Invest in People Not Weapons
With this month’s new round of sanctions against Iran and its nuclear enrichment program, nations have been forced to once again consider the political and military implications of one day having yet another nuclear-armed state.
Lost in this debate, though, is the recognition of exactly what this ongoing pursuit of the world’s deadliest weapon means for our ability to protect and promote everyday human rights and the necessities of life.
Since the beginning of the nuclear age, countries have spent large fortunes on the research, development and maintenance of their nuclear arsenals. The United States alone spends upwards of $35 billion a year on maintaining its nuclear stockpile - money that is diverted from health care, education and other essential social services.
In a country where rural schools are in desperate need of funding, and where nearly 50 million people have no health insurance, these billions could be better spent somewhere else.
“We’ve put this money down a black hole of so-called security,” says David Krieger, president of the California-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. “In a more just and humane society, that money would be spent on health care, housing and the alleviation of poverty.”
The United States is not the only country that funnels money into nuclear weapons while its most vulnerable citizens go without. Just last month in India, another nuclear-armed nation, the government allocated $26 billion for defence and weapons spending, despite the fact that nearly 80 per cent of its population lives on less than a dollar a day.
China, which has roughly 300 nuclear warheads, spends more than twice as much as India on its defence budget, yet allocates barely $20 per person for education.
“It’s hard not to conceive of this as a human rights issue,” Krieger says.
It’s long been assumed that having this technology translates into increased clout on the international stage. So as long as countries continue to raise the stakes by spending billions on nuclear arms, others will want to do the same.
North Korea’s acquisition of a nuclear bomb has stirred fears of an arms race in Asia, and talk that Al Qaeda wants to acquire a bomb for itself has grown steadily louder. Each time the ante is raised, our ability to achieve a basic quality of life falls lower on the priority list.
That’s why Krieger’s organization is hoping to collect a million signatures demanding the next U.S. president take the lead on developing a phased, verifiable and transparent international agreement on the disarmament of the world’s 27,000 remaining nuclear warheads - something the U.S. and other armed nations have failed to do since signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty back in 1968.
“We have a tremendous responsibility to do something,” he says. “No other generation in the past has had to confront the possibility of human annihilation by means of its own cleverness.”
Before any such agreement becomes possible, there will need to be a major shift in global priorities. Investing in weapons with the power to wipe out the entire Earth in the hope of achieving peace is an inherently flawed approach, one that leaves us in a precarious and unpredictable balance between deterrence and destruction.
Craig and Marc Kielburger are children’s rights activists and co-founded Free The Children, which is active in the developing world.
Craig and Marc are right.
Mikhail Gorbachev said in 1993 that the 21st Century would either be one of catastrophe or restoration. We need non-partisan support for a nuclear weapons moratorium, and to reduce existing stockpiles towards an ultimate goal of zero. This is what our children deserve.
The $billions freed from nuclear weapons maintenance can go towards all sorts of restoration programs. Let’s invest in the health of our communities—the real wealth of nations.
But the individuals receiving the munifence of the defense expenditures would claim foul. Their ROI would disappear. The ROI generated by education and healthcare would obviously be for all others.
Read this, everybody:
http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?act_id=18042
Email it to everyone in your email address book. Print it out and hand it round.
should have known we were in for a world of trouble years ago when the work force became “human resources”. you know what corporations do to resources?
We already have too many people. Investing in weapons is just a (cruel and stupid) way of reducing global overpopulation.
How does every discussion turn into an “overpopulation problem”? The alcolytes of the Malthusian religion never seem to want to become martyrs to their own cause.
If the trillions of dollars expended on terrorizing the were invested in people - education, health, infrastructure - the whole planet would be experiencing a golden age. Bush would be able to contribute then too by hauling our garbage. I hope the whole planet will soon realize this.
The reason only lip service is given to Malthus’ ideas is many villages must be plundered to make one rich woman.
People!
You use investment when the proper word is consumption.
How convincing is Krieger’s argument? And to whom? Power isn’t listening to age old critiques. Spending money on weapons instead of health insurance is one reason it’s so profitable.
That makes three sane approaches that smack of the correct priorities that I’ve read today. Two are on Common Dreams and the other is here: http://www.freearticulator.com/news/2008/create-peace-end-war-fix-planet-march-20-iraq-war/
brontoburger said:
“How does every discussion turn into an “overpopulation problem”?
Maybe because it is and no one is talking about it anywhere but here.
We do not havce to rely on weapons to reduce the overpopulation. A good share of the world is starving to death and our country is so overfed on cheap food that we should not add too many as disease caused by obesity will soon be taking it`s toll.
However, since Bush and Cheney started the arms race all over again, that may also be the method that will take care of the situation. Bush knows what he is doing, God told him how to handle everything.
It’s just more of the old “My Nuclear Dick is bigger than Your Nuclear Dick” p!ssing contest.
It’s amazing how many of the world’s “Leaders” are emotionally frozen at a mental age of 12.