I found an excellent argument for total disarmament which serves as followup to my reposting of the SafeEARTH series: 1) Beyond Crime and Punishment 2) What Hitler didn’t Know 3) Synergic Containment: Protecting Children 4) Synergic Containment: Science & Rationale 5) Synergic Containment: Protecting Community, and 6) Synergic Disarmament.
James Raffel
From 1945 to 1992, more than 23 million people died in 149 wars around the world. Almost all of these conflicts and deaths took place in the developing world. In 1991, developed countries provided $56 billion in economic aid to developing countries, but also exported $36 billion in weapons to them. The circle of war and poverty thus remained unbroken for the more than one billion people, mostly in the developing world, who live in “absolute poverty,” meaning that they receive less than 2,150 calories daily or live on an annual income of less than $500.
Spending money for food, shelter, health care and education, rather than guns, tanks, troops and warships, is often called “economic conversion.” Today, the need for economic conversion is greater than ever. In 1993, the developing world spent $220.8 billion for weapons and troops. This is nearly 13 percent of all funds spent by the governments of these countries, an amount equal to $49 per person, per country. Yet in 1991, 2.5 million children died because they were not immunized for measles, tetanus and whooping cough. Spending less on weapons would free up money for programs like those run by the World Health Organization, which provides immunization in low income countries at a cost of about $15 per child.
Even developed countries would benefit from economic conversion. Today the United States—which controls three quarters of the arms trade with the developing world—still spends hundreds of billions of dollars on its military because such spending provides millions of jobs for its citizens. Yet studies show that more jobs would be created in America if it spent more money on meeting the needs of its own citizens.
Devoting resources to life, rather than death, will affect how nations settle disputes with each other. Today, nations often use their military power to assert their will over other nations (although, as Japan demonstrates, economic power is becoming more important in international affairs today). A world without weapons, however, does not mean a world without conflict. Peaceful means are needed to settle disputes, otherwise states will always turn to weapons and war. Disarmament would bring about a peaceful world by eliminating weapons and by providing ways for states to settle their differences peacefully.
Many “experts” dismiss total disarmament as unrealistic, arguing that it is widely understood how to make nuclear weapons and that nations want to fight with each other as part of the natural order of life. However, the political, social, legal and economic forces that lead nations to acquire weapons can be changed. And these skeptics ignore history: throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, both the United States and the Soviet Union presented detailed proposals to the United Nations calling for total disarmament.
A 1962 disarmament plan advanced by the United States, known as Blueprint for the Peace Race, already has influenced international security. The Blueprint’s bold, yet detailed, vision called for eliminating armies and weapons so that “war is no longer an instrument for settling international problems.” It also called for “the establishment of reliable procedures for the settlement of disputes and …effective arrangements for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.” With a stronger UN and international law, tragedies such as the slaughter unfolding before our eyes in Bosnia could be avoided in the future. While the proposal had shortcomings—for example, it did not specifically ban arms sales—it offers a vision for peace and development for our generation.
While disarmament and economic conversion would bring about a peaceful, prosperous world, there is no guarantee that such a world will be born. There are powerful people both in developed and developing countries who benefit from the present situation and want to keep their positions of wealth and power. Only peaceful political action on behalf of basic human rights will lead to more equitable relations among peoples and nations.
James Raffel is a Research Associate at the Project on Regional and Industrial Economics, Rutgers University and is a member of the Economists Allied for Arms Reduction, his essay is reposted from the: NGO COMMITTEE ON DISARMAMENT, PEACE AND SECURITY!
For more information contact disarmtimes@igc.apc.org.
NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace, and Security
777 United Nations Plaza #3B
New York, NY 10017
Tel (212) 687.5340/Fax (212) 687.1643
Read more by Timothy Wilken: 1) A Synergic Future 2) Protecting Humanity 3) Beyond War
Read Lt. Col. Dave Grossman’s: 1) Aggression and Violence 2) Evolution of Weaponry 3) Psychological Effects of Combat.