After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the United States’ emergence as the world’s sole superpower—assisted by nominal allies like Britain and France, alongside many who pledged loyalty to the ideology of the new global policeman—there was a growing narrative against military technology and national defence. It was framed as a fundamental sin, an obstacle to the development these dominant powers claimed to champion.
A term as routine as ‘military buildup’—which simply refers to a nation strengthening its armed forces for self-defence, a basic necessity for protecting its territory and national interests—was turned into a spectre. The great powers succeeded in criminalising it, branding any country that engaged in it as an ‘enemy of development’.
It is true that some nations have been drawn into excessive arms imports, depleting their resources over largely fabricated or exaggerated security threats—often created by the same global powers. However, the principle of military development remains an inherent right, one that no foreign state has the authority to interfere with or critique, as long as other nations’ rights are respected. Yet these dominant forces consistently encourage arms imports while opposing indigenous military production, a stance driven by transparent political and economic motives.
Last week in Egypt, both local and international newspapers highlighted a significant development—one that represents a strategic step forward for national security and technological progress. The Egyptian Air Force received its 120th K-8E aircraft, manufactured by the Arab Organisation for Industrialisation at its aircraft factory, in collaboration with China. More than 94% of the aircraft’s structure was produced locally, marking a major advancement in domestic military production. In addition, an aviation research centre was established as part of the same programme, aiming to revive Egypt’s aviation industry through a gradual transfer of technology.
Under its agreement with China’s CATIC corporation, the Egyptian government holds full rights to manufacture and market the aircraft to Arab and African countries. The aircraft factory has also obtained the EN 9100 certification for aerospace component manufacturing, enabling it to supply spare parts to leading global aviation companies.
The benefits of this initiative are obvious. Militarily, it strengthens national security while maintaining a balance between importing necessary equipment and shifting towards local arms production—thereby avoiding trade deficits and dependency on foreign powers that seek to curb Egypt’s progress. From every angle, this is a positive move—especially if, as planned, the aircraft programme expands into an export-driven industry.
The second, arguably even more important benefit—despite being less direct—is what is known as ‘technology spillover’. Many developing nations have demonstrated that advancements in military technology can serve as a powerful engine for broader economic and industrial development, regardless of Western attempts to demonise it as an obstacle to progress. Brazil, Chile, India, and Singapore—excluding China, given its unique status as a massive communist state—have all focused on military technology as a pillar of national development with civilian benefits.
These countries made a straightforward yet effective decision: they invested in military research and arms production using their own national institutions. Crucially, this did not require extravagant spending, as military experts, armed forces scientists, and skilled workers were already available within the system—resources that, by definition, were already dedicated to national service.
As a result, these nations successfully met much of their own military needs, saving vast sums that would have otherwise gone to foreign arms suppliers. More importantly, they profited from exporting surplus production. But the greatest long-term gain was the transfer of military-industrial expertise to civilian sectors. This was achieved both directly—through structured technology transfer—and indirectly, by equipping soldiers and military engineers with advanced technical skills that they carried back into civilian life. The benefits to human and economic development are undeniable, yet the great powers continue to refuse to acknowledge them—choosing instead to actively oppose such progress.
This article is originally published by AlBorsa in Arabic and later AI-translated by South Push.