Weapons, wealth and health
An LJMU academic and other international researchers argue that health professionals must do more to counterbalance the influence of the global arms industry on governments and health.
Professor Mark Bellis, Director of Research and Innovation at LJMU, has contributed to a series of articles published by the British Medical Journal examining how weapons manufacturers use commercial strategies to subvert public health agendas and shape discourse around security and violence.
With his colleagues, Professor Bellis argues that, like the tobacco, alcohol, and fossil fuel industries, the arms industry should be seen as a commercial determinant of health, where corporate practices matter as much as products when considering how industries can harm health.
These practices include marketing, lobbying, funding of think tanks and universities, and forging close relationships with governments, which the industry uses to shape public policy and regulatory environments in its favour while deflecting responsibility for its contribution to perpetuating conflict, injuries, and death.
Decisions about what types of weapons are produced, how much is spent on them and how they are deployed should not be driven by the financial interests of the arms industry. These choices must be guided by health, environmental and humanitarian perspectives.
Professor Mark Bellis, Director of Research and Innovation at LJMU
Greater scrutiny required
The arms industry deserves more scrutiny at a time when defence spending is threatening health, say BMJ editors Jocalyn Clark and Kamran Abbasi in an editorial to introduce the series.
Recent military spending commitments by the UK and other nations are reallocating resources from health and foreign aid budgets, reviving debates about warfare versus welfare not seen since the Cold War. Global military expenditure is already over $2.7 trillion annually.
While Europe must reduce its reliance on the US for security, this cannot come at the expense of welfare or by sacrificing the health and humanitarian benefits from foreign aid, they say. They urge renewed support from health professionals for a peace dividend — to maintain health and welfare spending for populations and societies both domestically and globally.
Within these spending debates there has been little if any attention paid to the arms industry as a commercial determinant of health, leaving a large gap in the scientific literature and a void where more health research and action are needed.
Professor Bellis said: "We’ve learned from the tobacco, alcohol, and fossil fuel industries that reducing the harms they cause to health requires a deeper understanding of how these industries shape public and political decisions to protect their profits. It is critical that we apply the same scrutiny to the arms industry - especially now, as governments around the world are spending billions more each year to expand their destructive capabilities.
"Decisions about what types of weapons are produced, how much is spent on them and how they are deployed should not be driven by the financial interests of the arms industry. These choices must be guided by health, environmental and humanitarian perspectives."
Prioritise health, human rights and peace
Professor Bellis and colleagues’ analyses suggest that examining these industry dynamics can help uncover both direct and systemic health harms and inform how health considerations should feature alongside defence and profit.
They acknowledge that this is a conceptual shift but say “it is also a call to action for health professionals including researchers, policymakers and civil society to advocate for a reorientation away from design, distribution and deployment for profit and towards global priorities of health, human rights and peace.”
