SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"More must be invested in eradicating poverty and fostering peace and development, not fueling war and destruction," said one campaigner.
Despite historic levels of forced displacement due to armed conflict, Group of Seven member countries have increased their military expenditures to record highs while they slash spending on humanitarian aid for people affected by wars that these powerful nations often started or stoked, an analysis published Friday revealed.
According to Birmingham, England-based Islamic Relief Worldwide, military spending by G7 members Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States—which wrapped up Friday in Puglia, Italy—rose to $1.2 trillion last year, the overwhelming bulk of that amount attributable to the U.S.' $886.3 billion Pentagon budget.
"Too many governments are putting far more resources towards acquiring weapons of war than helping those suffering the deadly impacts of conflict."
That's a 7.3% increase over 2022 levels, and 62 times what those countries spent on all humanitarian aid in response to wars and disasters.
"From Gaza to Sudan, Ukraine to Myanmar, we see millions of lives destroyed by war," Islamic Relief head of global advocacy Shahin Ashraf said in a statement. "The humanitarian needs today are greater than ever before, so it's scandalous that many wealthy G7 nations are cutting aid while spending more than ever before on weapons."
It's not just the G7. According to this year's Stockholm International Peace Research Institute annual analysis, global military spending increased 6.8% to a record $2.4 trillion in 2023.
"Too many governments are putting far more resources towards acquiring weapons of war than helping those suffering the deadly impacts of conflict," Ashraf asserted. "More must be invested in eradicating poverty and fostering peace and development, not fueling war and destruction."
Islamic Relief Worldwide said:
While some of the discussions at the G7 summit focus on restricting immigration into rich developed nations, most people displaced by conflict remain in war-torn countries and impoverished neighbouring countries. After more than a year of brutal war, Sudan is now the world's biggest displacement crisis with over 10 million people—about a quarter of the population—now forced from their homes. The vast majority of people fleeing the violence in Sudan remain in the country, with many receiving aid from local communities, youth groups, and mosques.
"As rich nations increasingly shut their borders and cut aid, in places like Sudan it is heartening to see the generosity of some of the world's poorest communities taking displaced people into their homes and sharing their food and water with them," said Ashraf. "But they need more international support, especially from the wealthiest countries."
Another analysis published ahead of the G7 summit by Oxfam International revealed that just 3% of the seven countries' 2023 military expenditures would be enough to "help end world hunger and solve the debt crisis in the Global South."
"Congress must put an end to this form of corporate welfare," the senator said, arguing that one new way to do that involves reviving an old policy.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders has a novel way to stop military-industrial complex profiteers from "bilking the American people"—and it's actually over 80 years old.
In an article published Tuesday in The Atlantic, Sanders (I-Vt.) called for a revived Truman Committee—a World War II-era bipartisan congressional panel "designed to rein in defense contractors, closely oversee military contracts, and take back excessive payments."
"America's national priorities are badly misplaced," the senator asserted. "Our country spends, with almost no debate, nearly $1 trillion a year on the military while at the same time ignoring massive problems at home. We apparently have unlimited amounts of money for nuclear weapons, fighter planes, bombs, and tanks. But somehow we can't summon the resources to provide healthcare for all, childcare, affordable housing, and other basic needs."
"The United States remains the world's dominant military power," the senator continued. "Alone, we account for roughly 40% of global military spending; the U.S. spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined, most of whom are allies. Last year, we spent more than three times what China spent on its military."
Sanders noted that nearly half of the approximately $900 billion the U.S. will allocate for military spending this year "will go to a handful of huge defense contractors enjoying immense profits," with many weapons companies profiting handsomely off sales to Ukraine, which is struggling to repel a two-year Russian invasion.
In what Sanders called a "particularly egregious example" of war profiteering, RTX Corporation—formerly Raytheon—has increased the price of its Stinger shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles by 600% to $400,000 since the early 1990s.
The senator continued:
It's not just RTX. The stocks of American arms manufacturers have surged: Northrop Grumman's share price increased 40% by the end of 2022, and Lockheed Martin's by 37%. In 2022, the federal government awarded Lockheed Martin more than $45 billion in unclassified contracts. The company returned about one-quarter of that amount to shareholders through dividends and stock buybacks, and paid its CEO $25 million.
"There's a name for all this: war profiteering. There's a solution too," Sanders stressed. "Congress should resurrect the Truman Committee."
"These companies' greed is not just fleecing the American taxpayer; it's killing Ukrainians," he contended. "A contractor padding its profit margins means that fewer weapons reach Ukrainians on the frontlines. Corporate greed is helping [Russian President] Vladimir Putin."
Sanders highlighted the U.S. Department of Defense's six consecutive failed audits, including the most recent one last December, in which the Pentagon was unable to fully account for nearly two-thirds of its $3.8 trillion in assets.
"It should therefore come as no surprise that defense contractors routinely overcharge the Pentagon—and the American taxpayer—by nearly 40-50%," he wrote. "One company, TransDigm, overcharged by 4,451%."
"But despite billions in fines for fraud or misconduct, the contracts never seem to dry up," Sanders said. "That may be down to America's system of legalized bribery: A share of the profits from these lucrative contracts will flow back to politicians who gladly accept millions in campaign contributions to make sure the defense budget is always flush."
"According to the watchdog group OpenSecrets, defense contractors spent nearly $140 million lobbying the federal government last year," he noted. "Millions of dollars more go directly to members of Congress in campaign contributions from companies, individuals, and political action committees linked to the defense industry."
"Congress must put an end to this form of corporate welfare," Sanders argued. "The best way to do that is to reinstate the Truman Committee on war profiteering so that we can end corporate greed in the defense industry. A windfall profits tax could help achieve this end as well."
"We keep hearing that our government can't afford nice things—or necessary things—for everyone," said the paper's co-author. "Yet militarized spending in the U.S. has almost doubled over the past two decades."
As the United States barrels headlong toward a possible historic debt default, a report published Wednesday highlights that the majority of this year's federal discretionary funds were used for militarized programs, while urging the U.S. government to re-prioritize spending to serve human needs instead of the mechanisms and machinery of violence.
The report—entitledThe Warfare State: How Funding for Militarism Compromises Our Welfare—was published by the Institute for Policy Studies' National Priorities Project (NPP), which aims to inspire people and movements "to take action so our federal resources prioritize peace, shared prosperity, and economic security for all."
"Our country's economy faces a dire threat from so-called 'fiscal conservatives,' including the present GOP House majority, who have resorted to dangerous brinkmanship to force deep cuts in the federal discretionary budget," the report states, referring to what critics and even one congressional Republican have called "hostage-taking" over the debt ceiling.
"The discretionary budget contains the Pentagon budget as well as a number of other broadly militarized line items, including nuclear weapons, federal immigration enforcement, law enforcement, prisons, and so on," the paper continues. "That same budget also hosts most social programs outside of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and [the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program]. It includes federal jobs programs, education, scientific research, and the like."
\u201cNEW: Of the $1.8 trillion federal discretionary budget in FY2023, 62% was used for militarized programs.\n\nThat leaves less than $2 in $5 to invest in communities.\n\nResearch from our @natpriorities team exposes the full extent of militarized spending today:\nhttps://t.co/tm7wCCADkV\u201d— Institute for Policy Studies (@Institute for Policy Studies) 1684936713
"The militarized portion of this budget is by far its largest single component," the report stresses. "And yet the same legislators demanding billions in discretionary savings have vowed to exempt that militarized spending from any cuts. Instead, they've targeted the much smaller portion that funds human and community needs for even deeper cuts."
For fiscal year 2023, that militarized portion amounts to $1.1 trillion, or 62% of the $1.8 trillion federal discretionary budget. That leaves less than 40% of funds for investments in human needs like housing, education, childcare programs, disaster relief, the environment, and scientific research.
In March, President Joe Biden sent Congress a budget blueprint requesting $886.4 billion for the military for fiscal year 2024, a nearly $30 billion increase from the current Pentagon allotment.
"When we invest so heavily in militarism at home and abroad, we deprive our own communities and people of solutions to problems that pose immediate security threats," NPP program director and report co-author Lindsay Koshgarian said in a statement.
"We underfund programs to end poverty, provide affordable housing, bolster public education, and protect clean air and water at our peril," Koshgarian added. "Spending on militarism takes up the majority of the federal discretionary budget, and it has grown faster than all other spending. If we keep up these patterns, we are hurtling toward a future where we can't afford the basics of a civilized society."
\u201cThe U.S. currently spends more on its military than 144 other countries combined.\n\nIf Republicans were really worried about the #DebtCeiling, they would start by cutting this cartoonishly bloated budget\u2014not underfunded social programs that most American families rely on.\u201d— Institute for Policy Studies (@Institute for Policy Studies) 1684267305
NPP urges the U.S. government to:
"All this serves the profits of a wealthy few war profiteers, at everyone else's expense," Siddique added. "Meanwhile, public goods that benefit all of us are under attack. For a fraction of the cost of U.S. militarism since 2001, we could have instead ended homelessness in this country, or invested in a fully renewable national electric grid to help address the climate crisis. A better world is possible, if we build the power we need to make it happen."