Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
No Slowdown for Weapons Industry
UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations is surprised at the continued rise in global military spending - particularly at a time when the international community is grappling with a spreading financial crisis which threatens to undermine the poverty reduction goals of the world body.
Policemen display weapons collected from Niger delta militants as part of a government amnesty program, in Yenagoa, Nigeria Saturday, Aug. 22, 2009. (AP Photo/Sunday Alamba) "The world is over-armed and peace is under-funded," says Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who points out that global military spending is estimated at over one trillion dollars - "and rising every day".
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), one of the world's foremost think tanks on arms control and disarmament, world military expenditure increased by 45 percent, in real terms, and has been rising every year during the last 10-year period.
In 2008, it reached 1.46 trillion dollars, representing 2.4 percent of world gross domestic product (GDP). Its level is now higher than during the latest Cold War peak in the 1980s.
Speaking at the annual meeting of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Mexico City early this week, the secretary-general said he was dismayed that weapons continue to be produced and are flooding markets around the world.
"They are destabilising societies and feeding the flames of civil wars and terror," he warned.
During the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush, says SIPRI, U.S. military expenditure increased to the highest level in real terms since World War II, mostly due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The 10 biggest military spenders last year were: the United States (607 billion dollars), China (84.9 billion), France (65.7 billion), Britain (65.3 billion), Russia (58.6 billion), Germany (46.8 billion), Japan (46.3 billion), Italy (40.6 billion), Saudi Arabia (38.2 billion) and India (30.0 billion).
China, Saudi Arabia and India were the only three developing nations in the top 10, followed by countries such as Brazil and Algeria.
Dr. Elisabeth Skons, Programme Leader of SIPRI's Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme told IPS the main reason for the strong increase in world military spending during recent year is the rise in U.S. military spending through a series of supplementary allocations for military activities in Afghanistan (since 2001) and Iraq (since 2003).
The United States accounts for a large share (41.5 percent in 2008) of world military spending, while at the same time it increased its spending significantly (by 67 percent in real terms over the most recent 10-year period through 2008), and by 71 percent in real terms between 2000 and the budget for fiscal year 2009 (according to U.S. official data).
However, many other countries are also increasing their military spending and some other major spenders have increased their military expenditure at an even higher rate than the United States, Skons pointed out.
Thus, two of the other top five military spenders, China and Russia, have nearly tripled their military spending since 1999.
On a regional level, it is only West and Central Europe that has an almost flat trend in military spending over the past 10-year period.
"In all other regions, military spending has been increasing," Skons added.
The strongest regional increases over the past 10-year period were in Eastern Europe, (+174 percent in real terms), due primarily to the trend in Russia); North Africa (+94 percent); North America (66 percent); East Asia and the Middle East (with 56 percent each); while there has been a slower increase in Sub-Saharan Africa (+10 percent) and Central America (+21 percent).
There are many different factors behind the increase in world military spending over the past 10-year period, including ambitions for global or regional power status; regional tensions or other national security concerns; armed conflict; international peace missions; and internal political factors, Skons said.
Underlying some of these trends are other factors, such as more or less realistic threat perceptions, and the often-exaggerated belief that political goals can be achieved by military means.
Furthermore, it is not unlikely that the political agenda on the global war on terror pursued by the U.S. government until 2009 had the effect of facilitating increases in military spending also in some other countries.
"Hopefully, this period is now behind us," she said.
Asked if the global financial crisis will eventually have an impact both on military spending and arms purchases worldwide, Skons told IPS: "It is difficult to assess the effect of the financial crisis and the subsequent recession on military spending."
She said research on military spending suggests that the impact of economic factors is smaller on military expenditure than on other types of government spending.
While the link between economic factors and military spending is significant, there are also other important factors influencing military spending, in particular various types of security factors and threat perceptions, and also past spending patterns and various interest groups.
Because of its link to national security, military spending is generally more insulated from economic factors than other public sectors, Skons added.
The actual impact of the financial crisis in each case will be the outcome of the overall balance between motivations to increase military spending and economic constraints.
In regions where the financial crisis has had a severe impact on economic development, such as in Africa, it is possible that military spending will be affected.
In other cases a strong economic downturn may not have a full impact on military spending.
A case in point is Russia, which has been strongly affected by the financial crisis, but at the same time has given strong priority to the military sector in its economic rescue packages, she added.
Asked about the much-ballyhooed post-Cold War "peace dividend", Dr Bates Gill, director of SIPRI, told IPS it was probably overly optimistic from the beginning to assume a major "peace dividend".
"What we have seen, however, is a major reduction in inter-state conflict and in the likelihood that the world's major powers will go to war with one another in the near to medium term," he said.
However, threats to peace still exist and the nature of those threats has changed as well.
In particular, Gill said: "We see the rise in threats from non-state actors and a persistent degree of instability and civil wars within states."
These challenges require states to continue spending on defence.
"With these uncertainties in mind, it seems unlikely we will see a major 'peace dividend' in the near future," he added.
29 Comments so far
Show All"Hopefully, this period is now behind us," she said
LOL
Bronze age thinking is still with us, dear.
You will notice that, when detailing the "defense" spending of different countries, they never list the CEO's of the corporations that make the weapons. I imagine it would be most enlightening and entertaining to see how many mansions and corporate jets are purchased with "defense" spending. How about some names? Read the book "Charlie Wilson's War" to see how your money flies out of congress.
"Insulated" from other budgetary restrictions, indeed.
The only thing behind us is the "OLD Weapons", which we of course sell off to get more money to build the NEW weapons.
I think:"Insulated" from other budgetary restrictions, sums it up very well.
2 WORDS:
DENNIS KUCINICH.
2 MORE WORDS:
PEACE DEPARTMENT.
SUPPORT HIM NOW WITH YOUR WORDS, YOUR MONEY, YOUR SIGNATURES AND BEG HIM TO RUN AGAIN.
AMEN!
I wholeheartedly agree.
Too, too bad Dennis caved at the Democratic Convention in Boston. Progressive Democrats supported him & his anti-war stance, but, as soon as he had the chance, he threw his support to Kerry, who was in favor of the U.S. wars on Afghanistan and Iraq.
Dennis has done some good things, but... I didn't vote for him because I'm not a Democrat. I belong to the Green Party and I vote the Green Party candidates, in almost all instances. The Democrats bend over backwards to appease Repugnicans.
The GREEN PARTY!!! You mean that bunch of lunies who want to save the planet? Don't waste your vote. Vote for Democrats. If they only had the Senate and Congress and the presidency, why they would change the world!
wow it took the un until yesterday to figure this out?
was there some amount of killing and human tragedy that
had to happen some number to make it official?
The UN has been saying it, in different, partial, and condensed ways. This is just the first comprehensive, fully complete statement we've heard, and it is about something we already know in our hearts....that the world is going to be in big trouble if someone starts shooting.....
They must not have too many rocket scientists in the UN.
The United States must set the world's standard, and be the 'pace-maker'. This will require savvy negotiations with Russia, China, and all the rest.
How can the US talk the other military giants, especially Russia and China, into paring down their spending, and make peace a more profitable endeavor than 'defense' ??
One semantic way would be to stop calling it 'defense'.
As an American, the only 'defense' I need to defend myself against is domestic, internal, political, and social problems. If each nation spent more on their internal, domestic, social and political problems, which are their WORST enemy, maybe we'd all enjoy a better world.
Stop calling it 'defense'.
"United States (607 billion dollars), China (84.9 billion), France (65.7 billion), Britain (65.3 billion), Russia (58.6 billion), Germany (46.8 billion), Japan (46.3 billion), Italy (40.6 billion), Saudi Arabia (38.2 billion) and India (30.0 billion)."
US military spending is more than 10 times that of Russian military spending. Not to mention that those figures do not include what is being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, IIRC. Including everything, Iraq, Afghanistan, Veteran Affairs, Homeland Security, the total comes to about 800 billion: http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2008/08stmt.pdf
It isn't countries such as Russia that need to be talked to, about their military spending. 607 billion. 58.6 billion.
It is the US.
Blood - money.
The US is the leading, genocidal/profiteer. Great! We are 'leading by example.'
This enables anti-US-guerillas to kill/maim countless US, or other soldiers. The profiteers don't mind, as long as they get a generous slice-of-the-pie. They have no souls, so why should a young life matter? Bluntly and truthfully, they don't give a crap.
The 21st century looks like the 20th.
Ho Hum...
How are the Dow Jones today?-----yawn....
It's a small thing, but I was gratified to see them use the words "Weapons Industry" rather than "Defense Industry" in the headline at least.
Joe
I have put the expenditures into a list, since it is easier to visualize the relative amounts.
United States----- 607.0
China--------------- 84.9
France-------------- 65.7
Britain--------------- 65.3
Russia-------------- 58.6
Germany----------- 46.8
Japan--------------- 46.3
Italy------------------ 40.6
Saudi Arabia------- 38.2
India----------------- 30.0
TOTAL 1083.4
TOTAL NON US 476.4
You can see that the US spends more than everyone else combined. It could be even worse than it appears. When we sell military bombers to India, for instance, I don't know where the expenditure is listed. India spends, we manufacture and sell.
According to Gill, these billions are being spent to combat "the rise in threats from non-state actors and a persistent degree of instability and civil wars within states". In the United States we have no civil war at the moment. We have few internal or external terrorist threats. They can be best addressed by police type activity, preferably aided by information from populations that do not hate our government.
A huge stockpile of heavy duty weapons will not combat "non-state actors" (a better term than terrorists). To help combat resistance fighters, bandits, etc. you need a tool kit of intelligence. You need to strengthen democratic actors and processes within nations to create a stable matrix in which people can live and work.
Weapons proliferations also make civil wars more brutal and fun for those who enjoy such conflict. Solving problems of water accessibility and economic viability will go a long way towards ending civil wars.
These weapons industries make a lot of money for their owners and provide jobs for their workers and small suppliers who manufacture the hardware and for a wide net of supportive services such as University based researchers, psychologists etc. I don't give a rat's ass about the owners. Let them live on what they already have. If plants shut down, however, we would have to have jobs for those laid off.
There are so many weapons related enterprises propping up the economy here in every state, we will never get grass-roots support for reducing weapons spending unless we promise the workers something better than unemployment. There is so much to be done in the world, providing non-weapons jobs is a problem we should welcome.
Throwing over Van Jones is an indication that our government has no intention of going in that direction. Jones had dangerous ideas about green jobs, ideas that are inspiring to the young and are subversive to the weapons industry.
We will never have peace or a reduction in weapons spending unless we make it happen. It is not coming from the government. I repeat, don't hold your breath. They will not do the sensible thing, the humane thing, the thing that makes us a respectable international citizen. Money is involved, and that is what rules our government. Ironically, the biggest fight in the world is the fight for peace.
Joe
"They can be best addressed by police type activity, preferably aided by information from populations that do not hate our government."
Have I been sleeping? Where do you find a population that does not hate our government?
Well, it will be a project to rebuild trust or admiration or even deference. Rich relatives will be popular as long as they are not complete pricks.
Joe
There always seems to be enough money for war. Peace just has to wait...even if it kills us.
Bring America Back !!!!
****Of course there is no slowdown in weapons producton.
****Why do you think the Military Industrial Complex has all the Power and all the Money, and all the Votes to keep the war machines going ???? The Pentagon just keeps rolling along, now with a puppet Commander in Chief named Barak Obama.
**Let's just nickname him Barak the "Drone" commander !
**He is on a holy crusade to bomb the correct cave in Tora Bora, where the
great and mighty boogieman is hiding out ! "W" just wasn't bombing the right caves.
Yes, somehow we didn't do the job the first time around. Didn't have enough soldiers, they say. Well, Barak will see to that.
Every-thing's going smoothly on our path to hell. It's good to know that nothing's changed since VietNam.
And people say the US isn;t contributing to the world. Look at all the cool weapons we design and make and sell to both sides of ears all over the place. The US is a MAJOR contributor to world...
suffering, greed, war, death, destruction.
May all those who profit by war (and that is all of us in the US in one way or another) be relieved of those profits. And may those who consciously place profits before life find themselves in situations where their beliefs and actions come back upon them.
With the world population what it is and the impending collapse of the resource and environmental base of the world, all the money spent on military hardware will do little but destroy the remaining assets that will be needed to deal with the collapse of our world. Historically famine and pestilence are better at population control than war and weapons.
It's so nice to know that when the collapse finally comes, our country will be well armed. I feel much more secure. Oh, you say that those arms will be used against people like me? Well, never mind.
As long as people like you in the United States are armed too, no those arms will never be used against people like you.
Let the government disarm you, and see what happens...
It must be pointed it yet again that we have the Militarists in the USA who claim that they must spend these vast sums to defend Europe because they will not do it themselves.
This helps them feel better about idiotic policy. Note that a SINGLE European country spends more then Russia.
Japan which is an island nation spends half as much as China.
Just who is the USA defending other then its Corporations?
Daniel Elsberg's article just yesterday says it all. The nuclear threat to the world is sickening and mind boggling. All the other issues that I have been watching closely, are important. But this-this is beyond important. I read it and could barely function for a moment-and I did know that we could blow ourselves up many times over. But when you read it like this, you realize how you go through your day to day life- IN TOTAL DENIAL. You put it out of your mind. Because if you don't- you couldn't funtion at all. You'd find no reason to.
Daniel Elsberg's article just yesterday says it all. The nuclear threat to the world is sickening and mind boggling. All the other issues that I have been watching closely, are important. But this-this is beyond important. I read it and could barely function for a moment-and I did know that we could blow ourselves up many times over. But when you read it like this, you realize how you go through your day to day life- IN TOTAL DENIAL. you put it out of your mind. Because if you don't- you couldn't funtion at all. You'd find no reason to.
What does "YOur submission has triggered an installed spam filter and cannot be accepted" mean?
"you realize how you go through your day to day life- IN TOTAL DENIAL"
Good observation, theinitiate. The dangers of nuclear annihiliation at any time, and the certainty that the oceans are being ruined for our grandchildren and that people are being killed in our name and with our money as we speak are just a few huge background sources of anxiety. No wonder so many people are on mood pills or self medicate with alcohol or cannabis. If you think too deeply or long about this, self-immolation holding a protest sign seems like a good way to spend an afternoon. But since we are also cowards driven by the life force, we keep on.
Some denial helps get us through the day, while recognizing the realities helps guide where we are going. Just have to keep living and keep trying. When you look at a kid's face, you know why giving up is not acceptable.
Joe
The business of America is war. The only way to keep much of this billion $ business from bankruptcy is: " bad guys ". Just like any business, no clients or orders--no business. I am not a pacifist and I believe in a strong military, just like you need a strong police force as there are real bad guys out there; but here is the problem: our brave and patriotic military are being used by the MIC for nefarious and punic reasons and to me this is the most egregious treason to America.