Military Spending - Recession Proof

Global military spending has risen by 45% in the last decade. According to the latest yearbook from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 2008 saw global military expenditure reach €1464 billion. The US spent €607 billion alone according to the statistics but even this enormous figure may be an underestimation with the Guardian reporting that the White House itself claims spending on "national defence" exceeded €675 billion for the year. However, the rise in expenditure is also due to the spending increase across most of Asia.

This is despite the fact that the world is currently in the throes of a global recession and that there is still 1.3 billion people living in extreme poverty worldwide. Unfortunately however, there tends often to be a large disparity between what countries are willing to allocate to secure their global and regional power status and what they spend on poverty reduction and development. For instance, South Africa is paying an average of €530 million a year until 2010/2011 under an arms deal when an estimated €425 million would pay for free water services for everyone in the country.

Interestingly and unsurprisingly, four of the top five suppliers since the end of the cold war are permanent members of the UN Security Council. Indeed, according to the SIPRI yearbook, the top 20 companies involved in military trade are American or European. With statistics like these it becomes hard not to question the legitimacy of certain countries having a permanent place on the UN Security Council. Furthermore, the UN Controller's office recently listed arrears as of 7th May 2009 showing that the US, UK and China owed €993, €121 and €33 billion respectively. So these countries wield immense power when it comes to world security, engage in massive military expenditure and yet are slow to pay money to the UN which could be used for humanitarian purposes.

Oxfam's briefing paper 'Shooting Down the MDGs' showed how arms transfers can divert funds from social spending and how the availability of and access to conventional arms and ammunition can prolong and/or intensify armed violence. This has been seen recently in Sri Lanka where the government chose a purely military solution when the balance of power was changed due to the large imports of stocks of ammunition that was possible. The success of the Millennium Development Goals are seriously threatened by military expenditure which consumes unjustifiable quantities of financial resources. For example, the leading causes of childhood deaths are easily prevented through simple improvements in basic health services but there needs to be sufficient investment. Similarly, if a fair and safe deal on climate change is to be achieved this year, substantial resources need to be set aside for adaptation and mitigation financing. To look at it another and more positive way, with the political will of certain governments and adequate financial support, the number of children of primary school age who did not attend school fell from €103 million in 1999 to €75 million in 2006 (The United Nations' Millennium Development Goals Report 2008). This is obvious progress on the Millennium Development goal to achieve universal primary education and shows real return on investment.

More needs to be done to combat the international arms trade, considered by Transparency International to be one of the three most corrupt businesses in the world. The developed world needs to stop arming both itself and the developing world and governments of poorer nations need to be supported and encouraged to re-direct their spending so that the plight of the 1.3 billion living in extreme poverty is addressed. A practical step that everyone can take is to get involved in the Control Arms Campaign at http://www.controlarms.org/en.