• Cambodian rush for a credible navy - source: AD&D Magazine
• Unmanned Systems in Iraq - source: Unmanned Systems Magazine(AUVSI)
• Brahmos: Where will it hit? - source: AD&D Magazine

In Defence of Defence Shows

This article is published in AD&D Magazine

By Francis Nantha - The recent exit of global publishing and exhibition company Reed Elsevier from defence-related shows, prompted by rebellion from within, has sent mixed signals out to the worldwide defence industry – which continues to thrive despite many bleeding hearts seeking to tar-brush everyone having even the most remote link to this sector as pariahs.

From the viewpoint of an editor who overlooks a monthly publication focused on glorifying the ever more efficient destructive capabilities of modern technology, it is definitely hard to even attempt to justify the lethal and bloody consequences of such armaments being unleashed.
No one likes to see indiscriminate bloodshed, regardless of what the reasons might be. This is a moral dilemma that is faced every day by surgeons who undertake necessary incisions resulting in blood loss, right down to nurses who have to inflict pain via injections and more for a better good.
While many may argue that such a comparison may be too far a stretch to be truly fair, one must not forget that all warfare have to some extent or another been justified as aiming to achieve a better good – or simply, the end justifies the means.

Singapore’s Second Minister for Defence Ng Eng Hen

As to just how far these justification actually hold any water, as the Asian proverb goes, there is no denying that if one is actually willing to work through the arguments from the perspective of all combatants, some sort of positive spin is possible from all ends.
Take the 2003 invasion of Iraq by US-led allied forces. The political fallout from this unilateral action justified as destroying potential deployment of weapons of mass destruction (which later proved false because of misguided intelligence) is still being felt despite the exit of its most high-profiled victim – ex-British prime minister Tony Blair, who is ironically now on a mission of promoting peace.
Within Iraq itself, everyone reluctantly agrees American troops cannot possibly exit anytime soon if the fragile fabric of Middle Eastern peace is to be maintained. The daily turmoil there threatens to cascade throughout the region if the number one target of invading soldiers is removed; the potential for lawlessness is otherwise just too great to imagine.
On the other hand, the Iraqi invasion did manage to persuade North Korea to back down from its nuclear plans – proving just how effective a determined show of force can positively aid a diplomatic effort against openly defiant statesmen. (For a more succinct explanation, one can always refer to Mercenary: Bio of a Space Tyrant by Piers Anthony.)
As a diplomatic tool, having effective weaponry and the political will to deploy them often helps to make negotiations less drawn out than they might otherwise be – the Cuban missile crisis and the mutually assured destruction (“MAD”) principle being some clear examples when diplomatic efforts have succeeded when backed by destructive strengths.
Going back further, one can also put forward the argument that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were necessary to bring an end to World War II – with the second bomb ensuring a quick capitulation of the proud Japanese, who might have otherwise still been willing to risk suicide in the pursuit of honour.
In short, all weaponry must always be seen as an integral part of a diplomatic negotiation toolkit – which will not be credible unless there is sufficient political will to deploy them. The trick is to know when to deal that poker hand while also having enough humility to resist overwhelming temptation and withdraw the threat when it becomes appropriate to do so.

Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister & Defence Minister Najib Abdul Razak at DSA 2006

This is the focus of our magazine, which says it all in our very title – Asian Defence and Diplomacy – because both make up opposite sides of the same coin, like the good cop-bad cop routine.
In seeking to report on and (in a small way) also influence this delicate balance within the context of the Greater Asia region – extending to the Australasias – while also acknowledging the influence of developments beyond this area, AD&D doesn’t seek to disguise the vast commercial kitties waiting to be tapped from both the suppliers and purchasers.
(AD&D and its related publications receive and accept advertisements from military suppliers as well government defence authorities).
We embrace the challenge of fair reporting without being unduly compromised by commercial considerations in the same way that defence trade shows have mushroomed around the world because free speech and enterprise dictates that there can be no vacuum where potential exists.
Hence, shooting the messengers for being very obvious targets is a very short-sighted effort – for there will always be a need for defence technology developments and media channels to feature these advances, despite bleeding heart liberals and peaceniks claiming otherwise.

Defence shows

At last count, there are easily over 100 officially-sanctioned multinational fully or quasi-defence shows being held around the world annually or on a biannual basis. And that isn’t counting the number of conferences and congresses being conducted week in and out – with both international and intra-national participation.
It’s therefore safe to say that there is some form of openly-acknowledged commercial-military promotional activity being conducted somewhere around the world almost every week, with the probable exception of the hottest summer days and coldest winter periods.
For the most part, these military shows are restricted to professionals who know exactly what they’re dealing with and are meant to be exactly what they promise to be – an extensive display of destructive capabilities and security protection.

Missiles display at Paris Airshow 2007

These defence trade shows play an important role in the overall scheme of things just like any commerce subject to regulations – displaying wares for all potential customers to touch and feel as well as giving the opportunity for in-depth discussions or simply networking.
Doing away with military trade shows would simply drive it underground – an unsavoury prospect that nobody would want since there are already enough undetected supplies being clandestinely paraded and sold around the world.
It is far better to have an open forum which can be monitored and reported on to keep the industry honest – as far as that is possible, simply because everyone (regardless of whether they admit to it or not) are fascinated with the awesome power that destructive weapons can unleash.
Plus, there is no denying just how powerful an allure these shows can be – presenting in the flesh almost everything that has captured the imagination of all via the vicarious pleasure of blockbuster movies plus lots more which rarely ever see the light of day otherwise.
It is really a blast being able to come up close and personal to awesome military hardware featured in many a movie from Independence Day to Godzilla to even Transformers – never mind the flip side of the destruction which can ensue; or more so because of such power potentially available.
Hence, because military hardware is usually locked away and restricted to a very select few, the privilege of being able to gain access to such destructive systems in a neutral environment is one that is extremely hard to resist. Trade show organizers usually have a hard time keeping away civilian visitors for this very reason, and many aficionados have to settle for whatever trickles through the media to them.

Pointed reminder of super virus terrorism at GSA 2007

For up-and-coming suppliers, these shows present a heaven-sent opportunity to reach out to new customers and markets – just like any exhibition featuring a myriad products bunched together under a common theme.
Defence expos also present the opportunity for new technologies and developments to be showcased like a supermarket or bazaar – offering a whole range of selections which would be difficult to be surveyed at leisure anywhere else.
As the arms trade is a big business, as is the production industry – any technological advantage possible is ripe for exploitation and many partnerships are indeed forged at these trade shows based on the displays.
And one more equally important point which needs to be emphasized – these defence fairs are fantastic magnets which attract moral protesters of all kinds. Suppliers and government officials expect them and are rarely disappointed.

Protest culture

The off thing about people is that everyone has an opinion. In a group of 10, there is every likelihood that you’d get 10 or more different opinions – ranging from being against the killing or maiming all humans to deploring the animal cruelty or forgoing meat altogether.
Where personal opinions overlap, you get organized protests and the more successful ones are usually those that manage to tap into the deep-rooted morality of human existence.

The lobby against landmines (see AD&D August 2007 cover story) is one such protest activity which has gained major success worldwide and it isn’t difficult to see why. Armaments are meant to be used strictly during an acknowledged combat situation and shouldn’t be injuring or slaughtering innocents decades later.
In a similar manner, organized protests are actually a welcome development because they provide a counterbalance to overly hawkish attitudes on the part of those in power as well as providers of these weaponry.
Cluster munitions, for example, are another form of indiscriminate warfare that is deservedly receiving bad press despite being a great idea at first. Biological and chemical warfare might have remained acceptable if not for organized protests which helped highlight to gory cruelty inflicted.
In short, moral sustained protests have a role to play in keeping the military industry honest as well as pressuring the powers-that-be to recognize there are limits which should apply in combat situations.
However, as editor of AD&D, I personally feel that the pressure applied against Reeds Elsevier to exit the military-related exhibition business was misguided and should be redirected while Reeds Exhibitions still remains within the group so as not to lose a truly golden opportunity to strike a balance between credible protests and the needs of the arms industry.
Reeds Elsevier should retain its relatively widespread military trade show portfolio and use this leverage to incorporate the viewpoints of opposing opinions in conferences which usually form an integral part of these expos.
Protesters gather at military shows because the right audience is already present there – and if Reeds Elsevier were to give them a platform to be heard in a structured manner, it would be a far better result compared to this global company simply turning its back and feigning ignorance or reality thereafter.

Civilian gains

Aside from ongoing activity which ensures a peaceful existence in most countries around the world, the military industry has also spun off many of its technological achievements into the civilian arena.
From the global positioning satellite system to the internet, much of modern life today would be far poorer if it were not for advances originally undertaken for strictly military purposes.

While these standard rationales used to be enough to convince the silent majority, the recent spike in terrorist attacks in urban areas have once more reinforced the need for the authorities to have the best weaponry at hand to handle this ugly menace.
Criminals too have become a lot more aggressive, wielding firepower aimed at overwhelming police standard issue pieces and it has now become imperative that stronger countermeasures be put into place as sufficient deterrents.
Part of the solution is obviously preventive action – something that many have come to tolerate as a necessary evil in this day and age – with metal detectors, X-ray machines and more popping up in almost every corner.
More controls over potential tools which could be used to trigger off attacks – from requiring registrations of prepaid cellular phones to embedding identification chips in almost every electronic device – has resulted in a situation probably far more intrusive than George Orwell could have imagined despite having written the book 1984.
Given that ordinary household items – from knives to baking soda or bleach – can also be easily turned into weapons, it may soon become necessary to strict controls over the possession of these items too if the existing paranoia against terrorism is allowed to extend too far.
It is in this aspect that protest groups and military trade shows can actually work towards a common good by presenting innovative new solutions to reduce the threats without imposing further inconvenience on innocents.
Hence, being at loggerheads isn’t always the best way to creating better alternatives. Brutal honesty is needed to achieve a lasting compromise rather than seeking to ram down opposing opinions down the other’s throat.
This sentiment is perhaps summarized in the memorable words uttered by Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, played by Jack Nicholson in the Academy Award-nominated movie A Few Good Men:
“You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
“You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
“I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way.
“Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!”

More of the writer’s opinions on this subject matter of defence and diplomacy can be found in the book “When Spirits Beckon”, available at Amazon.com

Reed announcement (1 June 2007)

Following a detailed review, Reed Elsevier (the holding company) has instructed Reed Exhibitions to divest all its defence shows.
The process of disposal is now being undertaken in a timely and professional manner, subject to honouring obligations to its partners, customers and other key stakeholders. The sale of DSEi will not be enacted before this year’s event.
Sir Crispin Davis, Chief Executive Officer of Reed Elsevier, said “Our defence shows are quality businesses which have performed well in recent years. Nonetheless, it has become increasingly clear that growing numbers of important customers and authors have very real concerns about our involvement in the defence exhibitions business.

“We have listened closely to these concerns and this has led us to conclude that the defence shows are no longer compatible with Reed Elsevier’s position as a leading publisher of scientific, medical, legal and business content.”
Reed Elsevier intends to complete its withdrawal during the second half of 2007, subject to honouring its obligations to partners, customers and other key stakeholders. It also announced that defence shows accounted for less than 1% of group annual turnover – 0.5% or £20-£25 million.
Despite this announcement, there has as yet been no official word on its other quasi-defence shows like Helitech, ISNR (International Security National Resilience) or Aerospace Testing expos.

The affected shows are:

• DSEi (Defence Systems and Equipment International) is held every two years in London and is the world’s largest defence show
• IDEX is held every two years in Abu Dhabi and is the Middle East’s premier defence exhibition and conference
• ITEC is a training and simulation exhibition held every year in different European cities
• LAAD (Latin American Aero and Defence) is held every two years in Rio de Janeiro
• TADTE (Taipei Aerospace & Defence Technology Exhibition) is held every two years in Taiwan

The internal revolt which led to Reed Elsevier divesting its defence shows began in earnest when its own medical journal The Lancet published a scathing condemnation of Reed Elsevier's role in the global arms trade in September 2005.
Then, 13 internationally renowned writers – including two Nobel prizewinners and six winners of the Man Booker Prize and names like A.S. Byatt, J.M. Coetzee, Nick Hornby and Ian McEwan – issued a public letter criticising the company's arms fairs on 2 March 2006, on the eve of the London Book Fair – also organised by Reed Exhibitions.
The letter called on Reed Elsevier "to end its involvement in a dirty and damaging business; and upon our colleagues to encourage Reed Elsevier to take the book trade out of the arms trade."
In view of these developments, it was no wonder that Reed Elsevier began its withdrawal with the announcement on 16 October 2005 that it wasn’t renewing its contract with the Singapore government to manage Asian Aerospace, the largest air show in Asia.
Often described as the biggest aerospace and defense technology exhibition in the region, Singapore will continue hosting the show with its existing formula of being more defence-focused over six days from 19 February 2008.
Meanwhile, Reed continues to run the revamped Asian Aerospace show with a purely civil aviation focus in a new location starting this month – in Hong Kong, to better tap the increasing opportunities that mainland China offers.