Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 23. maj 2011
/ Time Line May 23, 2011
Version 3.0
22. Maj 2011, 24. Maj 2011
05/23/2011
Militarist Madness
By
Lawrence S. Wittner
Despite the vast rivers of blood and treasure poured into wars over
the centuries, the nations of the world continue to enhance their
military might.
According to a recent report from the prestigious Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), world military
expenditures grew to a record $1.63 trillion in 2010. Middle East
nations alone spent $111 billion on the military, with Saudi Arabia
leading the way.
Arms sales have also reached record heights. SIPRI's Top 100 of the
world's arms-producing companies sold $401 billion in weaponry
during 2009 (the latest year for which figures are available), a
real dollar increase of eight percent over the preceding year and
59 percent since 2002. These military companies do a particularly
brisk business overseas, where they engage in fierce battles for
weapons contracts. "There is intense competition between suppliers
for big-ticket deals in Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and
Latin America," reports Dr. Paul Holtom, Director of the SIPRI Arms
Transfers Program. Until recently, in fact, defense contractors
scrambled vigorously to sell arms to Libya.
In numerous ways, the United States is at the head of the pack. Of
the $20.6 billion increase in world military expenditures during
2010, the U.S. government accounted for $19.6 billion. Indeed,
between 2001 and 2010, the U.S. government increased its military
spending by 81 percent. As a result, it now accounts for about 43
percent of global military spending, some six times that of its
nearest military rival, China.
U.S. weapons producers are also world leaders. According to SIPRI,
45 of its Top 100 weapons-manufacturers are based in the United
States. In 2009, they generated nearly $247 billion in weapons
sales—nearly 62 percent of income produced by the Top 100.
Not surprisingly, the United States is also the world's leading
exporter of military equipment, accounting for 30 percent of global
arms exports in the 2006-2010 period.
Being Number 1 might be exciting, even thrilling, among children.
But adults might well ask if the benefits are worth the cost. Are
they?
Let's take a look at the issue of terrorism. Much of the last
decade's huge military buildup by the United States was called for
in the context of what President George W. Bush called the "War on
Terror." And the costs, thus far, have been high, including an
estimated $1.19 trillion that Americans have paid for the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, plus thousands of Americans and vast numbers
of Afghans and Iraqis who have been slaughtered. By contrast, the
benefits are certainly dubious. Neither war resulted in the capture
or killing of the terrorist mastermind, Osama bin Laden, who was
tracked down in another country thanks to years of painstaking
intelligence work and dispatched by a quick commando raid. Wouldn't
Americans (and people in other lands) be a lot safer from terrorism
with fewer wars and better intelligence?
Of course, there is also the broader national security picture.
Even without terrorism, the world is a dangerous place. War is
certainly a hardy perennial. Nevertheless, simply increasing
national military spending does not make nations safer. After all,
when one country engages in a military buildup,
others—frightened by this buildup—often do so as well.
The result of this arms race is all too often international
conflict and war. Wouldn't nations be more secure if they worked
harder at cooperating with one another rather than at threatening
one another with military might? Even if they were not the best of
friends, they might find it to their mutual advantage to agree to
decrease their military spending by an equal percentage, thus
retaining the current military balance among them. Also, they could
begin turning over a broader range of international security issues
to the United Nations.
Maintaining a vast military apparatus also starves other areas of a
society. Currently, in the United States, most federal
discretionary spending goes for war and preparations for
war—and this despite an ongoing crisis over unemployment and
a stagnating economy. Continuing this pattern, the Barack Obama
administration's proposed federal budget for fiscal 2012, while
increasing military spending, calls for sharp cuts in funding for
education, income security, food safety, and environmental
protection. Even as congress wrestles with the thorny issue of
priorities, huge numbers of teachers, firemen, health care workers,
social workers, policemen, and others—told that government
revenues are no longer sufficient to fund their services—are
being dismissed from their jobs. Other public servants are having
their salaries and benefits slashed. Social welfare institutions
are being closed. Thus, instead of defending the home front in the
United States, the immensely costly U.S. military apparatus is
helping to gut it.
Ultimately, as many people have learned through bitter experience,
militarism undermines both peace and prosperity. Perhaps it's time
for government officials to learn this fact.
Dr. Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His
latest book is "Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World
Nuclear Disarmament Movement" (Stanford University Press).
05/23/2011
Top
Send
kommentar, email
eller søg i Fredsakademiet.dk
|