A better world is possible - Global Commons Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rights reserved. This electronic copy is provided free for personal, non-commercial use only. www.brucenixon.com The cost of the Afghan conflict The Independent summarised the cost of the Afghan conflict: The Cost of the Afghan conflict Overall cost - £12bn – money that arguably could have been far better spent. Increase in Ministry of Defence spending 2006/7 to 2009/10 – 400% Estimated Afghan civilians killed as a result of conflict – 30,000 UK service personnel killed since 2001- 189 Increase in Afghan opium production 150%. Source: Independent on Sunday, 26 th July 2009 Why are we so blind to the fundamental threats to our survival? They are much greater than terrorism, which is not to say that we should not do everything to prevent it. Is what we doing likely to achieve that? Unjust USA and UK foreign policies are a major cause of hostility to the West, violence and terrorism. Global justice, conflict resolution and non-violence would have a more positive impact. Militarism and military economy Militarism and arms production are a major part of the global economy. Militarism and war are externalised costs of our lifestyle. Over one trillion dollars, $1,470,000,000,000, spent annually on the military and the arms trade is the largest single item of world spending. In comparison, UN and all its agencies spend only $20bn annually or about $3 for each inhabitant. “When the world needs co-operative solutions to global problems, the thriving international arms market points to a squandering of resources which the international institutions can ill afford.” Paul Holtom, head of SIPRI’s arms transfer programme The biggest arms suppliers are USA, accounting for 31%, Russia, Germany, France and UK. The world arms trade has expanded over 20% in the past five years according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute – (SIPRI). Arms sales to Middle Eastern countries rose 38%. Other key markets include China, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The US war machine is by far the largest in the world and its spending almost matches that for the rest of the world. Their 2009 budget $ 636,292,979,000 is 4 % of its economy and exceeds Australia’s whole GDP. Next are: France, $70,613,746,423, China, $70,308,600,000, UK $ 65,149,500,000, all more than Russia’s 39,600,000,000 (see Wiki’ list of military spending). There is an unholy alliance between the Pentagon, arms manufacturers like Lockheed Martin and Boeing and Congress, because of jobs, lobbying and the cost of electioneering. That is how US democracy is corrupted. Rupert Cornwall calls this an “Iron Triangle.” Hence, there is a substantial interest in keeping the US public terrified. General Eisenhower described this as a “military-industrial complex” and prophetically spoke of “defending ourselves against one disaster by inviting another.” These figures do not include the environmental costs of war. Apart from the greenhouse gases and pollution released in warfare, there is a huge diversion of attention and resources. Human and financial resources could be employed in so much better ways at a time when the greatest threats to humanity are the environmental catastrophe and starvation that will result from climate change and over-consumption unless we take urgent and decisive action. 78
Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rights reserved. This electronic copy is provided free for personal, non-commercial use only. www.brucenixon.com Do we really want our governments to spend our money like this? Many military veterans who, unlike most politicians, have experienced battle are firmly against war. Many also oppose nuclear weapons. When the Government announced that it was prepared to spend up to £20 billion on replacing the four submarines that carry the Trident ballistic nuclear missile deterrent, three retired military commanders urged that the plan be scrapped. In a letter in The Times, they said that Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent had become “virtually irrelevant”. They called on Gordon Brown to spend the money saved by cancelling the Trident replacement on providing more funds for the Armed Forces to meet their current operational commitments. They said: “Should this country ever become subject to some sort of nuclear blackmail — from a terrorist group for example — it must be asked in what way, and against whom, our nuclear weapons could be used, or even threatened, to deter or punish.” Surely all this money and human effort would be far better spent educating people, alleviating poverty, combating climate change and degradation of the planet. In their 2005 State of the World report, World Watch estimated $50billion additional annual funding could achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Joss Garman believes that spending £100bn on hitting our Renewable energy targets, thus reducing our dependence on foreign oil and gas and tackling climate change, is far more relevant to our security than spending money on nuclear. Unilateral renunciation of nuclear weapons would send an even stronger message. That, together with an even-handed, truly ethical foreign policy and fulfilling promises of aid to poor countries, would send out messages to the world that would reduce the risk of terrorism and enhance the chances of peace and nuclear disarmament. Reflections of wise elders “War is organised murder, and nothing else.” We have remembered and honoured the recent deaths of two veterans of First World War. Harry Patch, who died aged 111, said: “War is organised murder, and nothing else.” “If you declare war, it’s simply the government given license to go to a foreign country and commit murder. That’s all war is – murder.” “I didn’t want to go and fight anyone, but it was a case of having to.” “At the end, the peace was settled round a table, so why the hell couldn’t they do that from the start without losing millions of men?” He decided to shoot to maim, not kill his opponents. Henry Allingham, who died aged 113, said of war: “War is stupid. Nobody wins. You might as well talk first: you have to talk last anyway.” Soldiers have been led to believe they were fighting for their country when in truth they were laying down their lives to fulfil the unwise decisions of politicians, not the wishes or interests of citizens. How wars come about 79
Page 1 and 2:
Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rig
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28: Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rig
Page 77: Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rig
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211:
show all

A better world is possible - Global Commons Institute

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?