THE PEACE DIVIDEND: UNWANTED BARGAIN ==================================== By Douglas Roche, Conservative MP from 1972 to 1984; Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament from 1984 to 1989; currently a Visiting Professor, University of Alberta The long struggle for economic development in the teeming areas of the world (which includes the under-class in the rich countries as well as the massive populations of the South) has constantly been impeded by the spread of militarism.1 Over four decades, East and West spent $11 trillion fighting the Cold War. Claims for money to deal with the population explosion, food crises and devastating natural disasters have constantly competed with military claims. It is not widely recognized that military expenditures rose three times faster in the developing countries than in the industrialized world over the last three decades. While the average per capita income in the South is only 6% of what it is in the North, the South buys 75% of all the arms traded every year. The South has eight times more soldiers than physicians. Of course, global military expenditures during the four decades of the Cold War were dominated by the United States and the former Soviet Union, together accounting for 60% of the world total, which peaked at $1 trillion in 1987. Even though the first years of the post-Cold War era have seen a moderate decline in world military spending, the continuing widespread proliferation of weapons, seen in dramatic terms in the Gulf War, confirms the pessimistic view that the proliferation of regional conflicts will be a characteristic of the post-Cold War era.2 The arms trade is now an even more vital component of the military-industrial complex, since new markets in the post-Cold War era must constantly be sought to provide economic strength for the arms industry. The United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency reported that the U.S. doubled its share of world arms exports from 19.3% to 37.8% between 1981 and 1991. It is now the largest arms exporter, with 60% of its sales going to developing countries. Behind the U.S. are Russia, the U.K., Germany, France and China. Canada ranks seventh on the world list. The leaders include the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, who bear a special responsibility for preserving peace and security in the world. A "peace dividend" for the world vanished before it could be seen. The United Nations has long sought to show that military expenditures have extensive economic and social consequences and are, in fact, a major obstacle to the development of a new world order. An Expert Study on the Economic and Social Consequences of the Arms Race and Military Expenditures reported: The social and cultural consequences of the arms race are visible in every country involved in it, affecting both the allocation of resources and the political atmosphere in their societies. The social effects are most deeply felt by the underprivileged, whose basic needs are not met because of the lack of adequate resources, some of which are absorbed by the arms race. Economic development and military spending compete for the same resources, and the priority governments give the military for available resources is nearly always higher than that given to human needs. Among the creative events unleashed by the end of the Cold War was the first Summit of the U.N. Security Council. Proclaiming that the end of the Cold War had raised hopes for a safer, more equitable and humane world, the leaders of the 15 nations that sit on the Security Council (including the U.S.) all recognized that peace and security today require economic and social development and environmental protection as well as arms control and disarmament. This new definition of security is the cornerstone of a new world order. The end of the Cold War has opened the possibility for new structures of peace and security, based not just on reduced military expenditure but on building economic and ecological security for the whole of humanity. But reducing military spending, as the Human Development Report 1994 points out, is only half the task. A genuine improvement in human security requires that the resources saved, the "peace dividend", be fully harnessed for human development. During 1987 to 1994, the industrial nations appear to have cumulatively saved some $810 billion, and the developing nations $125 billion, producing a sizable peace dividend of $935 billion. But it is difficult to track where these funds went. Most of the savings appear to have been committed to budget deficit reductions and non-development expenditures, rather than to social development or to environmental improvements. It is frustrating that, just as social and human agendas were pushed aside at a time of rising military budgets, they continue to be neglected even when military expenditures are being reduced. If the world is to seize this opportunity, it will have to be much more positive and precise about future peace dividends. If an annual reduction of 3% in military spending is sustained from 1995 to 2000, the peace dividend could be $460 billion. The first task must be to separate this dividend as an item in national budget accounts _ otherwise, it will disappear quietly, frustrating all efforts to track it down. If this had been done earlier, the public probably would have been more vociferous about its destination. Although the peace dividend is a bargain for humanity _ the greatest bargain of the 20th century _ it is not understood and hence appears to be unwanted. The peace dividend opens a window of opportunity for both rich and poor nations. For the rich nations, it is a chance to direct more resources to their lengthening social agenda_drug addiction, urban violence, pollution, hopelessness and strained social services_and to assisting poorer countries. For the developing countries, it is a chance to invest more in the health and education of their people. With the end of the Cold War, the prospect of a new world order has tantalized politicians and the media. But world order now seems discredited and will remain elusive until the political process faces up to the enormity of the disparities throughout the world compounded by the maintenance of a security system that relies on war rather than peacemaking. SOURCE: An address to the Canadian Economics Association, University of Calgary, June 10, 1994. Cited in Press for Conversion!, Issue # 18, Summer 1994. ----------------------------------------- Press for Conversion! is published by the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT), 489 Metcalfe St., Ottawa ON K1S 3N7 Tel. (613) 231-3076 Fax: (613) 231-2614 Email: ad207@freenet.carleton.ca ------------------------------------------