Saying NO to militarism and war

Militarism is: 'military spirit, pursuit of military ideas; domination by the military in the formulation of policies, ideals, etc especially on a political level; a policy of maintaining a strong military organisation in aggressive preparedness for war.' Collins English Dictionary (1996, 2nd edition).

Militarism is an extraordinarily harmful ideology and is so prevalent it often goes unchallenged. Militarism is the theory, militarisation and war are the practice - the inevitable outcomes of militarism. The costs of militarism and war around the world are totally unacceptable.

rainbow bar

The costs of militarism and war

Global military spending in 2004 was more than (US) $1,035,000,000,000 - that is equivalent to more than (US) $2.8 billion every day.

The level of official aid to developing countries globally was (US) $78.6 billion - less than 8% of global military expenditure.

Every dollar that is spent by the military, is a dollar taken from taxpayers. It is a dollar which could be used to promote life, not death.

To provide clean water for 2.6 billion people and save an estimated 4,000 lives each day would cost just US$7 billion - less than three days of global military expenditure.

Around twenty five days of global military expenditure is all it would take to meet the additional cost of providing access to adequate food, clean water and safe sewers, basic health care, reproductive health care for women, and basic education for everyone around the world.

Unfortunately, financial impoverishment is not the only cost of militarism and war. In war, the other costs are obvious: physical and psychological injury, loss of life and human potential, destruction and toxic pollution of the environment, and the lethal legacy of weapons (such as landmines, unexploded bombs and shells, depleted uranium ammunition) which go on killing for years after a war has ended.

In peacetime military forces consume vast amounts of non-renewable resources, both fuel and the metals which are used to make weapons and machines for the sole purpose of blowing them up. Scientific knowledge and some of our best human resources are wasted on researching and developing new ways to kill and maim. The physical environment is destroyed by military training, and toxic wastes from weapons production and the operation of military equipment and machinery. Every stage of the production of nuclear weapons causes sickness and death as well as radioactive contamination of the environment: from uranium mining, re-processing of radioactive materials, manufacturing of the nuclear warheads, to the ultimate insanity - nuclear bomb testing. Most uranium mining and all nuclear weapons testing has taken place on land stolen from indigenous or minority peoples - their homelands and food gathering areas have been turned into radioactive wastelands.

Militarisation always results in an increase in the overall level of violence, prostitution, social dislocation, the destruction of local economies, and poverty in whichever society it occurs. Militarism, the way of thinking which says ‘might is right’, actively prevents the exploration of peaceful means of resolving conflict. The resources put into peaceful resolution of conflict are a miniscule fraction of those put into armed forces around the world.

Women are disproportionately harmed by militarism and war. In war, women are raped and forced into sexual slavery as a deliberate tactic; ‘domestic’ violence increases dramatically in war zones. Around 80% of all refugees are women, and their children, fleeing armed conflict. In peacetime, women are disproportionately affected by the loss of social services as resources are diverted to armed forces.

The human spirit and enjoyment of life is damaged by militarism and the unhealthy belief that violence can ever solve anything, as Dora Russell so aptly said "it murders the generous impulses of the heart". Military preparedness does not enhance human security in any way. Instead, it endangers us all.

The global arms trade

In 2003, there were 19 major armed conflicts. There have been more than 170 wars since 1945 resulting in the deaths 45 million people, and the maiming of countless others. Approximately 90% of those killed in armed conflict in recent years have been civilians. These deaths and injuries are directly attributable to the international trade in weapons.

Weapons sales by the top 100 companies in 2003, excluding those in China, totaled (US) $236,000,000,000.

Who benefits from militarism and war ?

The primary beneficiaries of militarism and war are the arms dealers (operating ‘legally’ or illicitly) and the corporations which manufacture weapons. The profits of the five biggest weapons manufacturers in 2003 (in US $) were : Lockheed Martin, USA - $24,910,000,000; Boeing, USA - $24,370,000,000; Northrop Grumman, USA - $22,720,000,000; BAE Systems, Britain – $15,760,000,000; and Raytheon, USA - $15,450,000,000.

These obscene profits were assisted by Pentagon Prime Contract Awards (US government contracts, PPCA figures do not include contracts where the corporation is a subcontractor). Corporate welfare by way of PPCA to the three biggest US weapons producers in the 2003 US fiscal year was: (US) $21.9 billion to Lockheed Martin; (US) $17.3 billion to Boeing; (US) $11.1 billion to Northrop Grumman. The Pentagon prime contracts awarded just to Lockheed Martin and Boeing amount to (NZ) $14.5 billion more than total NZ government expenditure for the current financial year.

The secondary beneficiaries are those politicians who use violence, intimidation and fear for their short term political aims and moment of glory; and those governments who believe their national interests must be protected by killing others. Sometimes these people are of course the same people who profit from the arms trade.

Rooum with a view, ă Donald Rooum / Peace News March-May 2000, used with permission.

Globalisation and the arms trade

The 1999 United Nations Human Development Report stated that threats to human security are being exacerbated by globalisation. In part this is because of the intimate linkage between the arms manufacturers and other transnational corporations (TNCs) - weapons are a highly profitable business as already noted. As well, the imposition of the International Monetary Fund's Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) has required, in many countries, the use of physical force by agents of the state which has fuelled the purchase of small arms and riot control hardware. At the same time, SAPs also require nations to reduce basic social services necessary for their peoples' survival.

There is direct collusion between some transnational corporations and occupying armed forces, although evidence of this is difficult to find. One documented example in recent years has been the payments of millions of dollars each year by the US owners of the Freeport mine in West Papua to the Indonesian military - Freeport itself has admitted payments of US$4.7 million in 2001; US$5.6 million in 2002, and a one-off payment of US$37 million to establish a military base camp.

The rules of the World Trade Organisation, which favour corporate rights above human rights, do not permit government subsidies to protect local industries - except those for military purposes. As but one example, the US government subsidises weapons exports via the Pentagon's Foreign Military Financing (FMF) fund - in 2003 FMF was just under (US) $6,000,000,000. The operation of the WTO ensures that military economies are favoured over civilian economies. The wealthy industrialised countries use military spending to subsidise corporations, promote regional development through defence contracts, and maintain an industrial knowledge base through weapons research and development.

How about Aotearoa / New Zealand ?

Although Aotearoa / New Zealand is comparatively un-militarised when compared with other countries around the world, militarism is a dominant pervasive ideology here too.

The military budget for the current financial year is $2,048,700,000 - which averages out to more than $5,612,876 every day. In contrast, the Disarmament Division subsumed within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has an annual budget of $2,990,000.

In recent years, armed forces recruiting advertisements have offered young people: ‘Trades training second to none’; ‘a future’; ‘a degree; and state “Some Bursary students take a degree. Smart Bursary students get sponsored through their degree, gain management skills and walk into an Officer’s job at the end of it” [their emphasis]. It is a stunning indictment on our society that our children’s futures, their chance of trades training, and the opportunity to gain a degree without incurring crippling student debt can only be achieved by learning to kill - such is the insidious power of militarism.

There has never been an open public debate about why we even have a ‘defence force’. Given the lack of any identifiable enemy with the military capability to invade, it is bizarre that we continue to pour resources into the armed forces.

The current government believes that we need a ‘defence force’ for peacekeeping - for example, in East Timor, and a certain amount is included in the military budget for 'peacekeeping' each year. But this disguises the actual cost, that is, the full military budget. It also obscures the real problem. The lesson to be learnt from what happened in East Timor is not that the NZ military should be re-armed; it is rather that Indonesia should be disarmed.

Additionally, of the 188 nations in the UN, 186 have armed forces which can be called on for UN peacekeeping duties if required - it is not necessarily a role which we need to take. We could instead explore the possibility of a civilian peace building organisation. This could include a paid professional core with voluntary assistance from those in relevant professions (such as health professionals, engineers, persons trained in peaceful resolution of conflict or trauma counselling) which could offer practical assistance to conflict ridden communities to prevent the outbreak of armed conflict, and which could provide practical assistance to communities following armed conflict.

This would put us in the position of offering something unique and of constructive positive value to the global community. In addition, it would be much cheaper to maintain and operate than armed forces which are reliant on expensive non-productive military hardware.

What is Aotearoa / New Zealand’s contribution to the arms trade ?

Aotearoa / New Zealand is not a major contributor to the arms trade. Nevertheless, the armed forces are an end user of the international arms trade whenever they purchase new or used weapons or equipment. The NZ government contributes to global weapons transfers whenever it on-sells used or surplus weapons - in the past, this has tended to be 'small arms' (which, despite their innocent sounding name, are the greatest killer in armed conflict globally).

Also of great concern has been the deliberate promotion and development of the production of military equipment, weapons and missile guidance system parts, and shoot-to-kill training equipment for overseas export. These are politely referred to as ‘defence technologies’ exports.

As this graph shows, the value of these exports more than doubled from 1996 to 1998.

This is due in part to Trade NZ (the government funded export body). They set up a Defence Technologies Joint Action Group and have used taxpayer’s money to actively assist the companies involved to expand ‘defence technology’ exports. Trade NZ spent $75,000 on promoting ‘defence technologies’ in the 1997/98 financial year; $50,000 in 1998/99; and $30,000 in 1999/00.

For more information about 'defence technologies' exports, see the Network Opposed to Weapons and Related Production web page.

Who loses from militarism and war ?

We all do. Security continues to be perceived in its narrowest sense, as military security, rather than human security which comes from social justice, peace, human rights, a clean safe environment, and an economy which works for everyone. In reality, military security works against human security by diverting resources (economic, physical and social) away from meeting the needs of the people. It is not acceptable for more than (US) $2,800,000,000 every day to be spent on weapons and preparations for war - it is a Crime Against Peace (as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal). It is an obscenity.

The primary principle of the United Nations Charter is: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, and to live together in peace with one another as good neighbours. Governments and those whose wealth comes from death and destruction have turned this into a cruel joke. It’s time to stop preparing for war and start preparing for peace.

Some ways you can say NO to militarism and war

join us in saying NO to militarism and war; and YES to the kind of world you want to live in, share your vision of a better world at http://www.peace.org.nz/sayno
keep informed about militarism and war - use alternative media sources such as Peace Movement Aotearoa’s email alerts and website
put up a display in your local library or community centre or school - this could be something as simple as pinning up a copy of the A4 poster advertising Saying NO to militarism and war, or the fact sheet, or as elaborate as your imagination can devise!
have a table at your work, your school, in the local community centre, in the local shopping centre or other accessible venue where people can sign the 'Meet the needs of the people not the military!' postcards and get copies of this fact sheet.
organise a vigil or protest outside your local hospital, school, kindy, woman's refuge ... wherever a community service has been put at risk because funding has been withdrawn or is insufficient. You could point out how the service would benefit from a diversion of funds from the military budget.
write to the Editor of your local paper or the nationally distributed press either saying NO to militarism and war, or YES to your alternative vision; or phone your local radio talk back show to do the same.
lobby politicians to start choosing alternatives to militarism and war.
if you don’t have time to write letters, use resources such as the 'Meet the needs of the people not the military!' postcards - they don’t even need a stamp!

For more information or to order resources, you can contact: Say NO to War, PO Box 9314, Wellington, Aotearoa / New Zealand or email. Paper copies of this fact sheet (a slightly shorter version) are available at $1 each; ‘Meet the needs of the people not the military!’ postcards are .30c each. All orders must include payment, cheques for resources or donations should be in $NZ should be made payable to Peace Movement Aotearoa.

Figures are from the publications of: UNICEF, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs, SIPRI, World Policy Institute, International Network on Disarmament and Globalisation, WILPF Submissions, Peace Movement Aotearoa publications, NZ government statements and Hansard.

Saying NO to militarism and war is an ongoing project of Peace Movement Aotearoa and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (Aotearoa). It was launched on 17 October 2000, the international day of Saying NO to Violence Week (YWCA Week Without Violence), 15 to 22 October 2000, in Aotearoa / New Zealand.