(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) publishes an overview of the world's military spending every year. This overview is the best basis for analyzing developments in this field. However, SIPRI itself is fully aware that it may still be dark figures they do not have access to. The figures can thus be higher, but hardly lower. The difficulty of making such surveys arises in part because so much of what concerns national defense, military armament and warfare is kept out of democratic insight and control. Partly a lot of war material is composed of parts that are produced in different places – and partly some of the producers have both civilian and military production, without it always being clear where the dividing lines go. The world's oldest international peace organization, The International Peace Bureau (IPB) with its headquarters in Geneva, has in recent years prioritized working with disarmament based on the understanding that the world simply cannot afford to continue to spend such heavy resources on military consumption if one is to could achieve the goals of creating a peaceful, just and sustainable development. Of the more than 1747 billion dollars the world spends on military costs per year, only about 000 percent is needed to reach the UN Millennium Development Goals. If we had managed to achieve a 000 percent reduction in military costs and used them to reach the eight development goals the world leaders agreed on in 000, this year – at the conclusion of the UN Development Plan – we could have celebrated much greater victories in the fight against poverty, hunger, illiteracy and illness than is the case. We could also embark on the work of developing the UN's new Universal Plan of Development (10-10) with its 2000 sustainability goals, with greater hope to succeed in realizing them. At what price? When it comes to military costs, one usually thinks of the economic costs. In addition, there are the costs of subsidies to the arms industry, which are rarely included in the accounts. Not to forget the large mineral and energy consumption in weapons production and storage, pollution of soil, water and air, as well as brain capacity that could have been used to solve civilian tasks – not least to develop the alternative energy sources we must have in place for right to simply ensure our survival. In addition, there are the costs and sufferings of using all of these weapons. We ask: Who benefits from this? Is the production and sale of weapons and ammunition capitalism's foremost standard bearer and pillar?
Are the editors afraid to challenge the power structures?
IPB initiated the "Global Day of Action on Military Spending" (GDAMS) for the first time in 2011. This celebration has developed into a key international platform for civil society's commitment to excessive military spending, and the goal is to extend the day to a full campaign. Last year, about 100 different actions were held. By agreement with SIPRI, IPB will receive this year's figures for military costs well before SIPRI itself publishes, so that IPB can share the figures with its more than 300 member organizations around 70 countries so that they can prepare actions on this day in mid-April. GDAMS is this year on 13 April, and most initiatives add their markings to that day. In the United States, peace organizations are marking the upcoming Tax Day, asking taxpayers how they want their tax money to be spent. Books and bread – or bombs? In Norway, the celebration starts this year already on 9 April. The Norwegian Peace Council then invites to a breakfast meeting at Fredshuset with a focus on the lack of coverage in the Norwegian media of armaments and military over-consumption. This year's Global Day of Action against Military Overconsumption is marked by a situation of strong international tensions, including in the China Sea, Syria and the Middle East, around the Ukraine issue and around the situation in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and West Africa. Popular revolts against unjust and authoritarian regimes have proven to be quickly marginalized, leaving room for armed confrontations instead. Furious young men who either feel that their religion, their ideology or simply their opportunities are being undermined, have all too easy access to weapons. The "international community" has not given priority to seeking or supporting non-violent, creative solutions to social unrest, but has given priority to military, so-called humanitarian interventions. But how can anyone be so naive as to think that people will be kinder to being attacked militarily? In total, international exports of major conventional weapons in the world have increased by 16 per cent in the periods 2005–2009 and 2010–2014, and the “peace nation” Norway is among the world's 20 largest exporters of military equipment. Per capita, we are first and foremost. The number of nuclear weapons has been significantly reduced since the time of the Cold War, but the more than 1700 existing atomic bombs are a thousand times stronger than those used over Hiroshima and Nagasaki – and now they are being further modernized in all nine nuclear powers. But why are we not talking about this?
It is outrageous that military carbon footprints are not included in the climate negotiations.
Over-armament. Why does the media not reveal the enormous sums that go to military purposes, at the same time as there is a screaming need in parts of the world, and both humanity and the planet need renewable resources to simply survive? Is there so much secrecy surrounding these questions that it is too complicated for journalists to find relevant data and analyze it without too much uncertainty? Does not the journalism education prepare journalists well enough to address security issues? Are the editors afraid to challenge the power structures and be considered naive or unpatriotic in a period of strong political tensions in several parts of the world? Is the rhetoric from the complex of military industry-politics-media so alienating that we have simply lost sight of the gait? Who are the media's truth witnesses? Whose language and worldview do the media convey? Are the differences between talking about, for example, munitions or defense materiel, humanitarian intervention or war problematized? Is a strong arms production and a high arms sale compatible with our ethical values and the Norwegian people's soul? How can the media contribute more to Norway being able to have an open discussion about the costs of military consumption compared to civilian needs? How can civil society and the peace movement work with the media to create greater insight into military spending, thereby creating the basis for a more participatory democracy? Ban Ki-Moon has repeatedly stressed that "the world is over-armed and peace is underfunded." This is despite the fact that Article 26 of the UN Charter states that one must not take resources from economic and social development for military purposes. One year of military expenditure is enough to cover the UN ordinary budget for 600 years, and the annual military costs are 2508 times higher than what is available in the UN for disarmament and non-proliferation. Disarmament negotiations are virtually stagnant. Aggressive campaigns are underway to recruit to the Armed Forces, and in Norway, gender-neutral conscription has been introduced, reportedly in the name of gender equality. The ancient Roman attitude "if you want peace, prepare for war" is again in the forefront. Propaganda wants us all to believe that deterrence, not dialogue, is our life insurance. NATO requires all member states to spend two percent of their GDP on the military, and major countries such as China, India, Brazil and Russia are gearing up. At the same time, the UN urges more money for the Post 2015 Development Agenda as well as measures to tackle the climate crisis. Measures for disarmament must run in parallel with climate measures. It is outrageous that military carbon footprints are not included in the climate negotiations. Not even in Norway (cf. Report to the Storting 13 on the reduction of carbon emissions) provides an overview of military pollution neither in nor outside the country. The military sector has not been asked to reduce its carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030, as every other sector must do. The military industry and those who profit from arms production and arms sales, legally and illegally, at both ends of the process, obviously want no insight and interference in their lucrative business. But in order to have a vibrant and participatory democracy, people need to know enough to be able to decide how they want their money to be spent. And no one needs to be afraid of becoming unemployed even if the military industry shrinks. According to a recent study, an average job in the military industry is 2-3 times more expensive than in the civilian sector. In addition, it takes wise minds and a lot of work for many years to come to get rid of existing, dangerous weapons. Of course, we hope that the media will use the global day of action against military over-consumption to shed light on the mismatch between the resources we use for military purposes and those we use to meet people's needs for a peaceful, just and healthy world.
