Preservation of peace, disarmament and conversion of military production. What is the conversion of the military industry? What opportunities does it open up for the country's economy? Disarmament and conversion of military production

Chinese President Xi Jinping will answer the Pentagon's challenge. Photo by Reuters

President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping added to his numerous posts one more - the head of the commission on integrated civil and military development. The name is tricky. But the bottom line is that the Chinese leadership intends to end the monopoly position of the military-industrial complex. State defense and advanced civilian enterprises should be combined into one bundle. Observers in Hong Kong say China wants to create firms like Boeing and Lokheed Martin in the United States.

Beijing has decided to shake up the outdated bureaucratic system for managing the production of weapons. But commentators in Hong Kong warn that the reform will face opposition from groups that monopolize the defense industry and difficulties transferring intellectual property rights.

The creation of the new commission has long been advocated by Xu Zengping, a member of the People's Political Advisory Council, businessman and former basketball star. “I think we need to first allow state-owned enterprises and private companies to complement each other's benefits. And the process of demonopolizing the state defense industry will take a long time, ”Xu told the South China Morning Post. Nevertheless, the ultimate goal is to form a more compact and efficient military production system, focusing on the experience of such US giants as Boeing and Lokheed Martin.

However, Richard Biesinger, a military expert at the School of International Studies in Singapore, doubts China will be able to develop a military-industrial complex like America's. Chinese state defense companies want to incorporate market principles into their operations, but they are highly dependent on government support. Bizinger cited the example of the State-owned Commercial Aviation Corporation of China. She performed unsatisfactorily with commercial aircraft ARJ21 and C919. This company, according to the expert, will remain small and will build several civil aircraft, which, in turn, will be sold mainly to Chinese airlines.

There are many obstacles to the integration of military and civilian industries. But it should be borne in mind that the Chinese leadership attaches paramount importance to this problem. It is not for nothing that the commission was headed by none other than Xi Jinping, Vasily Kashin, a leading researcher at the Institute of Far Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, told NG.

“The integration of military and civilian production has been of great importance in the past. When the economic reforms began, there was a transfer of technology from the defense department to the civilian sphere. Then a number of companies in the field of auto-building, electronics grew out of the military-industrial complex. While the conversion failed in Russia, it worked in China. For example, factories producing 2 million cars a year were formerly military-industrial complex enterprises, ”the expert said.

And now there is a reverse trend - the transfer of technology from the civilian sector to the military. Moreover, the problem of integrating the two sectors in China has been raised to the highest level. After all, Xi Jinping is both the chairman of the Central Military Commission and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

This is influenced by tradition: in China, many other interdepartmental structures have been created that are responsible for coordinating policy on important issues. According to Kashin, sometimes such leadership groups have a small staff, and sometimes they grow and turn into real state bodies.

In this case, a permanent body has been created. Apparently, this is due to what the Pentagon did. Back in 2014, he began implementing a new defense strategy called the third offset strategy. The Pentagon has opened a special office in Silicon Valley. Defense officials are focused on integrating military and civilian developments. The emphasis is on artificial intelligence, robotics, 3D printing. The goal is to achieve overwhelming superiority over China. And now China is responding to this challenge in the spirit of its traditions, the expert said.

The competition between the Chinese and American defense industry is going on in the shadows. But according to the online newspaper AsiaTimes, the Donald Trump administration is mulling a plan to punish the Chinese war machine for its expansion into the South China Sea and other regions. One of the elements of this "punishment" will be the curtailment of contacts between employees of the military departments of the two powers. Under Barack Obama, exchange of trips and reciprocal visits by warships have become regular.

Transformations in the domestic defense-industrial complex began in the late 1980s. Over the course of all subsequent years, transformations in the management of the military-industrial complex were carried out in various organizational and legal forms: conversion of defense production; reforming the management system of industrial defense enterprises (privatization, corporatization); restructuring of the domestic military-industrial complex. A large number of military-industrial complex enterprises underwent intensive denationalization during the collapse of the USSR. The volume of state orders for the production of weapons and military equipment fell in 1992 by almost 8 times. In 1997, about 50 percent of the ownership of enterprises in the Russian military-industrial complex was corporatized; out of 1,700 enterprises of the military-industrial complex (not counting those that were on the balance sheet of the ministry Russian Federation on nuclear energy), only 40 percent were fully state-owned, 31 percent of enterprises were joint-stock companies with state participation, 29 percent of enterprises became fully private joint stock companies... All work in the defense industry was chaotic.

In the 90s, the military-industrial complex faced the problem of conversion. Conversion / lat./ "change, transformation". "Conversion of the military-industrial complex" is the transfer of military production to the production of civilian products.

The economy of the USSR has historically developed as a militarized economy oriented towards a highly costly structure of production, incapable of competition, oriented towards a closed domestic market. The military-industrial or defense complex itself gradually became an independent organizational structure, which included a management system, enterprises and organizations of nine ministries. The defense complex developed and produced not only military equipment. For example, in 1989, the share of non-food consumer goods and civilian products in the total production of the defense complex was 40%. This, in particular, was facilitated by the transfer in 1987 to the defense complex of enterprises of the reformed Ministry of Light and Food Industry. There are frequent cases when the share of military output at the enterprises of the defense complex did not exceed 10%, and a number of enterprises belonging to the defense ministries did not produce any military products at all. For a long time, the defense complex was provided in a priority order with financial resources, scientific and technical personnel, material resources. Taking into account the position occupied in the country's economy by the defense industry complex and the weakness of civilian industries, the concept of "physical" conversion was adopted when developing the conversion program, that is, the direct re-profiling of the production capacities of the defense industry. The production and scientific and technical potential of the defense industries, released as a result of the reduction in the production of weapons and military equipment, was to be used as a matter of priority for the implementation of state target programs that ensure the implementation of the most important areas of scientific and technological progress, including the development of civil aviation, shipbuilding, space program of scientific and national economic significance, communication facilities, electronic technology and informatics, the production of advanced materials and compounds of high purity, environmentally friendly energy, non-food consumer goods, technological equipment for the processing industries of the agro-industrial complex, light industry, trade and public catering, medical technology, equipment and instruments for environmental purposes. The program provided for the creation of 22 basic intersectoral scientific and technical, technological, engineering and other centers for the conversion of the scientific and technical potential of the defense complex.

The adopted conversion program could be implemented only in a planned distribution economy and was associated with the largest costs both for the development and industrial development of new products.

Initially, when implementing this program, the main tasks in the field of conversion at this stage were to preserve the most important elements of the production and scientific and technical potential of the enterprises of the Russian defense complex, their maximum use for economic reconstruction, development of the social sphere, for creating import-substituting industries, expanding export opportunities country.

The withdrawal of capacities related to the defense complex outside the existing management system was planned to be carried out through the formation of economically independent corporations and concerns. Their involvement in the fulfillment of military orders should be carried out under contracts obtained mainly on a competitive basis.

In the implementation of this model, the government bodies were entrusted with the tasks of creating macroeconomic conditions for the fulfillment of military orders, determining the conditions for contracting the development and implementation of a mobilization policy, providing enterprises with various types of state assistance when their workload with defense orders changes, solving problems public investment in enterprises related to the implementation of military orders, etc.

However, instead of a well-thought-out system for implementing this idea, the blanks of 1990 conversion programs focused on "physical" conversion were urgently used, which could not be implemented within the framework of the new economic policy and unsuccessful attempts to offer domestic projects to Western investors.

The course of events in 1992-1995 showed that the government, for a number of reasons, could not and did not want to consistently maintain the conceived concept of conversion, and in fact the situation got out of the control of the executive branch. Everything looked as if the simplest concept of the demilitarization of the economy had been realized - at any cost to get rid of inefficient production, giving enterprises and organizations the right to look for a place in the new economic situation themselves.

Currently, the government is again returning to the conversion of the military-industrial complex. The volume of production of enterprises of the military-industrial complex of Russia by 2011 should grow by 30%, and by 2015 - by 2.2 times. At the same time, in two years the share of civilian goods at defense enterprises will reach 53%, and in seven years - 59%.

According to the deputies, right now the defense industry has every opportunity to establish the production of high-quality goods in demand on the market. According to the deputies, the military-industrial complex enterprises have already been prepared by the last wave for the production of civilian products and in modern conditions will be able to combine civil and military production.

The views of parliamentarians on this issue were different: “Independent experts say that the idea of ​​conversion is hopeless. If the factories can withstand the increase in production, it will be useless: the domestic military-industrial complex in its current state is simply not capable of producing competitive goods.

According to experts, in modern conditions, it is practically impossible to transfer military factories to a peaceful track. Conversion is now an extremely expensive and time-consuming process.

“Military factories are highly specialized enterprises, so conversion options are very limited. But it seems that the government is not familiar with the latest research on the efficiency of conversion production, ”said Alexander Konovalov, president of the Institute for Strategic Assessment and Analysis.

“It is obvious that the products of military factories are unlikely to be in demand on the market, if we do not take, for example, space rockets for commercial launches.

And in general, in modern conditions, in 99% of cases it is impossible to create a high-tech conversion production, this is a confirmed fact. It is much easier to build a specialized civilian plant next to a military enterprise and start production from scratch.

“The enterprises of the military-industrial complex have already gone through the era of conversion, the restructuring of their production facilities for the production of civilian products,” Mikhail Grishankov, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Security, told NI. - Therefore, the government's plans cannot be called the announcement of a new conversion. This does not mean that we intend to release ladles instead of weapons. Along with weapons, defense factories will produce modern civilian goods. Moreover, there is no doubt that military developments and technologies may well be used for civilian purposes.

This is already happening: we have many programs within the framework of the United Aircraft Corporation, according to which military-industrial complex enterprises plan to produce, or are already producing, civil aircraft. In addition, the sphere of radio electronics and the production of communications equipment has always produced products for both the army and the market. I am confident that the products of the Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies will be of both military and civilian use. "

At the moment, arms spending in the world has exceeded $ 1.2 trillion. This incredible amount is 2.5% of the world's gross product.

The accumulation of conflict potential in the developing zone (a sharp polarization of incomes of various segments of the population, an increase in poverty, social injustice, unemployment, economic imbalances, costs of the "demonstration effect", corruption, periodic military clashes of an internal and interstate nature) was an increase in military spending, which could the nature and scale of the arms race.

Thus, a paradoxical situation developed: on the one hand, these are economic difficulties and various crisis phenomena: increased instability of economic growth, the need for resources for development; on the other hand, the constantly growing process of militarization of the economy, expressed in high growth rates of military expenditures and a significant increase in its share in world spending on weapons, an unjustified waste of resources. The security process in the modern world is twofold - it is necessary to prevent nuclear proliferation in the world, but it is also necessary to reduce the existing military arsenals.

As you know, growing military spending has a negative impact on the state budget. Moreover, the growth in the specific growth of military spending in the budgets of developing countries is accompanied by a sharp reduction in its share used for education and health care, that is, for the development of those spheres of social services for the population in which such countries are in dire need. At the same time, countries with the lowest national income per capita, as a rule, devote more of the budget to military sectors than industrialized countries. It is obvious that it is the growth of military spending that is responsible for the increase in budget deficits, which then causes increased inflation, leading to severe economic and social complications.

Due to the fact that in some developing countries the state budget cannot withstand the burden of military spending, attempts are being made to transfer the armed forces to "self-financing" (use of proceeds from the sale of old equipment, machinery and equipment), which creates the illusion of independence of the increase in real military spending from the state of the country's economy ... But these measures are not able to reduce the damage caused by the unproductive waste of material and financial resources for military needs.

It should also be borne in mind that the negative impact of military spending on the economic development of the country can manifest itself not only directly, at a time. As a rule, it takes on a long-term character. On the present stage the economies of many developing countries have to pay for the excessive military spending of past years. Inevitable companion of militarization - state debt- remains a legacy for many years after the failure of obsolete military equipment. The current generation of people suffers not only from the current military spending, but also from those that the previous government made. And by continuing to build up the military sector, governments doom future generations of the population to economic actions.

In addition, militarization distorts the essence of scientific and technological progress in modern society, using the highest achievements of human intellect to create more and more powerful and perfect means of destroying people. Scientific and technological revolution determines such shifts in the structure of the military economy that increase specific gravity the cost of technical support compared to the cost of maintaining the personnel of the armed forces.

It is clear that this creates additional economic difficulties for developing countries, since the bulk of the technical support of their armed forces is an "import component" of their military potential. Thus, the total amount of imports of weapons and military materials by developing countries from the 60s to the 70s increased by 4 times, and at the current stage this figure has increased even more. Up to 3/4 of all weapons entering the world market are sent to these countries. Arms import arrears account for up to 1/4 of all current debt developing world... Perhaps even more, since many materials used for military purposes or necessary to expand military potential are classified in foreign trade statistics under non-military articles: fuel for military aircraft and other military equipment practically does not differ from oil products intended for non-military use. The growth in imports of such and similar materials, caused by an increase in their consumption for military purposes, is not formally included in military imports, although its impact on payment balance and the debt does not differ from the import of weapons.

In addition, the import of military materials undermines economic development and worsens the social situation of the population, depriving developing countries of many of the imported goods that they need.

Finally, the accumulation of imported weapons creates the illusion of military power and the possibility of an easy military victory over its neighbors, which leads to the danger of unleashing internal and interstate conflicts. The combination of a deadlock situation in resolving socio-economic problems, the intensity of internal social tension, elements of extreme adventurism in the leadership of a country can cause shocks that detonate military clashes on a global scale.

New approaches to the problems of security and the preservation of peace, which have taken root in the world community since the second half of the 1980s, have posed the problem of transition from an arms economy to a disarmament economy, or the problem of conversion of military production, which can be defined as a consistent transfer of resources, production capacities and people from the military to the civilian sphere.

Disarmament is the key to solving global problems

Why is the prevention of thermonuclear war a priority problem for humanity? The world has accumulated about 57 thousand different nuclear warheads with a total capacity of almost 50 thousand Mt, which is 1 million times higher than the force of the atomic explosion in Hiroshima in 1945. This reserve is enough to destroy humanity. The explosion of just one megaton nuclear bomb in its strength exceeds the total strength of all the explosions that took place during the Second World War. The widespread use of weapons of mass destruction will lead, first of all, to the destruction of cities in which 40% of the world's population and almost all industrial production, the main economic potential of mankind, are concentrated.

If someone survives, it is unlikely that they will be able to survive in conditions of radiation, the level of which will be five times higher than the dose that the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki received. The use of weapons of mass destruction is global. This means that it cannot be localized by the borders of one country, and, therefore, regions and areas of our planet where thermonuclear weapons will not be used will also be doomed.

The arms race is a huge danger to humanity, not only as a threat of nuclear war. As already noted, about $ 700 billion is spent on it annually, which is equal to labor costs in the amount of about 100 million man-years. A significant part of the territory has been set aside for military bases, only the regular troops employ about 25 million people. Manufacturing and building up huge arsenals of weapons is causing irreparable harm to the environment. The storage and disposal of nuclear waste, chemical and bacteriological waste, accidents at military factories, and military aircraft with nuclear and hydrogen bombs are especially dangerous.

Along with the threat of thermonuclear weapons, the threat of environmental weapons (provoking earthquakes, tsunamis, violation of the ozone layer over the enemy's territory) and the militarization of outer space are becoming real.

The growing militarization of the economy deepens and exacerbates economic, social, political and other problems. Therefore, the first priority is to end the arms race. Its solution requires the demilitarization of the economy. In this regard, the question arises: how to resolve the contradiction between the interests of human survival and the thermonuclear arms race?

Conversion of military production is the process of transferring defense industry enterprises to the production of civilian products. In modern conditions, the conversion of military production is the most important component the disarmament process. It allows you to avoid the economic and social costs associated with the closure of military enterprises, to use the creative potential of highly qualified personnel and the advanced technological base of these enterprises to accelerate scientific and technological progress. Reducing military spending and converting military production are becoming an important factor in economic development .

Nevertheless, the necessity and expediency of conversion is not perceived unambiguously; economic and social barriers appear on the way of its implementation. So, for about 2 centuries there has been a dispute about the role of military production in the development of the economy. For a long period of time, primarily in the countries of the developed zone, the opinion was created and supported that funds invested in the military-industrial complex stimulate the economy, being a stabilizer of market demand, ensuring the utilization of production capacities, creating jobs, stimulating scientific and technological progress ... But in recent years, it has been increasingly confirmed that military spending is hampering economic and technological development.

According to American scientists, such expenses are inflationary, since the salaries of workers in defense enterprises, leading to an increase in consumer demand, do not contribute to the expansion of the supply of goods and services, and, in addition, military production diverts raw materials and technical specialists from civilian industries. The existence of a monopoly in the military-industrial complex and a guaranteed sales market reduce labor productivity and increase production costs in comparison with civilian sectors of the economy.

As modern studies show, conversion does not contribute to the growth of unemployment, since it takes more to create one job in military production (4 times) capital investments than in civil proceedings. For example, every $ 10 billion creates 40,000 fewer jobs in military production than if this money were sent to civilian industries. The data are cited: $ 1 billion of Pentagon spending gives about 48 thousand jobs, and this amount spent in the health sector will create 76 thousand, and in the education system - 100 thousand new jobs.

It is hard to deny that the development of military equipment has led to the emergence of a number of technological innovations in aviation and other spheres of society. Nevertheless, according to the UN, no more than 1/5 of research in military technology is used for peaceful purposes. If we take into account that 40% of all scientists and engineers are engaged in such developments, which give an efficiency of only 20%, it becomes obvious that military programs are hampering scientific and technological progress. Thus, it becomes obvious that the diversion of resources to peaceful purposes is in the vital interests of all countries.

Experts believe that using only 10% of world military spending on solving global problems, organizing joint international actions would put an end to mass hunger, illiteracy, and disease, would make it possible to overcome poverty and backwardness of hundreds of millions of people, and prevent an ecological catastrophe on the planet.

Nevertheless, the implementation of conversion raises the need to solve a number of problems, since conversion is associated with structural restructuring of the economy. The proposed transfer of enterprises to the production of civilian products will require, according to experts, government assistance in the form of assistance to companies where there is a major modernization of production. Another equally important problem is the increase economic efficiency military industry. Privileges in supplying it with raw materials and materials, inflated production costs, guaranteed sales of products, a high level of monopolization lead to high profits in these industries and to a decrease in competitiveness in the commercial market. Therefore, the decline in the level of privileges of defense enterprises, which began in a number of industrial developed countries, is an important condition their survival in a market economy.

The process of diversification, an increase in the share of civilian production in the activities of defense enterprises, also contributes to the preparation of conditions for the conversion. This is achieved not only by acquiring new companies with experience in civilian industries, but also by channeling R&D expenditures into non-military areas.

It should be borne in mind that in Russia it is planned to form in areas with a high concentration of converted military production facilities, technopolises and technological parks with the involvement of specialists and investments from other countries.

The economic aspect of disarmament is of undoubted interest. In the course of it, a problem was revealed that neither the United States nor Russia is yet ready to solve. We are talking about expensive materials that in the future can become inexhaustible sources of energy. But currently there is no technology for converting highly enriched uranium into fuel for nuclear power plants, so storage of this material will be required. In addition, the program for the elimination of toxic substances, the destruction of thousands of tanks, guns, armored vehicles involves large expenditures. All this gives rise to ambiguous assessments of conversion in all states with military production. For example, in the USA, among the negative aspects of conversion, the first place is put forward by the need to transfer about 600 thousand qualified specialists to production with more low level technologies.

Experts believe that many defense industry enterprises are not suitable for mass production of simple and cheap products, therefore technological characteristics civilian products must comply with the characteristics of the converted production.

The more than forty-five-year arms race between the USSR and the United States made the solution of the problem of demilitarization of production more difficult, but by no means a futile matter. In this regard, the task of determining the essence and content of the conversion of military production, the choice the right way and the development of approaches to the implementation of the "peaceful" re-profiling of military production in the interests of the national economy of each state.

Conversion(from the Latin word convercio - change, transformation) military production is a process of transformation, a change in the structure of military production of organizational, technical and technological, professional and economic nature. The essence military production conversions is the reorientation of the military industry, research laboratories, educational institutions, military bases and other facilities from military to "civilian" use, carried out in accordance with a political decision, while reducing military spending and orders.

For reference. Reconversion- This is a process of reverse transition, return of production, temporarily switched to military use, to the former - "civilian" use. The process of reconversion was carried out, for example, in American industry after the Second World War, when the former "civilian" enterprises, converted (converted) during the war to the production of military products, were again transferred (their reconversion was carried out) to the production of "civilian" products, as a rule , the same one that they released before conversion. Reconversion of military production, thus, can be presented as a special case of conversion.

The conversion of military production should be considered primarily as socially-economic process influencing the functioning of the entire economic complex of the country. Despite the indisputable fact that the high level of military spending, and, consequently, of military production, causes enormous damage to the economy, diverting all types of resources (material, human, raw materials, financial, energy, etc.), a sharp reduction in these costs, the landslide demilitarization of the national economy and conversion of military production can lead to serious negative socio-economic consequences... It is not only workers who lose their jobs in the war industry that will suffer; a decrease in their income level could lead to a reduction in consumer spending, which, in turn, could cause a cumulative reduction in employment in industries producing consumer goods.

Likewise, a reduction in the purchases of production equipment by military-industrial enterprises that have lost military orders can cause a decrease in production volumes and the dismissal of a significant part of workers in enterprises that produce means of production.

In this regard, the conversion of military production has its own economic, social, technical and military aspects.

Consideration economic aspect conversion is largely due to changes in structure and volume both military and "civil" production, entailing "shifts" in the demand and supply of various types of products and resources in various sectors of the national economy.

Social aspect military production conversions are usually considered in connection with changes in demand for skilled labor and labor in the branches of military production.

The technical aspect conversion is subject to consideration of possible changes in technologies of enterprises and branches of military production associated with their conversion to the production of "civilian" products.

Finally, consideration military aspect usually associated with the inevitable change economic support national defense due to the reduction in military production.

Consideration of the conversion of military production from this point of view presupposes a description of its main forms. The main forms military production conversions are:

• restructuring of the military-economic complex , which consists in reducing the volume of production of military products; the main ways restructuring is in full or in part reduction military production, and reservation production facilities enterprises producing military products;
• diversification of military production , which consists in re-profiling the production capacities of enterprises and branches of the military-economic complex for the production of "civilian" products; the main ways diversification stands for full or partial transition enterprises that previously produced military products, for the production of "civil" products, and cooperation in use production facilities enterprises producing military products with enterprises of "civilian" branches of the national economy;
• assimilation of war production , which consists in the development by enterprises and branches of the military-economic complex of the production of products that have their own "civil" application; the most significant ways assimilation is complete or partial assimilation military products in "civil" professions, as well assimilation production facilities enterprises producing military products in technologies for producing "civilian" products (mastering dual technologies).

The conversion of military production covers literally all aspects of the economic life of the state. It covers, first of all, the main production activities of enterprises of the military sector of the national economy, retraining of personnel, re-profiling of production capacities, restructuring of the economic mechanism, etc.

In this regard, when determining content conversion of military production it is advisable to consider:

• conversion of the main production activities of enterprises of the military sector of the economy,
• conversion of training,
• conversion of production facilities, as well as
• conversion of the economic mechanism.

Conversion of the main production activity enterprises of the military sector of the economy consists in changes in the structure of products manufactured by these enterprises and includes the determination of the volume and timing of the development of new "civilian" products.

After the end of World War II, most of the US military-industrial firms, influenced by fluctuations in demand for weapons, especially after the end of the American intervention in Korea and Vietnam, significantly increased the weight of their "civilian" products, constantly expanding their range. This process of the so-called diversification of production began to play a positive role in the conversion of military production, since it reduced the dependence of companies on military orders, increased their readiness for a full transition to the production of "civilian" goods. (See appendix.)

Training conversion consists in renewal human resources concentrated in military production and includes the determination of the number of workers released from the fulfillment of military orders, their training for use in the production of "civilian purpose" products. The conversion of personnel training may include, one side, professional retraining of personnel of re-profiled enterprises, and, with another- reorientation of the entire system of vocational training to provide personnel for the production of "civilian" products.

Professional retraining in the course of the conversion of military production involves training personnel in accordance with the change in the structure of the assortment of products and is a serious problem for the personnel of the converted enterprises. This is especially true for management and engineering personnel, since for these categories of specialists, professional retraining is accompanied by a change in the very style of work associated with the need to find solutions, taking into account the needs of mass consumers as much as possible.

Reorientation of the vocational training system presupposes the organization of personnel training for "civilian" industries in the required quantity and quality (qualifications) in accordance with the new proportion established in the course of conversion between military production and the production of "civilian" products.

Conversion of production facilities consists in conversion of technological equipment previously used in military production, and includes the determination of the scale and time of withdrawal (exclusion) of production capacities from the reproduction cycle of the military sector of the national economy.

Capacity conversion is most commonly associated with the use of military products in "civilian" sectors of the economy... In this case, the products of the converted enterprises do not remain military for their intended purpose, but receive their "civilian" purpose. Accordingly, the technological equipment of these enterprises is being redesigned.

A wealth of experience in the conversion of technological equipment previously used in military production has been accumulated at enterprises of rocket and satellite manufacturing, tank, automobile, shipbuilding and chemical companies.

Economic Mechanism Conversion consists in restructuring (renewal) of industrial relations in accordance with the conditions of production and sale of "civilian" products and includes the definition of mechanisms for managing production, finance and personnel at converting enterprises (in converting industries).

The conversion of the economic mechanism at enterprises (in branches) of military production is usually conditioned by the need adaptations convertible enterprises to more "harsh" market conditions, competition for markets sales of products, labor, raw materials and financial resources.

Certain opportunities for the conversion of the economic mechanism are provided by: restructuring of management; full or partial privatization of enterprises; their association and cooperation; as well as other tools for increasing production efficiency in the new conditions of transition to the production of "civilian" products.

For clarifications the content of the conversion of military production is also advisable to consider military production conversion experience in various countries.

The first significant wave conversion of military production is certainly associated with end of World War II.

According to the conclusion of many researchers, the reconversion of military production USA passed without much difficulty. From 1945 to 1948, military spending here fell from $ 84 billion to $ 12 billion. As a result, the volume of industrial production in 1946 decreased by 9%, but after two years it exceeded the level of 1945.

The reconversion of military production was also successfully carried out in Great Britain ... The relative "ease" with which the national economy of Great Britain was transferred to a "peaceful track" is mainly due to the presence of significant savings from the population (deferred demand) accumulated during the war years, as well as the available reserve of material resources in industry. The large-scale reconversion was done without major government intervention.

At the final stage of World War II Soviet Union also started the reconversion of military production. The reconstruction of the defense industry was carried out in a planned manner and included a number of important measures: reduction of military expenditures; an increase in investment in the national economy; as well as the redistribution of labor, raw materials and supplies.

Reorganization was carried out government agencies in charge of military production. Already in 1946, the restructuring of the country's national economy was completed as a whole: tank factories began to produce tractors, steam locomotives, and carriages; artillery - transferred to the production of excavators, presses, drilling rigs, rolling mills; corresponding changes have taken place in the light industry. For the training and retraining of personnel throughout the country, courses were organized to improve qualifications or teach new specialties.

As a result, the total volume of industrial production in the USSR already by 1948 exceeded the pre-war level, and the total volume of the gross social product in 1950 compared with 1945 almost doubled.

The progress of the conversion of military production into Finland was mainly due to the agreement concluded in September 1944, according to which Finland was to pay reparations to the USSR in the amount of 300 million dollars in the period from 1945 to 1950, and not in cash, but in commodity form at 1938 prices.

The main difficulty in the implementation of this treaty was that Finland did not have a respite after the end of hostilities to rebuild the war-torn economy. To obtain the required volume of production, it was necessary to urgently increase production capacities, and not only in "civilian" sectors, but also due to the broadest possible "participation" of the military sector of the economy. Thus, in Finland, a forced, almost complete, conversion of the defense industry was carried out: instead of weapons, the Finnish military-industrial complex had to organize the production of materials and machines that had never been produced by them before.

As a result, 72% of all reparation deliveries of Finland to the USSR were the products of the machine-building industry. After the end of payments, the total product decreased slightly and for a short time. This was facilitated by an increase in domestic demand for mechanical engineering products, as well as the continuation of their export to the Soviet Union. The conversion of the military industry became the foundation for the formation of a new Finnish economy.

The second large-scale wave conversion of military production is largely associated with the end of the cold war.

American experience shows that in the 90s some companies successfully completed conversion, but there were even more cases of failure of conversion projects.

For example, Boeing was successful in the "civilian" aerospace industry, using defense technology from its early military jet programs, but was unable to build reliable trolleybuses. McDonnell-Douglas Corporation was unable to organize a lucrative "computer services" division, but successfully created the Vitek company for drug testing.

On the whole, the practice of converting military production in the United States has shown that the direct conversion of modern specialized military enterprises to the production of "civilian" products is not economically efficient. In this regard, the United States did not use the long and widely discussed (including in the American Congress) plans for the direct conversion of military production. The reform of the military economy, its adaptation to new conditions began to be carried out through the gradual withdrawal from the military business of numerous enterprises, the concentration of "civilian" production through their mergers, as well as acquisitions by corporations, diversification of production of converted enterprises, etc.

In countries Western Europe the conversion of military production was often accompanied by the solution of employment problems and therefore, to a large extent, took place with the active participation of trade unions and political parties. This forced the governments of most Western European states to participate in the development of conversion programs, to create specialized bodies to manage and finance conversion activities, and to develop scientific research on the problems of conversion of military production.

In this regard, the experience of Sweden ... In 1979, the Council for Research on the Problems of Conversion of Military Production was established there, which included representatives of entrepreneurs and trade unions. The task of this Council was to develop issues of conversion and expansion of "civilian" production in the military sector.

The result of the Council's activities was the development national plan conversion up to 2015 in accordance with the UN recommendations (1981). The main feature of this plan was the development of a set of preparatory measures that were aimed at preventing a possible increase in unemployment in the country during the conversion of military production.

Unlike the United States and other Western countries, the conversion of military production to THE USSR, and then in Of Russia occurred without scientifically substantiated assessments of the current and future needs of the country's defense, without taking into account the laws of military-economic development.

After the USSR leadership made a political decision in 1988, the state defense order for the production of weapons and military equipment was reduced by more than 20%. From 1991 to 1995, the total amount of funding under the item "State Defense Order" decreased fivefold.

This resulted in record high rates of conversion of military production. From the very beginning, it was focused on an early release significant resources, to get the maximum economic benefit from it in the shortest possible time.

However, as a result of the absence of a unified scientifically developed concept of conversion, a well-thought-out policy for its implementation, a sharp weakening government controlled defense complex, multiple cuts in military government orders, chronic shortage of financial resources, uncertainty of current and future tasks, "conversion expectations" were not justified.

The conversion of military production was carried out mainly by administrative-command methods and was reduced in practice to a primitive replacement of some part of science-intensive military products with "civilian" ones, to ineffective use and even destruction of the country's defense complex.

A characteristic feature of the conversion of military production into China was the search for rational ways of functioning of the defense sector in the system of centralized state planning of economic development at the stage of formation market relations... In practical terms public policy the conversion of military production was quite consistent, balanced in political decision-making, and was of a vivid pragmatic character.

Over 10 years (from 1979 to 1988) of the conversion process, 300 nationwide projects were implemented, on which more than $ 500 million were spent. Subsequently, within the framework of the second ten-year program for the development of the national economy of the PRC for the period up to 2000, in the period from 1991 to 1995 alone, 350 conversion projects were carried out with a total investment of about $ 1 billion.

Diversification of production with the maximum use of already mastered technologies was chosen as the main direction of conversion. The search for the most rational forms of management and organization of the defense sector of the economy was carried out. At the same time, defense science was not subjected to conversion.

Thus, the experience of the conversion of military production allows us to draw a number of conclusions.

At first, the success in carrying out the conversion, as a rule, is conditioned by its careful preparation. The conversion process itself can be quite long process, which requires the attraction of significant material, intellectual and financial resources. At the same time, the verification of the implementation of conversion measures and the development of a conversion conversion mechanism are of particular importance.

Secondly, economic and social consequences, conversion results can only be assessed in the medium and long term.

Thirdly, in carrying out the conversion of military production, the leading role can be played by state, and activities of political, professional and public organizations.

Fourth, military production conversion involves a combination of planning and market principles; government regulation macroeconomic indicators during conversion, government support Converted industries and enterprises largely determine the effect of the implementation of conversion programs.

Fifth fundamental conversion goals military production can be: providing social guarantees for the personnel of the converted enterprises and minimizing the loss of jobs; preventing a sharp economic downturn; support and stimulation of the introduction of innovative technologies; diversification of military and "civilian" production.

The concept of "military production" can have an ambiguous interpretation: as a process of creating military products and as an aggregate of production capacities that create military products. This lecture examines the first meaning of the term "military production", that is, the creation of products and the provision of services designed to meet military demand. This process involves enterprises belonging to the official classification of the military industries, and not belonging to the latter, but providing military enterprises with component parts, or other products or services.

In the 1992 Law of the Russian Federation "On the Conversion of the Defense Industry in the Russian Federation", the conversion of military production is interpreted as a partial or complete reorientation of the released production capacities, scientific and technical potential and labor resources of defense and related enterprises, associations and organizations from military to civilian needs. See: Law of the Russian Federation "On the Conversion of the Defense Industry in the Russian Federation" // Economy and Life. 1992. No. 18. In the 1998 Federal Law of the Russian Federation, the conversion of the defense industry is defined as a state-regulated process of organizational, legal, technological, scientific, technical and socio-economic transformations of the defense industry in order to partially or completely reorient to the production of civilian products previously involved in defense production, production capacities, scientific and technical potential and labor resources of defense industry organizations. Cm.: the federal law Of the Russian Federation "On the conversion of the defense industry in the Russian Federation" dated April 13, 1998 No. 60-FZ // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 1998.16 April.

USA: military production and economics. - M .: "Science", 1983.

Government measures to facilitate the re-conversion of military production in the United Kingdom in the post-war period have been limited to cuts in income and profit taxes, compensation for war damage, and regulatory policies. purchasing power pound sterling. For more details, see, for example, Socio-Economic Aspects of Conversion of Military Production: Experience of Western Countries. Collection of Reviews / Problems of Defense Policy and Conversion in Research by British Specialists (Review). - M .: INION AN SSSR, 1991.

Subsequently, the reparation period was extended from six to eight years, and the amount of payments was reduced to $ 226.5 million. See, for example, Socio-Economic Aspects of Conversion of War Production: Experience of Western Countries. Collection of Reviews / Disarmament and Conversion in the Nordic Countries: Practice and Theory (Review). - M .: INION AN SSSR, 1991.

For more details, see, for example, Socio-Economic Aspects of Conversion of Military Production: Experience of Western Countries. Collection of Reviews / Disarmament and Conversion in the Nordic Countries: Practice and Theory (Review). - M .: INION AN SSSR, 1991.

In the late 80s - 90s, at least four concepts (programs) for the conversion of military production were developed and adopted in Russia. In particular, in 1990 year, the Government of the USSR approved the State Conversion Program; v 1993 year, the Government of the Russian Federation approved the State Program for the Conversion of the Defense Industry until 1995, which became part of the Federal program restructuring of the Russian economy; v 1995 year, the Government of the Russian Federation approved the Federal target program defense industry conversions for 1995-1997; and finally in 1998 In 2006, the Government of the Russian Federation approved the Federal Target Program "Restructuring and Conversion of the Defense Industry for 1998-2000".

For the conversion program of the defense complex in 1992, 42% of the funds allocated for this purpose by the federal budget was actually allocated, in 1993 - 22%, in 1994 - 10%, and in 1995 - 18%.

The result was a disruption in the implementation of all 14 federal conversion programs adopted in 1993, including the Program for the Development of Civil Aviation, the Program for the Revival of the Russian Fleet, the Program for the Production of Equipment for the Fuel and Energy Complex, the Program for the Development of Electronic Technology, etc.

Why and how China's military-industrial complex was able to become the basis for the country's economic take-off

During perestroika, the word "conversion" was very popular in Russia. In the minds of the citizens of the not yet disenchanted Soviet Union, this concept implied that surplus military production would quickly switch to the production of peaceful products, flood the market with previously scarce goods and provide a long-awaited consumer abundance.

The conversion of the USSR failed along with perestroika. The huge industrial capacities of the highly developed Soviet military-industrial complex never became the flagships of capitalist industries. Instead of a sea of ​​conversion goods, the visible consumer abundance was provided by imports, primarily of goods made in China. But until now, few people know that mass Chinese consumer goods are, to a large extent, also a product of conversion, only Chinese. Conversion to the PRC began a little earlier than in the Gorbachev Soviet Union, continued longer and completed much more successfully.

Agricultural divisions of nuclear war

At the time of Mao Zedong's death in 1976, China was a vast and impoverished militarized country with the largest army in the world. Four million Chinese "bayonets" were armed with almost 15 thousand tanks and armored vehicles, over 45 thousand artillery pieces and rocket launchers, over five thousand combat aircraft.

In addition to the armed forces, there were another five million of the so-called cadre militia - two thousand territorial regiments armed with rifle, light artillery and mortars.

Military parade at Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China, 1976. Photo: AP

All this sea of ​​weapons was exclusively local, Chinese production. In 1980, almost two thousand military industry enterprises operated in China, where millions of workers produced all types of conventional weapons, as well as nuclear missiles. China at that time possessed the most developed military-industrial complex among all Third World countries, yielding in terms of military production and military technologies only to the USSR and NATO countries.

China was a nuclear power with a well-developed rocket and space program. In 1964, the first Chinese atomic bomb exploded, in 1967 the first successful launch of a Chinese ballistic missile took place. In April 1970, the first satellite was launched in the PRC - the republic became the fifth space power in the world. In 1981, China was the fifth in the world - after the USA, USSR, Great Britain and France - to launch its first nuclear submarine.

At the same time, China until the early 1980s remained the only country on the planet that was actively and actively preparing for a world nuclear war. Chairman Mao was convinced that such a war of massive use of atomic weapons was inevitable and would happen very soon. And if in the USSR and the USA, even at the height of the Cold War, only the armed forces and enterprises of the military-industrial complex were preparing directly for the nuclear apocalypse, then in Maoist China almost everyone, without exception, was engaged in such preparation. Everywhere they dug bomb shelters and underground tunnels, almost a quarter of the enterprises were evacuated in advance to the so-called "third line of defense" in remote, mountainous regions of the country. Two-thirds of China's state budget in those years was spent on preparing for war.

According to Western experts, in the 1970s, up to 65% of the funds allocated in the PRC for the development of science went to research related to military developments. Interestingly, it was planned to launch the first Chinese into space back in 1972. But China did not have enough money to simultaneously prepare for manned space exploration and an immediate nuclear war - the economy and finances of the PRC were still weak at that time.

With this militarization, the army and the military-industrial complex of China were inevitably involved in all spheres of life and economy of the country. It was a kind of conversion, on the contrary, when army units and military enterprises, in addition to direct tasks, were also engaged in self-sufficiency in food and civilian products. In the ranks of the People's Liberation Army of China (PLA), there were several so-called production and construction corps and agricultural divisions. Soldiers of agricultural divisions, in addition to military training, were engaged in the construction of canals, planting rice and raising pigs on an industrial scale.

Special Export Regions Soldiers

The situation began to change radically in the early 1980s, when Deng Xiaoping, who had become entrenched in power, began his transformations. And although his economic reforms are widely known, few people know that the first step towards them was the refusal to prepare for an immediate atomic war. The highly experienced Dan reasoned that neither the USA nor the USSR really want a "hot" world conflict, let alone a nuclear one, and that having its own nuclear bomb gives China sufficient security guarantees to abandon total militarization.

According to Xiaoping, for the first time in the newest China was able to concentrate efforts on internal development, modernizing the economy and only as it develops, gradually strengthening its national defense. Speaking to the leaders of the CPC, he gave his own conversion formula: "Combination of military and civil, peaceful and non-peaceful, development of military production based on the production of civilian products."

Almost everyone knows about free economic zones, from which the triumphal march of Chinese capitalism began. But almost no one is aware that the first 160 objects of China's first free economic zone - Shenzhen - were built by people in uniform, 20 thousand soldiers and officers of the People's Liberation Army of China. In the headquarters documents of the PLA, such zones were called in a military way - "a special export area."

International Trade Center in Shenzhen Free Zone, China, 1994. Photo: Nikolay Malyshev / TASS

In 1978, civilian products of the Chinese military-industrial complex accounted for no more than 10% of production; over the next five years, this share doubled. It is significant that Xiaoping, unlike Gorbachev, did not set the task of carrying out the conversion quickly - for all the 80s it was planned to bring the share of civilian products of the Chinese military-industrial complex to 30%, and by the end of the 20th century - to 50%.

In 1982, a special Commission on Science, Technology and Industry in the interests of defense was created to reform and manage the military-industrial complex. It was she who was entrusted with the task of converting military production.

Almost immediately, the structure of the military-industrial complex of the PRC underwent radical changes. Previously, the entire military industry of China, according to the patterns of the Stalinist USSR, was divided into seven strictly secret “numbered ministries”. Now the "numbered" ministries have officially ceased to hide and received civil names. The second Ministry of Mechanical Engineering became the Ministry of Nuclear Industry, the Third - the Ministry of Aviation Industry, the Fourth - the Ministry of Electronics Industry, the Fifth - the Ministry of Armaments and Ammunition, the Sixth - the China State Shipbuilding Corporation, the Seventh - the Ministry of Space Industry (it was in charge of both ballistic missiles and "Peaceful" space systems).

All these declassified ministries established their own commercial and industrial corporations, through which from now on they were to develop their civilian production and trade in civilian products. Thus, the "Seventh Ministry", which became the Ministry of the Space Industry, established the "Great Wall" corporation. Now it is the China Great Wall Industry corporation, widely known in the world, one of the largest companies in the production and operation of commercial Earth satellites.

In 1986, a special State Commission for the Engineering Industry was established in China, which united the management of the civilian Ministry of Engineering, which produced all industrial equipment in the country, and the Ministry of Armaments and Ammunition, which produced all artillery pieces and shells. This was done to improve the efficiency of the management of the national engineering industry. From now on, the entire military industry, which provided numerous Chinese artillery, was subordinated to civilian tasks and civil proceedings.

Further changes in the structure of the PRC's military-industrial complex took place in 1987, when many enterprises of the “third line of defense” in mainland China, created for a nuclear war, were closed or moved closer to transport hubs and large cities, or donated to local authorities for organizing civilian production. In total, over 180 large enterprises that were previously part of the system of military ministries were transferred to local authorities that year. In the same 1987, several tens of thousands of employees of the Ministry of Atomic Industry of China, previously employed in uranium mining, were reoriented to gold mining.

However, in the early years, Chinese conversion developed slowly and without high-profile achievements. In 1986, the enterprises of the military-industrial complex of the PRC exported a little more than 100 types of civilian products abroad, earning only $ 36 million that year - a very modest amount even for the still undeveloped economy of China.

At that time, the simplest goods prevailed in Chinese conversion exports. In 1986, factories subordinate to the PLA's Main Logistics Directorate exported leather jackets and winter down-padded coats to the USA, France, the Netherlands, Austria and 20 other countries of the world. The proceeds from such an export, by order of the PLA General Staff, were sent to prepare the conversion of factories that were previously exclusively engaged in the manufacture of military uniforms for the Chinese army. To facilitate the transition to civilian production for these factories, by the decision of the PRC government, they were also entrusted with the task of providing uniforms for all railway workers, stewardesses, customs and prosecutors in China - all non-military people who also wear uniforms by the nature of their service and activities.

"Bonuses" from the West and the East

First decade economic reforms China passed in a very favorable foreign policy and foreign economic environment. From the late 1970s to the events on Tiananmen Square, there was a kind of "honeymoon" of communist China and Western countries. The United States and its allies sought to use the PRC, which was openly in conflict with the USSR, as a counterweight to Soviet military power.

Therefore, the Chinese military-industrial complex, which began the conversion, at that time had the opportunity to closely cooperate with the military-industrial corporations of the NATO countries and Japan. Back in the mid-70s, China began purchasing computer hardware, communications equipment and radar installations from the United States. Lucrative contracts were signed with Lockheed (USA) and British Rolls-Royce (in particular, licenses for the production of aircraft engines were purchased). In 1977, the PRC purchased samples of helicopters and other equipment from the famous German company Messerschmitt. In the same year in France, China acquired samples of modern rocketry, and also began to cooperate with Germany in the field of nuclear and missile research.

In April 1978, the PRC received the most favored nation treatment in the EEC (European Economic Community, the predecessor of the European Union). Before that, only Japan had such a regime. It was he who allowed Xiaoping to begin the successful development of "special economic zones" (or "special export regions" in the PLA headquarters documents). Thanks to this most-favored-nation regime, Chinese army uniform factories were able to export their plain leather jackets and down jackets to the United States and Western Europe.

Without this “most favored nation treatment” in trade with the richest countries In the world, neither China's special economic zones nor the conversion of the PRC's military-industrial complex would have had such a success. Thanks to the cunning policy of Xiaoping, who successfully used the Cold War and the West's desire to strengthen China against the USSR, Chinese capitalism and conversion at the first stage developed in “greenhouse conditions”: open access to money, investments and technologies of the most developed countries of the world.

China's flirtation with the West ended in 1989 after the events in Tiananmen Square, after which the "most favored nation" regime was abolished. But the bloody dispersal of Chinese demonstrators was just a pretext - China's close contact with NATO countries interrupted the end of the Cold War. With the beginning of Gorbachev's de facto surrender, China was no longer of interest to the United States as a counterweight to the Soviet Union. On the contrary, the largest country in Asia, which began to develop rapidly, became a potential competitor for the United States in the Pacific region.

Workers at a textile factory in Jinjia, China, 2009. Photo: EPA / TASS

China, in turn, has successfully used the past decade - flywheel economic growth was launched, economic ties and the flow of investments have already gained "critical mass". The cooling of political relations with the West by the early 1990s deprived China of access to new technologies from NATO countries, but could no longer stop the growth of the Chinese export industry - world economy could no longer do without hundreds of millions of cheap Chinese workers.

At the same time, against the background of a cold snap with the West, China was lucky on the other side: the USSR collapsed, whose power was feared for many years in Beijing. The collapse of the once formidable "northern neighbor" not only allowed the PRC to quietly reduce the size of its ground army and military spending, but also gave additional, very important bonuses to the economy.

The republics of the former Soviet Union, firstly, have become a profitable, almost bottomless market for the still low-quality goods of young Chinese capitalism. Second, the new post-Soviet states (primarily Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan) have become an inexpensive and convenient source of both industrial and, above all, military technologies for China. By the beginning of the 1990s, the military technologies of the former USSR were at a completely global level, and the technologies of the civilian industry, although they were inferior to the leading Western countries, were still superior to those in the PRC of those years.

The first stage of China's economic reforms and military conversion took place in a very favorable external environment, when the state, officially calling itself the Middle, successfully used both the East and the West for its own purposes.

Brokers in uniform

Due to the favorable situation, the Chinese conversion proceeded simultaneously with the reduction of the large army. Over the decade, from 1984 to 1994, the PLA's numerical strength declined from about 4 million to 2.8 million, including 600,000 regular officers. Outdated samples were removed from service: 10 thousand artillery barrels, over a thousand tanks, 2.5 thousand aircraft, 610 ships. The reductions almost did not affect special types and types of troops: the airborne units, special forces ("quantou"), rapid reaction forces ("quaisu") and missile troops retained their potential.

Large-scale economic activity The PLA has been authorized and developed since the early 1980s as a support national economy... In addition to the conversion of defense enterprises, which were gradually switching to the production of civilian products, a specific conversion took place directly in the military units of the People's Liberation Army of China.

In the military districts, corps and divisions of the PLA, like mushrooms, their own "economic structures" arose, aimed not only at self-sufficiency, but also at capitalist profit. These army "economic structures" included agricultural production, electronics production and household appliances, transport services, repair services, the sphere of leisure (the development of audio-video equipment and even the organization of commercial discos by the army), banking. An important place was also taken by the import of weapons and dual-use technologies, trade in surplus and new weapons with third world countries - the flow of cheap Chinese weapons went to Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, and the Arab states.

According to estimates by Chinese and foreign analysts, the annual volume of China's "military business" in its peak in terms of scale and results (the second half of the 90s) reached $ 10 billion annually, and the net annual profit exceeded $ 3 billion. At least half of this commercial profit was spent for the needs of military construction, for the purchase of modern weapons and technologies. According to the same estimates, the commercial activities of the PLA in the 90s annually provided up to 2% of China's GDP. This is not about the conversion of the military industry, but about the commercial activities of the PRC army itself.

By the mid-1990s, the Chinese army was in control of nearly 20,000 commercial enterprises. According to Western experts, up to half of the personnel of the ground forces, that is, more than a million people, were not actually soldiers and officers, but were engaged in commercial activities, provided transportation or worked for machines in military units, which in essence were ordinary civilian factories. products. In those years, such army factories produced 50% of all cameras, 65% of bicycles and 75% of minibuses made in China.

By the mid-1990s, the conversion of the actual military industry also reached impressive volumes, for example, almost 70% of the products of the Ministry of Armaments and 80% of the products of naval shipbuilding enterprises were already for civil purposes. During this period, the PRC government ordered the declassification of 2,237 advanced scientific and technical developments of the defense complex for use in the civilian sector. By 1996, enterprises of the Chinese military-industrial complex were actively producing more than 15 thousand types of civilian products, mainly for export.

As the official newspapers of China wrote in those years, when choosing directions for the production of civilian goods, enterprises of the military-industrial complex act according to the principles of "looking for rice to feed themselves" and "hungry in food is indiscriminate." The conversion process was not complete without spontaneity and thoughtlessness, which led to the mass production of low-quality products. Naturally, Chinese goods at that time were a symbol of cheap, mass and low-quality production.

According to the Institute of Industrial Economics of the Academy social sciences China, by 1996 the country managed to transform the military-industrial complex from a manufacturer of only military equipment to a manufacturer of both military and civilian products. Despite all the vicissitudes of reforms and a rather "wild" market by the end of the 1990s, the Chinese military-industrial complex consisted of more than two thousand enterprises, which employed about three million people, and 200 research institutes, where 300 thousand scientific workers worked.

By the end of the twentieth century, China during market reforms has accumulated sufficient industrial and financial potential. The active economic activity of the PRC army was already clearly interfering with the growth of its combat effectiveness, and the funds accumulated by the country already made it possible to abandon the commercial activities of the armed forces.

Therefore, in July 1998, the CPC Central Committee decided to end all forms of commercial activity of the PLA. Over two decades of reform, the Chinese military built a huge entrepreneurial empire that ranged from the transport of commercial goods by military vessels and aircraft to show business and securities trading. The involvement of the military in smuggling operations, including the import of oil beyond the control of state structures, and the sale of duty-free cars and cigarettes, was no secret to anyone. The number of army trade and manufacturing enterprises in the PRC reached several tens of thousands.

The reason for the ban on army commerce was the scandal associated with the J&A, the largest brokerage company in the south of the country, created by the PLA. Its leadership was arrested on suspicion of financial fraud and convoyed to Beijing. Following this, a decision was made to end free military entrepreneurship.

"Great Wall of China" military corporations

Therefore, since 1998, a large-scale reorganization of the PLA and the entire Military-Industrial Complex began in the PRC. To begin with, more than 100 legislative acts on the military industry were declassified and revised and new system military law. Was accepted new law PRC "On State Defense", the Committee for Defense Science, Technology and Industry was reorganized, a new structure of the Chinese military-industrial complex was established.

11 market-oriented large associations of the Chinese military industry emerged:

Nuclear Industry Corporation;

Nuclear Construction Corporation;

The first corporation of the aviation industry;

Second Corporation of the Aviation Industry;

Northern Industrial Corporation;

Southern Industrial Corporation;

Shipbuilding Corporation;

Heavy Shipbuilding Corporation;

Corporation of Aerospace Science and Technology;

Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation;

Corporation of Electronic Science and Technology.

During the first five years of their existence, these corporations have made a great contribution to the modernization of defense and the development of the national economy of China. If in 1998 the defense industry was one of the most unprofitable industries, then in 2002 the Chinese military-industrial corporations became profitable for the first time. Since 2004, the shares of 39 military-industrial complex enterprises have already been quoted on Chinese stock exchanges.

The military-industrial complex of China began to confidently conquer civilian markets. So, in 2002, the military-industrial complex, in particular, accounted for 23% of the total volume of cars produced in the PRC - 753 thousand cars. China's defense industry has also mass-produced civilian satellites, aircraft, ships and reactors for nuclear power plants. The share of civilian goods in the gross output of China's defense enterprises reached 80% at the beginning of the 21st century.

What a typical military-industrial corporation of the PRC is can be seen in the example of the China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO). It is the country's largest association for the production of weapons and military equipment and is under the direct control of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, has more than 450 thousand employees, includes more than 120 research institutes, manufacturing enterprises and trading companies. The corporation develops and manufactures a wide range of high-tech weapons and military equipment (for example, missile and anti-missile systems), and at the same time produces a variety of civilian products.

Major General of the Philippine Army Clemente Mariano (right) and a representative of the China North Industrial Corporation (Norinco) at a stand with China-made mortars at the International Aviation, Navy and Defense Exhibition in Manila, Philippines, February 12, 1997. Photo: Fernando Sepe Jr. / AP

If in the military sphere the Northern Corporation produces weapons from the simplest Type 54 pistol (a clone of the pre-war Soviet TT) to multiple launch rocket systems and anti-missile systems, then in the civil sphere it produces goods from heavy trucks to optical electronics.

For example, under the control of the Northern Corporation, several of the most famous brands of trucks in Asia are produced and one of the most significant and largest factories, Beifang Benchi Heavy-Duty Truck, operates. At the end of the 80s, it was a key project for the PRC, the main goal of which was to solve the problem of a shortage of freight vehicles in the country. Thanks to the "most favored nation" regime in trade with the EEC that existed in those years, Beifang Benchi cars (translated into Russian - "North Benz"), these cars are produced using Mercedes Benz technology. And now the company's products are actively exported to Arab countries, Pakistan, Iran, Nigeria, Bolivia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan.

At the same time, the same "Northern Corporation" is not without reason suspected by the United States of military cooperation with Iran in the development of missile weapons. In the process of investigating the relationship of the Chinese corporation with the Ayatollahs of Tehran, the US authorities discovered eight Norinco subsidiaries engaged in high-tech activities on their territory.

All military-industrial corporations of the PRC, without exception, operate in the civilian sphere. So the nuclear industry of the PRC, which previously produced mainly military products, follows the policy of "using the atom in all spheres of management." Among the main activities of the industry are the construction of nuclear power plants, the widespread development of isotope technology. To date, the industry has completed the formation of a research and production complex, which allows the design and construction of nuclear power units with a capacity of 300 thousand kilowatts and 600 thousand kilowatts, and in cooperation with foreign countries(Canada, Russia, France, Japan) - nuclear power units with a capacity of 1 million kilowatts.

In the space industry of China, an extensive system of scientific research, development, testing and production of space technology has been formed, which makes it possible to launch various types of satellites, as well as manned spacecraft. To ensure their support, a telemetry and control system has been deployed, which includes ground stations in the country and sea vessels operating throughout the World Ocean. The Chinese space industry, not forgetting its military purpose, produces high-tech products for the civilian sector, in particular, programmed machines and robotics.

Chinese unmanned aerial vehicle for military and civilian use in China at Aviation Expo, 2013. Adrian Bradshaw / EPA / TASS

Borrowing and production development foreign experience in the aircraft industry allowed the PRC to take a firm place in the foreign market as a supplier of spare parts and aircraft components to most developed countries. For example, the First Corporation of the Aviation Industry (the number of employees is over 400 thousand) in 2004 signed an agreement with Airbus on participation in the production of spare parts for the world's largest serial airliner Airbus A380. In Russia, the representative office of this corporation has been actively promoting its heavy mining excavators in our market since 2010.

Thus, China's defense industry has become the base for the PRC's civil aviation, automotive and other civilian industries. At the same time, China's conversion military-industrial complex not only contributed to the rapid development of the Chinese economy, but also significantly raised its technical level. If 30 years ago China had the most developed military-industrial complex among the Third World countries, far behind in advanced developments from NATO and the USSR, then at the beginning of the 21st century, thanks to thoughtful conversion and skillful use of favorable external circumstances, China's defense industry is confidently catching up with the leaders, entering the top five the best military-industrial complexes of our planet.

Ctrl Enter

Spotted Osh S bku Highlight text and press Ctrl + Enter