工業化と国際支援」（横井勝彦）。
4）第３章「一九六〇年代の開発援助とインド援助コンソーシアム－開発から債務救済へ」（渡辺昭一）。
5）第４章「開発援助としての教育政策－マラヤ・東アフリカの大学支援とその帰結」（都丸潤子）。
6）第 5 章「アジア太平洋経済圏の胎動と援助をめぐる攻防」（佐藤滋）。
7）第６章「援助の墓場－一九六〇年代オーストラリア－インドネシア関係の前提」（木畑洋一）；第 7 章「オーストラリアとアジア新国際秩序の形成－一九六〇～七〇年代の対インドネシア食糧援助」（ピエール・ファン・デル・エング）。

158渡辺昭一編『冷戦変容期の国際開発援助とアジア― 一九六〇年代を問う―』（脇村孝平）

強めたが、依然としてタイ側の主体性、すなわち「自立化の論理」を貫徹した。そのことは、1950年代にアメリカがタイに対して行った援助の一種である「稲品種改良プログラム」
が、タイ版の香り米「ジャスミンライス」の創造につながった経緯のなかで示されているという 8）。
44

44

東アジアに関しては、台湾・韓国の事例では、もっぱら「冷戦の論理」に基づくアメリ
カの援助政策が論じられている 9）。ここでは、もっぱら韓国の事例を取り上げるが、1960
年代に韓国が朴正煕政権の下で推進した経済体制（輸出志向工業化）を、「国家主導型発展モデル」あるいは「開発独裁体制」と認定しつつ、アメリカの冷戦政策の文脈のなかに位置づける試みがなされている。そこで明らかとなるのは、1960 年代半ば以降、ベトナ
ム戦争がエスカレートするなかで、かつまた北朝鮮との緊迫した軍事的状況のなかで、ベトナムへの韓国軍の派兵によって、アメリカから軍事および経済の援助を引き出した朴正煕政権の姿である。ここでは、従属しつつも「自立化の論理」が明らかに貫徹していた。
他方、同じ時期に日本は、アジア諸国とどのように向き合おうとしていたのか。1960 年代
半ばに、日本の援助政策は「政治の時代」から「経済の時代」へと大きく転換した。要す
るに、日本の援助は、1960 年代の前半（池田政権）までは「賠償」という政治的な性格を色濃く帯びていたが、1960 年代の後半（佐藤政権）には文字通り「開発援助」として経済的な性格を強めた 10）。ところで、1960 年代のエカフェ（国連アジア極東経済委員会）
において、アジアの工業化戦略をめぐって対立した二つの構想が存在した。一つは「地域
輸入代替工業化」構想であり、もう一つは「輸出志向工業化」構想であった。前者はインドを中心とした南アジアが支持する路線であり、後者は東南アジアおよび北東アジアの路線であったが、結果的には後者が有力となり、いわゆる「アジアNIEsの登場へ」とつながった経緯が明らかにされている 11）。ちなみに、このような日本の動きとエカフェ内の動向は、ほぼ連動していたとも解釈できる。先述のオーストラリアの事例と同様に、「地域の論理」の発動と解釈できるかもしれない。
以上は、かなり強引な内容紹介であるが、それを踏まえて本書の学術的な意義を指摘しておきたい。本書で扱われている時代と主題は、これまで主に国際経済や開発経済の領域において現状分析的な研究の延長線上で捉えられてきた。しかしながら、本書は、史料批判や先行研究に対する綿密な検討に基づく歴史研究の作品として、わが国ではほとんど初8）第８章「アメリカ合衆国の経済援助とタイ－「稲品種改良プログラム」からみた援助と自立」（宮田敏之）。
9）第 9 章「アメリカ合衆国の援助と台湾－経済自立化の途を辿って」（李為楨）；第 10 章「アメリカ合衆国の対韓援助政策と朴正煕政権の対応－ 1964 年～ 1970 年代初頭」（菅英輝）。
10）第 11 章「1960 年代における日本の援助とアジア国際秩序―戦後処理と冷戦の影」（宮城大蔵）。
11） 第 12 章「エカフェとアジアの工業化戦略－地域経済協力構想を手掛かりに」（山口育人）。

159

『国際武器移転史』第 8 号（2019 年 7 月）の試みであると高く評価しうる。加えて、本書の執筆陣の多くは、基本的にイギリス帝国史に関心を寄せる研究者であるため、新たな視野をもたらしたことも指摘しうる。新たな視野として、二点を挙げる。第一にイギリス帝国史の文脈を導入することで長期的な視野をもたらしたこと（時間軸の拡張）、第二にアジアにおけるイギリス帝国の拠点だった南アジアを重視したこと（空間軸の拡張）、という二つの点でそのように言える。
そのことによって、次のような歴史像が浮かび上がってきたことに大きな意義があると考える。アジアにおける「開発援助」の焦点が、南アジアから東南アジアへ、さらには東
4

4

4

4

4

アジアへと移行したという展開である 12）。こうした焦点の移動をもたらしたのは、本書が示すところでは、イギリスによる「帝国の論理」の後退とともに、東南アジアおよび東アジアにおける「冷戦の論理」と「自立化の論理」の交錯に他ならなかった。さらに、実質的に本書で示されているように、オーストラリアや日本の関与といった「地域の論理」（評者の表現）といった要因の影響も大きかった。何れにしても、本書の貢献は、こうした歴史的展開の大きな筋を、政治・外交の諸要因と経済の諸要因を両睨みにして、実証的に明らかにした点にあると言える。
では、アジア経済史の視角から、このような歴史像に対して何が言えるのであろうか。
評者の提起したいのは、＜南アジア→東南アジア→東アジア＞という「開発援助」の焦点の移動は、実は経済発展の論理におけるパラダイム・チェンジにほぼ対応していたのでは
4

4

4

4

4

4

ないかという仮説である。それは、「開発計画」のパラダイムから、「貿易」のパラダイムへの移行と表現することができる。評者の言う「開発計画」のパラダイムとは、インドにおいて、1950 年代から 1970 年代にかけて、典型的な輸入代替工業化戦略として採られた政策レジームのことを指す。これは、「自立」という脱植民地化のイデオロギーに加えて、社会主義の影響もあったがゆえに、市場に対する不信に基づきつつ「開発計画」へと傾く経済体制であった。外交的には非同盟主義（「冷戦の論理」への反発）とともに、ソ連との関わりを強めたことも効いていた。
他方、その対極にあった東アジアでは、いわば「貿易」のパラダイムが作用したと言える。韓国と台湾は、厳しい冷戦状態の下、アメリカのヘゲモニーの下で、確かにアメリカ
からの軍事援助と経済援助が果たした役割が大きかったが、既に 1960 年代の段階から、労働集約的な工業製品を輸出して外貨を稼ぎ、更なる工業化のために資本財・中間財を輸入するパターンへと変化していた。香港やシンガポールを含めて、いわゆるアジアNIEsは、国内市場の狭隘性もあって、こうした戦略を採ったとも言える。何れにしても、「開発計

12）その点を総括的に示しているのが、山口氏執筆の第 12 章である。

160

渡辺昭一編『冷戦変容期の国際開発援助とアジア― 一九六〇年代を問う―』（脇村孝平）

画」の論理もある程度効いていたかもしれないが、こうした戦略は「市場」に親和的なものであった。
さて、このような二つのパラダイムの対照は、第二次世界大戦後に突如現れた現象ではなかった。歴史的淵源を求めることが可能である。すなわち、両大戦間期（1920 年代および 1930 年代）に遡ることができるのである。英領インドではこの時期に、関税の引き上げによる保護主義、そして輸出貿易の不振に基づく「輸出悲観論」に起因して輸入代替工業化のパターンは始まっていた。それに対して、東アジアでは、両大戦間期、特に1930 年代の世界的な貿易縮小の時代に、日本帝国の内部を中心に異例の貿易の拡大が見られた。日本の植民地であった朝鮮と台湾では、貿易の拡大は工業化と深く結びついていたが、その意味で輸出志向工業化の先例をそこに見ることも可能であろう 13）。
ここで指摘したいのは、本書が示した「開発援助」をめぐる南アジアと東アジアの対照
4

4

4

4

4

は、
「歴史の論理」とも言える経路依存性によっても規定されているのではないかという点である。何れにしても、本書は、「アジア経済史」のような問題関心の諸研究とも交錯しつつ、新たな研究領域を切り開く可能性を提示したパイオニア的な研究と評価しうる。

13）こうした認識は、堀和生氏の一連の研究に負うところが大きい。例えば、堀和生［2009］『東アジア資本主義史論Ⅰ－形成・構造・展開』
ミネルヴァ書房。詳しくは、下記の拙論を参照されたい。脇村孝平［2018］「グローバル・ヒストリーから見た『日本帝国』」日本植民地研究会編『日本植民地研究の論点』岩波書店。

161

編集委員須藤 功（明治大学 編集委員長）

横井勝彦（明治大学 本研究所長）

榎本珠良（明治大学）

松永友有（横浜国立大学）

竹内真人（日本大学）

田嶋信雄（成城大学）

纐纈 厚（明治大学）

鈴木 惇（東京大学）

赤津正彦（明治大学）

森元晶文（中央学院大学）

渡辺昭一（東北学院大学）

山下雄司（日本大学）

永岑三千輝（横浜市立大学名誉教授）『国際武器移転史』第 8 号
2019 年 7 月 18 日印刷

2019 年 7 月 23 日発行

編集・発行 明治大学国際武器移転史研究所
代表者 横井勝彦
連絡先住所 〒 101-8301 東京都千代田区神田駿河台 1 − 1
明治大学グローバルフロント 16 階明治大学国際武器移転史研究所
Email: rihgat_journal@meiji.ac.jp
URL: http://www.kisc.meiji.ac.jp/~transfer/
印刷・製本 株式会社 サンヨー

本誌の刊行は「文部科学省私立大学戦略的研究基盤形成支援事業（2015 ～ 2019 年度）」に依拠している。