Thursday, March 31, 2016

Canada Military News: Why is United Nations in such disarray? Expensive yet our world suffers so in the real world of people? World Military Spending/Why are so many political representtitives so damm old- like serve a term or two and pass the opportunities on to younger folks imho who can save this 71 year old disaster for peace, freedom, equality for all ...pls. God bless our troops and yours















WHERE IS CANADA ON YOUTH DELEGATES OF UNITED NATIONS???

-----------------






UNITED NATIONS- the most damming article of all – 71 years later... useless as titties on a bull..
QUOTE:
. If not for the sake of our own self-respect, for the sake of the women of South Sudan, and the unknown millions who continue to suffer because, after 71 years, the international community still hasn’t managed to make the UN work the way it should.



Why the UN fails where it matters most

Scott Gilmore on mass rape, Canada, and the desperate need for UN reform

I consider myself to be far too jaded. As a diplomat, with the United Nations, or running a charity, I have spent most of my life working in horrible places, watching horrible people do horrible things. It has made me more than a little misanthropic. I admit, my low opinion of humanity makes me very poor company three drinks in.
This being the case, I am almost never surprised by the worst of the daily news. But in spite of this cynical armour, I was unprepared for this week’s UN Human Rights Office report on South Sudan. I had to set it down after only six pages, realizing every muscle in my body was clenched with horror.
After decades of Sudanese civil war, which killed almost a quarter of the population, South Sudan gained independence not quite five years ago, making it the world’s newest nation. In 2013, a political power struggle within the nascent government broke down into bloody communal and ethnic fighting that has left more than 100,000 dead and two million displaced.
Related from The Canadian Press: Justin Trudeau announces Canadian bid for seat on UN’s Security Council
The atrocities being committed by both sides are difficult to describe. The elderly have been burned alive in mosques and churches. Children have been enslaved and killed, often in the most gruesome ways. Women, in particular, have been targeted by deliberate campaigns of rape and murder. One witness explained, “If you looked young or good looking, about 10 men would rape the woman; the older women were raped by about seven to nine men.” The UN has documented gang rapes of girls as young as nine. And perhaps one of the most disturbing revelations is that soldiers were being rewarded with women and girls in lieu of wages.
I wish I could say that these war crimes are uniquely horrible. But the only thing new is our ability to quickly and accurately document and verify the carnage. Yet most people still do not realize that mass rape is one of mankind’s most chronic and pandemic afflictions.
Archaeological and genetic evidence shows that primitive tribes everywhere, including in Europe and North America, used sexual assault as a weapon of conquest. Cicero, explaining the traditions of war, was careful to include women among the property that can be lawfully seized and destroyed. As the Mongolian Empire rode across the steppes, it raped so many that now 1 in 200 men in the world are directly descended from Genghis Khan himself.
The modern era has been no less savage. During the Rape of Nanking, Japanese soldiers went door to door, sexually assaulting every woman found, before killing them. Even paying soldiers with rape is not new. There are documented cases of the Soviet military allowing its soldiers to rape and pillage as a form of R&R. Just 20 years ago Serbian soldiers set up “rape camps,” where Muslim women were only released once pregnant.
Remarkably, it was not until 1993 that the international community began to even recognize sexual assault as a war crime. The first person in history to be convicted of rape as a crime against humanity was only 15 years ago. But UN efforts to proscribe sexual violence have finally begun to gather speed. The Security Council has passed more than one resolution aimed at preventing sexual violence in conflict, there is a new UN agency focused on the issue, and (among his few successes) Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has raised awareness of the scope of the problem.
Canada has also made some laudable efforts in recent years (although Global Affairs does a typically poor job bringing attention to this work). Following the Security Council resolutions, Canada established a detailed action plan for its diplomats, aid workers, soldiers, and police officers to protect women in conflict. Uncharacteristically, the plan even included indicators of success, something usually avoided, lest these be used to hold them accountable later on. This may be why the dense annual updates reveal genuine progress.
Sadly, none of this is going to help the girls and women in South Sudan. This report is proof enough that the resident UN peacekeeping mission is an utter failure. This mission even has the most robust Chapter VII mandate, giving it muscular powers to actively make peace, as opposed to passively keep it. But, for the most part, the best the UN can manage is to record the violence, not stop it.
The UN is an appallingly inadequate system for making the world a better place. But it is the only system we have. The Liberal government is right to re-engage, but only if they do so understanding the current reality of the UN falls far short of their Pearsonian fantasies. There is no point in joining the Security Council unless Canada is prepared to speak truth to the powers, to demand reform, and occasionally bang a shoe on the desk. If not for the sake of our own self-respect, for the sake of the women of South Sudan, and the unknown millions who continue to suffer because, after 71 years, the international community still hasn’t managed to make the UN work the way it should.
Scott Gilmore writes on international affairs and public policy. He is a member of the Conservative Party of Canada and is married to Catherine McKenna, the minister of the environment.


http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/mass-rape-canada-and-the-desperate-need-for-un-reform/

-------------
CANADA STANDS WITH ISRAEL.... and Hamas will never let Abbas and Palestine b free and the saner parts of the world know this – just watch the incessant violent creepy behaviour after all these years and their love of hate over their childrens’s education and future... DID U KNOW THAT $$$$ DONATIONS TO PALESTINE SINCE 70s... would make actual Palestine refugees each and every one a millionaire today..... WTF????

Dion questions appointment of Canadian as UN human rights advisor

Dion wants a review of the UN’s appointment of Michael Lynk as its Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine

Minister of Foreign Affairs Stephane Dion delivers a statement as he is joined by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, right to left, Minister of International Development and La Francophonie Marie-Claude Bibeau and Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan during a press conference at the National Press Theatre in Ottawa on Monday, Feb. 8, 2016. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick
OTTAWA – Canada’s foreign affairs minister is questioning the appointment of a Canadian law professor to a key United Nations job.
Stephane Dion is calling on the UN Human Rights Council to review the appointment of Western University law professor Michael Lynk as its Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine.
Dion made his call in a tweet on Friday.
The message follows criticism by Jewish groups and the opposition who accused Lynk of having a long-held and public bias against Israel.
The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs issued a statement Thursday condemning Lynk’s appointment, and Conservative MP Tony Clement echoed the group’s sentiments.
Dion did not elaborate on Twitter, but the minister’s office said he is concerned about past statements Lynk has made, noting that the Ontario professor would have applied on his own to be a UN Special Rapporteur.
“They are not nominated by their states and anyone can apply directly to the UN; this candidate was not put forward by Canada and does not represent the views of this government,” Dion’s office said in an emailed statement.
The statement also said Canada’s UN ambassador made it clear the human rights council should appoint a “professional, neutral and credible” candidate.
Lynk did not immediately respond to an email about Dion’s concerns.
He said on Thursday that he was aware of the controversy around his appointment but contended that his writings and views were being misrepresented.
The professor declined further comment but said he would speak further once he had the chance to confer with the UN over the details of his new position.
Lynk said he was delighted to be chosen for the role and would carry out his responsibilities impartially and in keeping with international law.
Clement called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to apply pressure against Lynk’s selection by the president of the UN Human Rights Council.
He said in a statement that Lynk has called for the prosecution of Israel for war crimes.
The UN’s website says a special rapporteur’s job is to examine and report back on the human rights situation in a specific country or a specific human rights theme. The position is honorary and the appointees are not paid or UN staff.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/dion-questions-canadian-appointment-as-un-human-rights-advisor/








  UNITED NATIONS-  Youth Delegate Guide..

www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/documents/delegate-guide.pdf
the inclusion of youth delegates in United Nations meetings and conferences. ...... please visit the. Norwegian Children and Youth Council at www.lnu.no ...

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/documents/delegate-guide.pdf
■ BACKGROUND 1 ■ WHY YOUTH DELEGATES? 5 ■ THE ROLE OF A YOUTH DELEGATE 7 ■ YOUTH DELEGATES AT THE UNITED NATIONS 9 ■ The General Assembly 9 ■ The Commission for Social Development (CSocD) 10 ■ The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) 11 ■ THE SELECTION PROCESS 13 ■ Before the intergovernmental Meetings 17 ■ Preparations 17 ■ Visa process 18 ■ WHEN RETURNING HOME 21 ■ COUNTRY PROFILES 23 ■ Australia 24 ■ Germany 27 ■ Netherlands 31 ■ Norway 34 ■ Romania 36 ■ Sweden 38 ■ Switzerland 41 ■ Thailand 44 ■ FURTHER INFORMATION 47
---------

U.N. Budget: Would You Believe $13.9 Billion? | Fox News

www.foxnews.com
Sep 17, 2009 ... That is hike of some $968 million over the spending during the previous ... Instead, theU.N. spent $12.97 billion — $2.5 billion, or nearly 24 percent, more than ... spirally annual cost of U.N.peacekeeping operations — which will amount to .... Ranking the Homes of NFL Pros Mansion Global by Dow Jones.
-----------------


US ALONE-

The Cost to End World Hunger

Cost to End World Hunger

The cost to end world hunger…

— $30 billion per year is needed to end world hunger
— $737 billion per year is the amount Congress spends on Defense


-------------

World Military Spending — Global Issues

www.globalissues.org
Jul 20, 1998 ... Global military expenditure stands at over $1.7 trillion in annual expenditure ... The globalfinancial and economic crisis resulted in manynations cutting .... Yet, the UN's entire budget is just a tiny fraction of the world's military ..
-------------

US Taxpayers Will Continue to Pay More Than One-Fifth of UN Budget

cnsnews.com/news/article/us-taxpayers-will-continue-pay-more-one-fifth-un-budget
Dec 28, 2012 ... The assembly also approved a two-year U.N. budget of $5.4 billion. ... next three years will apply to more than 30 of the world's poorest countries. ... No other country pays as much as two percent, and most pay below one percent. .... to fund defense and other proper spending, then impeach Obama and go ...

--------

70 years and half a trillion dollars later: what has the UN achieved ...

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/what-has-the-un-achieved-united-nations
Sep 7, 2015 ... How much of a part the UN played in holding nuclear armageddon at bay divides historians. ... Even accounting for inflation, annual UN expenditure is 40 times ..... India, the world's second most populous nation, is pushing for ...

------------
---------------

World War II
1945
The United Nations is born
On this day in 1945, the United Nations Charter, which was adopted and signed on June 26, 1945, is now effective and ready to be enforced.
The United Nations was born of perceived necessity, as a means of better arbitrating international conflict and negotiating peace than was provided for by the old League of Nations. The growing Second World War became the real impetus for the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union to begin formulating the original U.N. Declaration, signed by 26 nations in January 1942, as a formal act of opposition to Germany, Italy, and Japan, the Axis Powers.
The principles of the U.N. Charter were first formulated at the San Francisco Conference, which convened on April 25, 1945. It was presided over by President Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin, and attended by representatives of 50 nations, including 9 continental European states, 21 North, Central, and South American republics, 7 Middle Eastern states, 5 British Commonwealth nations, 2 Soviet republics (in addition to the USSR itself), 2 East Asian nations, and 3 African states. The conference laid out a structure for a new international organization that was to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,…to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights,…to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”
Two other important objectives described in the Charter were respecting the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples (originally directed at smaller nations now vulnerable to being swallowed up by the Communist behemoths emerging from the war) and international cooperation in solving economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems around the world.
Now that the war was over, negotiating and maintaining the peace was the practical responsibility of the new U.N. Security Council, made up of the United States, Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and China. Each would have veto power over the other. Winston Churchill called for the United Nations to employ its charter in the service of creating a new, united Europe-united in its opposition to communist expansion-East and West. Given the composition of the Security Council, this would prove easier said than done.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-united-nations-is-born
----------- 







-----------
General Interest
1945
U.N. formally established
Less than two months after the end of World War II, the United Nations is formally established with the ratification of the United Nations Charter by the five permanent members of the Security Council and a majority of other signatories.
Despite the failure of the League of Nations in arbitrating the conflicts that led up to World War II, the Allies as early as 1941 proposed establishing a new international body to maintain peace in the postwar world. The idea of the United Nations began to be articulated in August 1941, when U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter, which proposed a set of principles for international collaboration in maintaining peace and security. Later that year, Roosevelt coined “United Nations” to describe the nations allied against the Axis powers—Germany, Italy, and Japan. The term was first officially used on January 1, 1942, when representatives of 26 Allied nations met in Washington, D.C., and signed the Declaration by the United Nations, which endorsed the Atlantic Charter and presented the united war aims of the Allies.
In October 1943, the major Allied powers–Great Britain, the United States, the USSR, and China—met in Moscow and issued the Moscow Declaration, which officially stated the need for an international organization to replace the League of Nations. That goal was reaffirmed at the Allied conference in Tehran in December 1943, and in August 1944 Great Britain, the United States, the USSR, and China met at the Dumbarton Oaks estate in Washington, D.C., to lay the groundwork for the United Nations. During seven weeks, the delegates sketched out the form of the world body but often disagreed over issues of membership and voting. Compromise was reached by the “Big Three”—the United States, Britain, and the USSR—at the Yalta Conference in February 1945, and all countries that had adhered to the 1942 Declaration by the United Nations were invited to the United Nations founding conference.
On April 25, 1945, the United Nations Conference on International Organization convened in San Francisco with 50 nations represented. Three months later, during which time Germany had surrendered, the final Charter of the United Nations was unanimously adopted and signed by the delegates. The Charter called for the U.N. to maintain international peace and security, promote social progress and better standards of life, strengthen international law, and promote the expansion of human rights.
On October 24, 1945, the U.N. Charter came into force upon its ratification by the five permanent members of the Security Council and a majority of other signatories. The first U.N. General Assembly, with 51 nations represented, opened in London on January 10, 1946. On October 24, 1949, exactly four years after the United Nations Charter went into effect, the cornerstone was laid for the present United Nations headquarters, located in New York City. Since 1945, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded five times to the United Nations and its organizations and five times to individual U.N. officials.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-n-formally-established
---- 








Canada Second  Boer War
-----------

World Military Spending

Author And Page Information

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
— James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

World Military Spending

Global military expenditure stands at over $1.7 trillion in annual expenditure at current prices for 2012. It fell by around half a percent compared to 2011 — the first fall since 1998.
After a decline following the end of the Cold War, military spending increasd, only slightly falling in 2012
(1991 figures are unavailable. Chart uses 2011 constant prices for comparison.)
  • World military expenditure in 2012 is estimated to have reached $1.756 trillion;
  • This is a 0.4 per cent decrease in real terms than in 2011 — the first fall since 1998;
  • The total is still higher than in any year between the end of World War II and 2010;
  • This corresponds to 2.5 per cent of world gross domestic product (GDP), or approximately $249 for each person in the world;
The USA with its massive spending budget, has long been the principal determinant of the current world trend, often accounting for close to half of all the world’s military expenditure. The effects of global financial crisis and the post-Iraq/Afghanistan military operations have seen a decline in its spending, now accounting for 39% of spending in 2012.
SIPRI has commented in the past on the increasing concentration of military expenditure, i.e. that a small number of countries spend the largest sums. This trend carries on into 2012 spending. For example,
  • The 15 countries with the highest spending account for over 81% of the total;
  • The USA is responsible for 39 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the China (9.5% of world share), Russia (5.2%), UK (3.5%) and Japan (3.4%)
Military spending is concentrated in North America, Europe, and increasingly, Asia:
But as recent figures have shown, there is a shift in expenditure — from austerity-hit Western Europe and reduced spending by the US, to increased spending in Eastern Europe and Asia.
Back to top

Increased Spending Before And Even During Global Economic Crisis

The global financial and economic crisis resulted in many nations cutting back on all sorts of public spending, and yet military spending continued to increase. Only in 2012 was a fall in world military expenditure noted — and it was a small fall. How would continued spending be justified in such an era?
Before the crisis hit, many nations were enjoying either high economic growth or far easier access to credit without any knowledge of what was to come.
A combination of factors explained increased military spending in recent years before the economic crisis as earlier SIPRI reports had also noted, for example:
  • Foreign policy objectives
  • Real or perceived threats
  • Armed conflict and policies to contribute to multilateral peacekeeping operations
  • Availability of economic resources
The last point refers to rapidly developing nations like China and India that have seen their economies boom in recent years. In addition, high and rising world market prices for minerals and fossil fuels (at least until recently) have also enabled some nations to spend more on their militaries.
China, for the first time, ranked number 2 in spending in 2008.
But even in the aftermath of the financial crisis amidst cries for government cut backs, military spending appeared to have been spared. For example,
The USA led the rise [in military spending], but it was not alone. Of those countries for which data was available, 65% increased their military spending in real terms in 2009. The increase was particularly pronounced among larger economies, both developing and developed: 16 of the 19 states in the G20 saw real-terms increases in military spending in 2009.
— Sam Perlo-Freeman, Olawale Ismail and Carina Solmirano, Military Expenditure PDF formatted document, Chapter 5, SPIRI Yearbook, June 2010, p.1
For many in Western Europe or USA at the height of the financial crisis, it may have been easy to forget the “global” financial crisis, was primarily a Western financial crisis (albeit with global reverberations). So this helps explains partly why military spending did not fall as immediately as one might otherwise think. As SIPRI explains:
  • Some nations like China and India have not experienced a downturn, but instead enjoyed economic growth
  • Most developed (and some larger developing) countries have boosted public spending to tackle the recession using large economic stimulus packages. Military spending, though not a large part of it, has been part of that general public expenditure attention (some also call this “Military Keynesianism”
  • Geopolitics and strategic interests are still factors to project or maintain power: “rising military spending for the USA, as the only superpower, and for other major or intermediate powers, such as Brazil, China, Russia and India, appears to represent a strategic choice in their long-term quest for global and regional influence; one that they may be loath to go without, even in hard economic times”,SIPRI adds.
For USA’s 2012 military expenditure, for example, although there is fall, it is primarily related to war-spending (Iraq and Afghanistan operations primarily). But the baseline defense budget, by comparison, is largely similar to other years (marking a reduction in the rate of increased spending).
By contrast, “when it comes to smaller countries — with no such power ambitions and, more importantly, lacking the resources and credit-worthiness to sustain such large budget deficits — many have cut back their military spending in 2009, especially in Central and Eastern Europe.” (Perlo-Freeman, Ismail and Solmirano, pp.1 – 2)
Natural resources have also driven military spending and arms imports in the developing world. The increase in oil prices means more for oil exporting nations.
The “natural resource curse” has long been recognized as a phenomenon whereby nations, despite abundant rich resources, find themselves in conflict and tension due to the power struggles that those resources bring (internal and external influences are all part of this).
In their earlier 2006 report SIPRI noted that, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Russia and Saudi Arabia have been able to increase spending because of increased oil and gas revenues, while Chile and Peru’s increases are resource-driven, “because their military spending is linked by law to profits from the exploitation of key natural resources.”
Also, “China and India, the world’s two emerging economic powers, are demonstrating a sustained increase in their military expenditure and contribute to the growth in world military spending. In absolute terms their current spending is only a fraction of the USA’s. Their increases are largely commensurate with their economic growth.”
The military expenditure database from SIPRI also shows that while percentageincreases over the previous decade may be large for some nations, their overall spending amounts may be varied.
US spending has increased the most in dollars, while China’s has increased the most in percentage terms
(See also this summary of recent trends, also from SIPRI. The latest figures SIPRI uses are from 2012, and where necessary (e.g. China and Russia), include estimates.)
Back to top

Spending For Peace Vs Spending For War

In a similar report from 2004, the SIPRI authors also noted that, “There is a large gap between what countries are prepared to allocate for military means to provide security and maintain their global and regional power status, on the one hand, and to alleviate poverty and promote economic development, on the other.”
Indeed, compare the military spending with the entire budget of the United Nations:
The United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend about $30 billion each year, or about $4 for each of the world’s inhabitants. This is a very small sum compared to most government budgets and it is less than three percent of the world’s military spending. Yet for nearly two decades, the UN has faced financial difficulties and it has been forced to cut back on important programs in all areas, even as new mandates have arisen. Many member states have not paid their full dues and have cut their donations to the UN’s voluntary funds. As of December 31, 2010, members’ arrears to the Regular Budget topped $348 million, of which the US owed 80%.
— UN Financial Crisis, Global Policy Forum (last accessed June 30, 2012)
The UN was created after World War II with leading efforts by the United States and key allies.
At the current level of spending, it would take just a handful of years for the world’s donor countries to cover their entire aid shortfall, of over $4 trillion in promised official aid since 1970, 40 years ago.
Unfortunately, however, as the BBC notes, poverty fuels violence and defense spending has a tendency to rise during times of economic hardship. The global financial crisis is potentially ushering in enormous economic hardship around the world.
At a time when a deep economic recession is causing much turbulence in the civilian world … defense giants such as Boeing and EADS, or Finmeccanica and Northrop Grumman, are enjoying a reliable and growing revenue stream from countries eager to increase their military might.
Both geopolitical hostilities and domestic violence tend to flare up during downturns.
…
Shareholders and employees in the aerospace and defense industry are clearly the ones who benefit most from growing defense spending.
Defense companies, whose main task is to aid governments’ efforts to defend or acquire territory, routinely highlight their capacity to contribute to economic growth and to provide employment.
Indeed, some $2.4 trillion (£1.5tr), or 4.4%, of the global economy “is dependent on violence”, according to the Global Peace Index, referring to “industries that create or manage violence” — or the defense industry.
…
Military might delivers geopolitical supremacy, but peace delivers economic prosperity and stability.
And that, the report insists, is what is good for business.
— Jorn Madslien, The purchasing power of peace, BBC, June 3, 2009
The Global Peace Index that the BBC is referring to is an attempt to quantify the difficult-to-define value of peace and rank countries based on over 20 indicators using both quantitative data and qualitative scores from a range of sources. Here is a summary chart from their latest report:

Global Peace Index 2013 attempts to rank nations on various indicators of peace. Most countries are not considered peaceful, unfortunately.
Their introductory video also notes that peace isn’t just the absence of weapons; it is the result of an approach to development in general:
The 2013 Global Peace Index (GPI) shows that the world has become less peaceful2013 Global Peace Index Findings, Vision of Humanity, June 2013
(The top ranking nations on the global peace index were, Iceland, Denmark, New Zealand, Austria, Switzerland, Japan, Finland, Canada, Sweden and Belgium. It is worth looking at the report for the full list of indicators used, which cover a mixture of internal and external factors, weighted in various ways.)
Back to top

US Military Spending

The United States has unquestionably been the most formidable military power in recent years. Its spending levels, as noted earlier, is the principle determinant of world military spending and is therefore worth looking at further.
Generally, US military spending has been on the rise. Recent increases are attributed to the so-called War on Terror and the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, but it had also been rising before that.
For example, Christopher Hellman, an expert on military budget analysis notes in The Runaway Military Budget: An Analysis PDF formatted document, (Friends Committee on National Legislation, March 2006, no. 705, p. 3) that military spending had been rising since at least 1998, if not earlier.
The US Department of Defense provides a breakdown of military spending since 2001:

Overall Spending

2001 military spending was $316bn. 2013’s is approximately $615bn. The peak was 2010 at $691bn
The decline seen in later years was initially mostly due to Iraq war reduction and redeployment to Afghanistan, followed by an attempt to scale down Afghanistan operations, too. The baseline budget, however, showed continued increase until only recently, albeit at a seemingly lower rate. In addition, the effects of the global financial crisis has started to be felt now.
Why are the numbers quoted above for US spending so much higher than what has been announced as the budget for the Department of Defense?
Unfortunately, the budget numbers can be a bit confusing. For example, the Fiscal Year budget requests for US military spending do not include combat figures (which are supplemental requests that Congress approves separately). The budget for nuclear weapons falls under the Department of Energy, and for the 2010 request, was about $25 billion.
The cost of war (Iraq and Afghanistan) has been very significant during George Bush’s presidency. Christopher Hellman and Travis Sharp also discuss the US fiscal year 2009 Pentagon spending request and note that “Congress has already approved nearly $700 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and an additional $126 billion in FY'08 war funding is still pending before the House and Senate.”
Furthermore, other costs such as care for veterans, health care, military training/aid, secret operations, may fall under other departments or be counted separately.
The frustration of confusing numbers seemed to hit a raw nerve for the Center for Defense Information, concluding
The articles that newspapers all over the country publish today will be filled with [military spending] numbers to the first decimal point; they will seem precise. Few of them will be accurate; many will be incomplete, some will be both. Worse, few of us will be able to tell what numbers are too high, which are too low, and which are so riddled with gimmicks to make them lose real meaning.
— Winslow T. Wheeler, What Do the Pentagon’s Numbers Really Mean? The Chaos in America’s Vast Security Budget, Center for Defense Information, February 4, 2008
Nonetheless, compared to the rest of the world, these numbers have long been described as “staggering.”
Back to top

In Context: US Military Spending Versus Rest Of The World

Using the SIPRI military expenditure database we see the breakdown described earlier:

As A Pie Chart

The US alone accounts for over two-fifths (or just under half) of the world’s spending:
Commenting on the earlier data, Chris Hellman, noted that when adjusted for inflation the request for 2007 together with that needed for nuclear weapons the 2007 spending request exceeds the average amount spent by the Pentagon during the Cold War, for a military that is one-third smaller than it was just over a decade ago. PDF formatted document
Generally, compared to Cold War levels, the amount of military spending and expenditure in most nations has been reduced. For example, global military spending declined from $1.2 trillion in 1985 to $809 billion in 1998, though since 2005 has risen to over $1 trillion again. The United States’ spending, up to 2009 requests may have be reduced compared to the Cold War era but is still close to Cold War levels.
Back to top

In Context: US Military Budget Vs. Other US Priorities

Supporters of America’s high military expenditure often argue that using raw dollars is not a fair measure, but that instead it should be per capita or as percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and even then the spending numbers miss out the fact that US provides global stability with its high spending and allows other nations to avoid such high spending.
Although some of the issues discussed here are about US spending, they are also relevant to a number of other nations.

Should Spending Be Tied To GDP?

Chris Hellman argues that GDP is not an appropriate way to measure necessary US military budget allocation:
Linking military spending to the GDP is an argument frequently made by supporters of higher military budgets. Comparing military spending (or any other spending for that matter) to the GDP tells you how large a burden such spending puts on the US economy, but it tells you nothing about the burden a $440 billion military budget puts on U.S. taxpayers. Our economy may be able to bear higher military spending, but the question today is whether current military spending levels are necessary and whether these funds are going towards the proper priorities. Further, such comparisons are only made when the economy is healthy. It is unlikely that those arguing that military spending should be a certain portion of GDP would continue to make this case if the economy suddenly weakened, thus requiring dramatic cuts in the military.
— Chris Hellman, The Runaway Military Budget: An Analysis PDF formatted document, Friends Committee on National Legislation, March 2006, no. 705, p. 3
Since Hellman wrote the above, there has of course been the global financial crisis, that started from the US and has spread. Hellman might be surprised to find that even in such times, there are still serious proposals for pegging military spending to GDP. In recent months some senators and representatives have introduced proposals and bills calling for 4% of GDP to be guaranteed as the military budget (not including “supplementals” for war).
As Travis Sharp summarizes, critics of tying the US military budget to 4% of GDP fail in 3 ways:
  1. It would add $1.4 trillion to $1.7 trillion to deficits over the next decade and provide more defense funding than is forecast to be necessary;
  2. It would determine budgets using rigid formulas instead of realistic threat-based analysis, which would allow procurement to drive strategy rather than the other way around; and
  3. It is politically unviable in the economic and budgetary environment faced by the United States.
Sharp also adds that when the war supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan are considered, the US budget is already over the 4% mark. The other concerns is that tying it to GDP eases the debate that would otherwise occur on the issue:
GDP is an important metric for determining how much the United Statescould afford to spend on defense, but it provides no insight into how much the United States should spend. Defense planning is a matter of matching limited resources to achieve carefully scrutinized and prioritized objectives. When there are more threats, a nation spends more. When there are fewer threats, it spends less. As threats evolve, funding should evolve along with them.…
Unfortunately, setting defense spending at four percent of GDP would shield the Pentagon from careful scrutiny and curtail a much-needed transparent national debate.
— Travis Sharp, Debate: Four Percent of Gross Domestic Product for Defense?, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, February 26, 2009 (Emphasis added)
(See also the Tying U.S. Defense Spending to GDP: Bad Logic, Bad Policy, (April 15, 2008) from Travis Sharp for additional details.)
With the change in presidency from George Bush to Barack Obama, the US has signaled a desire to reform future spending and already indicated significant changes for the FY 2010 defense budget. For example, the US has indicated that it will cut some high-tech weapons that are deemed as unnecessary or wasteful, and spend more on troops and reform contracting practices and improve support for personnel, families and veterans.
There is predictable opposition from some quarters arguing it will threaten jobs and weaken national security, even though spending has been far more than necessary for over a decade. The Friends Committee on National Legislation argues that the job loss from decreased military spending argument is weak: “It is true that discontinuing weapons systems will cause job loss in the short term, but unnecessary weapons manufacturing should not be considered a jobs program (that would be like spending billions of dollars digging holes), and research shows that these jobs can be successfully transferred to other sectors.” In other words, this is unnecessary and wasted labor (as well as wasted capital and wasted resources).
Furthermore, rather than creating/sustaining jobs, some research suggests thatincreased military spending leads to job losses .
And well into 2010, SIPRI comments on the sustained high US military spending despite Obama’s suggestion otherwise:
How is it that US military spending, already far exceeding that of any other country and at record real-terms levels since World War II, is continuing to increase in the face of a dire economic crisis and a president committed to a more multilateral foreign policy approach?
One factor remains the conflict in Afghanistan, to which Obama is committed and where the US troop presence is increasing, even as the conflict in Iraq winds down.
Another is that reducing the military budget can be like turning round the proverbial supertanker—weapon programs have long lead times, and may be hard to cancel. Members of the Congress may also be resistant to terminating programmes bringing jobs to their states….
However, the fact that military expenditure is continuing to increase even as other areas are cut suggests a clear strategic choice: the fundamental goal of ensuring continued US dominance across the spectrum of military capabilities, for both conventional and ‘asymmetric’ warfare, has not changed.
— Sam Perlo-Freeman, Olawale Ismail and Carina Solmirano, Military Expenditure PDF formatted document, Chapter 5, SPIRI Yearbook, June 2010, p.3 (line breaks and emphasis added)

US High Military Spending Means Others Do Not Have To?

Some argue that high US military spending allows other nations to spend less. But this view seems to change the order of historical events:
  • During the Cold War, high spending was common around the world.
  • High spending was reduced by allies such as various European and Asian countries as the Cold War ended (almost 2 decades ago) not because other nations felt they would be protected by the US — a dangerous foreign policy choice by any sovereign nation to rely so much on others in this way — but because they perceived any global threat from the Cold War had diminished and simply didn’t need such high spending any more; globalization of trade was supposed to be ushered in and lead to a new era.
  • It was only the US as the remaining global super power that maintained a high budget. Many argue this was to strengthen its position as sole super power and that its “military industrial complex” was able to convince their public to maintain it.
Past empires have throughout history have justified their position as being good for the world. The US is no exception.
However, whether this global hegemony and stability actually means positive stability, peace and prosperity for the entire world (or most of it) is subjective. That is, certainly the hegemony at the time, and its allies would benefit from the stability, relative peace and prosperity for themselves, but often ignored in this is whether the policies pursued for their advantages breeds contempt elsewhere.
As the global peace index chart shown earlier reveals, massive military spending has not led to a much global peace.
As noted in other parts of this site, unfortunately more powerful countries have also pursued policies that have contributed to more poverty, and at times even overthrown fledgling democracies in favor of dictatorships or more malleable democracies. (Osama Bin Laden, for example, was part of an enormous Islamic militancy encouraged and trained by the US to help fight the Soviet Union. Of course, these extremists are all too happy to take credit for fighting off the Soviets in Afghanistan, never acknowledging that it would have been impossible without their so-called “great satan” friend-turned-enemy!)
So the global good hegemon theory may help justify high spending and even stability for a number of other countries, but it does not necessarily apply to the whole world. To be fair, this criticism can also be a bit simplistic especially if an empire finds itself against a competitor with similar ambitions, that risks polarizing the world, and answers are likely difficult to find.
But even for the large US economy, the high military spending may not be sustainable in the long term. Noting trends in military spending, SIPRI added that the massive increase in US military spending has been one of the factors contributing to the deterioration of the US economy since 2001. SIPRI continues that, “In addition to its direct impact of high military expenditure, there are also indirect and more long-term effects. According to one study taking these factors into account, the overall past and future costs until year 2016 to the USA for the war in Iraq have been estimated to $2.267 trillion.”

US Military Budget Vs. Other US Priorities

The peace lobby, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, calculates for Fiscal Year 2012 that the majority of US tax payer’s money goes towards war:

As A Pie Chart

Current military spending and cost of past wars totals 37% of what US tax dollars go towards
Furthermore, “national defense” category of federal spending is typically just over half of the United States discretionary budget (the money the President/Administration and Congress have direct control over, and must decide and act to spend each year. This is different to mandatory spending, the money that is spent in compliance with existing laws, such as social security benefits, medicare, paying the interest on the national debt and so on). For recent years here is how military, education and health budgets (the top 3) have fared:
Discretionary budgets in $ (billions) and percentages
YearTotal ($)Defense ($)Defense (%)Education ($)Education (%)Health ($)Health (%)

Sources And Notes

  • The link for each year takes you to that year’s source
  • The defense budget is only the Pentagon request each Fiscal Year. It does not include nuclear weapons programs from the Department of Energy, or funding for wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
20099975415461.96.252.75.3
2008930481.451.858.66.352.35.6
200787346052.756.86.553.16.1
2006840.5438.85258.46.9516.1
200582042151607516.2
200478239951557496.3
200376739651.6526.8496.4
For those hoping the world can decrease its military spending, SIPRI warns that “while the invasion [of Iraq] may have served as warning to other states with weapons of mass destruction, it could have the reverse effect in that some states may see an increase in arsenals as the only way to prevent a forced regime change.”
In this new era, traditional military threats to the USA are fairly remote. All of their enemies, former enemies and even allies do not pose a military threat to the United States. For a while now, critics of large military spending have pointed out that most likely forms of threat to the United States would be through terrorist actions, rather than conventional warfare, and that the spending is still geared towards Cold War-type scenarios and other such conventional confrontations.
[T]he lion’s share of this money is not spent by the Pentagon on protecting American citizens. It goes to supporting U.S. military activities, including interventions, throughout the world. Were this budget and the organization it finances called the “Military Department,” then attitudes might be quite different. Americans are willing to pay for defense, but they would probably be much less willing to spend billions of dollars if the money were labeled “Foreign Military Operations.”
— The Billions For “Defense” Jeopardize Our Safety, Center For Defense Information, March 9, 2000
And, of course, this will come from American tax payer money. Many studies and polls show that military spending is one of the last things on the minds of American people.
But it is not just the U.S. military spending. In fact, as Jan Oberg argues, western militarism often overlaps with civilian functions affecting attitudes to militarism in general. As a result, when revelations come out that some Western militaries may have trained dictators and human rights violators, the justification given may be surprising, which we look at in the next page.
Back to top

Where Next?

Other Options

Author And Page Information

  • by Anup Shah
  • Created: Monday, July 20, 1998
  • Last Updated: Sunday, June 30, 2013
Back to top
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)