PROJECT ON DEMlLlTARlZATlON AND DEMOCRACY

Dr. Oscar Arias Address Launching the
Year 2000 Campaign to Redirect World Military Spending
to Human Development at a
Capitol Hill Symposium on December 15, 1995

It is a profound honor to have the opportunity to address this distinguished audience. Senator Hatfield, I would like to convey the sadness I felt upon hearing that you will not seek re-election at the completion of this term. Upon your retirement, the US Senate will lose its strongest moral voice on issues of war and peace.

This week, the world's attention has focused on the long-awaited signing of the Bosnian peace accord. Today I will propose concrete measures that the international community can take to prevent future occurrences of the kind horror and genocide the world has witnessed over the last four years in Bosnia.

At the end of this month, we will reach the midpoint of the final decade of this century. We will also find ourselves halfway through the first decade of the post-Cold War era. Let us reflect on the changes brought about by this new era of world affairs, and let us also define priorities for making this planet safer and more prosperous for all by the Year 2000.

It is true that since 1987, just before the end of the Cold War, world military spending has been considerably reduced. However, it is worth pointing out that this decline in global military expenditure has occurred primarily because of less military spending by the industrialized countries, in particular those of the former Warsaw Pact. In addition, the large reductions observed immediately after the end of the Cold War have slowed considerably. Currently, military spending is decreasing annually by an average of only four percent in industrialized countries and two percent in developing countries. And, in some developing countries, military spending continues to increase. Today, the world's governments spend 868 billion dollars a year to support military forces that include 24 million soldiers worldwide. The industrialized nations account for 75 percent of this total. Approximately one third of the world's total defense spending is from the United States defense budget alone. In the developing world, 221 billion dollars are spent on the military while many of the people of those countries live in poverty, without access to education, medical attention, or even water.

As a result of the changes in global security at the end of the Cold War, many states considerably reduced the purchase of arms manufactured by their own industries. These reductions had also had a significant impact on the military industry, which has suffered substantial cutbacks in arms production, employment, and physical plant capacities in the last five or six years. This process has led to the defense industry to aggressively seek new clients. The majority of these new clients for the arms merchants have been found in the developing world, where more than forty wars rage today. The industrialized nations, in particular the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, are responsible for almost 90 percent of arms transfers to developing countries.

Long before the genocide in Rwanda captured the attention of the world, an arms race raged between government and guerrilla forces. More than a dozen countries exported arms to this small African country and both belligerent parties bought a huge quantity of light arms from governments and private companies. A report by Human Rights Watch has stated that "By its own admission, the Rwandan government bankrupted its economy to pay for those weapons." Russian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Czech and Slovak companies actively promoted arms sales in Rwanda; in addition, France, Egypt and South Africa were also significant suppliers.

In this case, as in others, the engine of the arms trade is no longer fueled by the political demands of East-West conflict. It is now driven largely by economic motives alone. This relentless marketing and sales of instruments of death and destruction are often supported by the governments of industrialized countries in the form of subsidies. Since 1991, the United States has generated an average of 15 million dollars annually in arms exports to developing countries. Government subsidies represent nearly half the financial value of all US arms exports. The political and economic power of the defense-industrial sector must be restricted. Until we regulate the arms trade, arms dealers, just like drug traffickers and the slave traders, will continue to reap benefits at the cost of the human lives.

While arms themselves are not the only cause of conflict, the unrestricted arms trade and the constant, steady supply of arms from the industrialized world has undeniably served to foment and intensify conflicts in the developing world. And when these conflicts conclude, if the arms are not seized or physically destroyed, they spread easily to other areas of violence.

The extravagant military buildup of the Cold War has left many countries depleted of resources while faced with the expensive task of demilitarization. Reduction in belligerent activities brings with it a loss of employment opportunities in the military and its associated arms industries. Depending on their respective legal systems, governments may even be liable to pay compensation for this lost income. The reduction in arms procurement and in military personnel creates the need to reeducate and retrain work forces for other sectors, and in the short term could even obligate governments to pay unemployment benefits.

Destroying or deactivating weapons and cleaning up contaminated military bases are also extremely costly processes. Equally expensive is the demobilization of soldiers, as they have to be not only demobilized, but reintegrated into civilian life.

Since the time of Adam Smith the conventional economic wisdom has been that military spending is not productive, as virtually every other kind of spending will generate more growth in the long term. However, as I have already mentioned, disarmament, too, has its costs. Yet, in the short run, we must bear the burden, it is certain that in the long run disarmament will produce enormous economic and human benefits. A recent article in The Economist described the economic recovery of California, which suffered a recession in part due to the loss of 250,000 jobs in the defense industry since 1988. However, this loss has been offset by the creation of more than half a million new jobs in the non-military sector.

Only blindness could shield us from the fact that a reduction in military spending would be beneficial to humanity. The time has come to make people more important than arms. Imagine what we could do if we redirected just a small portion of the developing world's military budget to human development. * Four percent of the developing world's annual military budget would support programs that would increase literacy levels by 50 percent, educate women to the same level as men and provide universal primary education.

* Eight percent of the developing countries' military expenditures could finance voluntary family planning packages that, according to calculations, would stabilize the world population by the year 2015.

+ Twelve percent of developing countries' annual military budgets would pay the cost of basic health care for the world's entire population. It would pay for immunizations for all children, the elimination of severe malnutrition and the provision of safe drinking water for all.

While the governments of developing countries buy over twenty-five billion dollars a year in arms, their people remain subject to the chilling reality of poverty. These people cannot participate in the development of society because they do not know how to read or write. Their health worsens because they have never had any contact with a qualified doctor. They continue to tolerate squalid living conditions because they lack access to potable water. And their children -- our children -- suffer from malnutrition and die daily from contagious diseases that could have been prevented.

My friends, we must understand that poverty is a malady that deprives our fellow human beings of their right to education, health, shelter, work and land. It robs them of the future of democracy, peace and liberty. And most of all, poverty will ultimately affect wealthier societies, bringing them devastation and discord where there was once affluence and harmony. People in industrialized nations may think themselves to be immune to the effects of poverty, but poverty is the enemy of us all, even those who now enjoy prosperity. While cutting so-called unnecessary social programs, the United States maintains a defense budget larger than that of all its potential enemies and neutral countries combined.

In this small world, we must realize that our neighbor's troubles are our own. Unfortunately, some wealthy countries do not seem to acknowledge this reality. In their dealings with the developing world, they continue to favor their geostrategic interests over the basic needs of the majority of the members of our human family. Developed nations must change the traditional criteria by which they determine aid packages to poorer nations.

Developing countries are responsible for reorienting their priorities from national security to human security: that is, security of education, security of health, security of food, security of employment, and security of the environment. Human security is a matter of human dignity. It is a child who does not die, a disease that did not spread, an ethnic tension that did not explode, a dissident who was not silenced, a human spirit that was not crushed.

It is in the interest of wealthy nations to support development efforts in poorer nations. We must all respond to the threat of global poverty that travels across borders in the form of drugs, terrorism and illegal migration.

When human security needs are not met, we foster a cycle of violence. When we allow militaries to grow in power in order to control increasingly desperate populations, we have failed to address the root causes of conflict. Too many poor countries spend their limited resources on militaries that serve only to oppress their own people. Unless we put an end to the arms trade, we will never put an end to violence.

What can, and must be done?

As an answer to this question, I am pleased to introduce the Year 2000 Campaign to Redirect World Military Spending to Human Development. The Year 2000 initiative to reduce global military spending requires a fundamental redefinition of security in today's world, a concept of security that emphasizes demilitarization, conflict resolution and sustainable human development. This new definition of security will focus on the international community's capacity to engage successfully in peacekeeping operations, threat reduction, and conflict prevention through dialogue and demilitarization. As part of the Year 2000 campaign, we propose a practical set of guidelines that the UN can implement, and that citizens in all countries can encourage their governments to adopt.

The Year 2000 Campaign proposes that:

1. The Security Council and General Assembly of the United Nations should call on all nations to commit to meetings with their neighbors. These nations would agree to identify and implement confidence-building measures and mutual reductions in military threats, thus increasing the likelihood of substantial reductions in military forces and expenditures by the year 2000.

2. Special envoys should be appointed by the U.N. Secretary General to organize these demilitarization talks in all regions of the world. These meetings would build confidence among nations and reduce the likelihood of future conflicts.

3. Every nation should meet with its regional envoy to present plans for regional security at reduced force levels. These nations would also participate in negotiations guided by the envoy, in order to identify military capacities and implement mutual force reductions. Such negotiations would reduce the threat that nations pose to each other due to the size, proximity, and technological sophistication of their armed forces.

4. With savings from reduced military spending, all nations should implement economic reforms related to demilitarization, such as the conversion of military to non-military production, landmine clearance, community reconstruction, and the reintegration of demobilized soldiers.

5. In support of the steps taken toward demilitarization by developing countries, industrialized nations should condition their aid to promote demilitarization. They could exchange debt forgiveness for military conversion efforts, as well as provide special funding for programs to assist the demobilization process, promote transparency in military affairs, and bring about the end of military involvement in the civil economy.

6. All arms-exporting nations should agree to a Code of Conduct on arms transfers that would bar arms exports to non-democratic governments, countries engaged in armed aggression in violation of international law, countries that do not fully participate in the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms, and governments permitting gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.

An initiative for such a Code has already been presented in various legislatures around the world. I wholeheartedly support the legislation introduced by Senator Mark Hatfield and Representative Cynthia McKinney in the United States Congress. In addition to supporting current efforts, I recently announced my intention to convene Nobel Peace laureates to draft an international Code of Conduct on arms transfers. We plan to present this Code of Conduct to the United Nations General Assembly in the fall of 1996.

I am also pleased to be joined by the other members of Congress who are also initial endorsers of this campaign. Congressman Dellums and Congresswoman Morella and Congresswoman Furse have long been the leaders to redirect U.S. military spending to human development. Congressman Miller worked with us Central Americans to resolve the conflicts that raged in our region in the 1980s. The Central American people will always remember your efforts to silence our guns. And I applaud Congressman Kennedy for efforts to condition lending from the Bretton Woods institutions on recipient countries' progress on demilitarization.

The Year 2000 campaign provides an opportunity for the world to reclaim a substantial peace dividend each and every year. As we approach the next millennium, is it not finally time to harvest the dividends of peace?

Friends:

The United States is a military and economic superpower. We would like to see this country use its potential to be a moral superpower. By selling arms to developing nations, this country is not a moral superpower. By coddling the arms merchants, this country is not a moral superpower. By putting profits in front of principles, this country is not a moral superpower. Instead of doing what is profitable, the United States should strive to do what is right. Because in the words of Abraham Lincoln, struggling against the fate of a nation on the brink of its most devastating war, only right makes might. We are, my friends, at the brink of another war. We can let it consume us, and succumb to our greed, or we can defy it and pursue a higher purpose for all humanity.

The millennium that awaits us will demand strength, dedication and sacrifice from our leaders. We must do more than voice disagreement or dissatisfaction; we must actively challenge the status quo. There will be powerful interests threatened by the eradication of poverty, the preservation of the environment, and the construction of a true culture of peace and democracy. To confront these interests, we need leaders of vision and courage to steer us toward a hopeful future with their creativity, sincerity and resourcefUlness. We need leaders concerned with a greater good -- who can look beyond personal good, national good, and regional good - we need leaders who can guide us toward a shared responsibility for our collective well-being.

We as a global community have not yet reached consensus on how to address our challenges together. At such an important time in human history, when the world wavers between democracy and dictatorship, prosperity and poverty, we lack direction at both the national and international levels. in order to confront the many challenges we face, we must foster and build stronger partnership among nations.

In order to achieve the goals of the Year 2000 campaign, we must fight against many powerful interests. Among the most powerful of those are ignorance and indifference. We must change our way of thinking about security, prosperity, and military prowess. No nation should be secure but in liberty, rich but in compassion, nor strong but in the sense that other nations share equal fortitude. If we make these ideas our guiding principles, they will ultimately be our saving grace.

I am encouraged by the warm reception that the Year 2000 Campaign has received from the United Nations, where I met yesterday with Rosario Green, the Assistant Secretary General. I ask those of you present here -- and other individuals and groups that advocate international peace and security -- to endorse the Year 2000 plan and join us as we encourage the United Nations, its agencies and member governments to implement the proposal.

In these last five years of this century, let us all join together to reduce military spending, redirect resources to sustainable human development, establish United Nations-administered security talks, and approve an international code of conduct on arms transfers. It is only through tackling war, militarism and weapons of destruction on all levels and from all sides that we will be able to realize our vision of a world in which extreme poverty and senseless violence are nothing but sad memories of the past.

* PROJECTS * RESOURCE LIBRARY * FORUM *