The World Is Over-Armed; The World Is Over-Hungry
IN FOCUS, 22 Aug 2011
Badriya Khan in Brussels - Human Wrongs Watch
The world is over-armed; the world is over-hungry. This is not a new slogan – this is a proven fact showing that the world spends well over 1,6 trillion dollars a year on weapons, while more than one billion people are hungry and record high food prices are causing more hunger and deaths. Just think that one of every six persons on Earth either does not eat at all or is always hungry.
The latest figure gives more than one billion good reasons to disarm the planet. The chances for the current scenario to change are, however, very little, if any. Why? Because the weapons business is too commercially profitable and politically powerful – much more than governments and logic.
Here are some facts. The prestigious Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reported in April 2011 that world military expenditure in 2010 is estimated to have been 1,630 billion dollars, an increase of 1.3 % in real terms in spite of the global financial crisis.
South America: The Largest Increase in Military Spending
The region with the largest increase in military spending was South America, with a 5.8 per cent increase, reaching a total of 63.3 billion dollars, according to SIPRI new data.
“This continuing increase in South America is surprising given the lack of real military threats to most states and the existence of more pressing social needs”, stated Carina Solmirano, Latin America Expert of the SIPRI Military Expenditure Project.
Part of the explanation for this rise is to be found in the strong economic growth the region has experienced in recent years, while in other regions the effects of the global economic recession caused military spending to fall or at least rise more slowly in 2010.
The U.S., Exceptional In Military Spending
Although the rate of increase in US military spending slowed in 2010—to 2.8 per cent compared to an annual average increase of 7.4 per cent between 2001 and 2009, the global increase in 2010 is almost entirely down to the United States, which accounted for 19.6 billion dollars of the 20.6 billion dollars global increase, according to SIPRI.
“The USA has increased its military spending by 81 per cent since 2001, and now accounts for 43 per cent of the global total, six times its nearest rival China. At 4.8 per cent of GDP, US military spending in 2010 represents the largest economic burden outside the Middle East”, stated Dr Sam Perlo-Freeman, Head of the SIPRI Military Expenditure Project.
In Europe, where military spending fell by 2.8 per cent, governments began to address soaring budget deficits, having previously enacted stimulus packages in 2009. Cuts were particularly substantial in the smaller, more vulnerable economies of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as those with particular budget difficulties such as Greece.
Rapid Increase In Asia
In Asia, even though most economies did not experience a recession, economic growth slowed down in 2009 while military spending continued to rise rapidly. Thus, the slower increase of 1.4 per cent in military spending in 2010 partly readjusts growth in military spending to economic growth rates.
The Chinese Government, for example, explicitly linked its smaller increase in 2010 to China’s weaker economic performance in 2009.
Africa And The Middle East, Spending More And More
The Middle East spent 111 billion dollars on military expenditure in 2010, an increase of 2.5 per cent over 2009. The largest absolute rise in the region was by Saudi Arabia.
Estimated spending in Africa increased by 5.2 per cent, led by major oil-producers such as Algeria, Angola and Nigeria.
U.S. Companies, Top 100 Weapons Sales
Companies headquartered in the United States again dominate the top 100 weapons sales companies, it says, followed by West European companies, Russia, Japan, Israel, India, South Korea and Singapore.
“The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continued to heavily influence sales of military equipment such as armoured vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and helicopters,” SIPRI explains.
Human Rights? Don’t Bother!
This means that over 90 per cent of world’s weapons sales proceed from Western self-proclaimed champions of democracy, freedom and human rights on Earth. These are the very same freedom champions that have been systematically imposing their model on the rest of the world, through so-called freedom wars.
“The world is over-armed, and development is under-funded,” UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon told the 192-member Assembly on April last year, at the start of the thematic debate on disarmament and world security, and both the role of the UN and challenges for the international community.
“These priorities should be reversed. By accelerating disarmament, we can liberate the resources we need to combat climate change, address food insecurity and achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),” said the secretary general.
Death Goes On
In spite of all calls for freeing the world from the permanent threat of weapons of mass destruction, most of them produced and sold by U.S. and western European powers, the inexorable day-to-day realities are systematically ignored.
These realities tell for instance that the over 1,6 trillion dollars the world spends on weapons every single year would be more than enough to save the planet from climate change disasters, mostly caused by major arms manufacturers.
They also reveal that one of every six living persons on Earth, that’s a total of 1002 million people, either do not eat at all or are permanently hungry.
Add to that the impacting fact that only one and half dollars per person and week would be enough to feed all hungry people and eradicate hunger from the face of the Planet Earth.
No more than 44 billion dollars a year are required to feed one billion people who go hungry every year. This is only a fraction of the 1,6 trillion dollars spent on weapons.
Record Highs In Food Prices
Human Wrongs Watch reported on August 10th, 2011 on the new drama facing the poorest in the Horn of Africa.
“While politicians in rich countries have been rescuing powerful “market lord” –private corporations and banks that have unleashed the global financial crisis or strongly contributed to it– for the sake of receiving their ‘electoral blessing’, the prices of grain and milk in the drought-hit Horn of Africa have risen to record highs,” it wrote.
Price of Maize In Somalia, 200 % Higher
These new records are exacerbating famine and hardship for the estimated 12.4 million people in the region who are facing severe food shortages and famine in some parts of Somalia, UN says.
According to the August food price monitor of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the high prices of cereals such as sorghum and maize in the Horn of Africa have resulted from a combination of factors, including drought, reduced secondary season harvests earlier this year and high fuel prices that have driven up transport costs, the UN reported on August 10th, 2011.
In Somalia, where famine has been declared in five areas in the south-central region, prices of domestically produced staples, sorghum and maize showed some signs of decline last month. The prices of the two commodities were, however, 150 and 200 per cent higher, compared to July last year, according to the FAO report.
Milk Prices, Twice High
The prices of milk in Somalia decreased or stabilised in several markets last month, but remained well above last year’s levels. In the southern region where some parts are experiencing famine conditions, milk prices in June were twice the levels of the similar period year earlier.
UN also reports that in Kenya, prices of maize, the country’s staple food, rose sharply last month, reaching new peaks. Maize prices have been on the increase since February and are currently double what they were a year ago.
‘The high prices are a consequence of a poor 2010-2011 secondary season maize production and an anticipated reduction of the 2011 main “long rains” crop, to be harvested beginning later this month, following the late onset of the rains in many areas.”
Additional Pressure On Food Prices
Higher domestic fuel prices and a food export ban imposed by neighbouring Tanzania are exerting additional upward pressure on food prices in Kenya, the FAO report points out.
In Ethiopia, the prices of maize rose again last month in most of the monitored markets, with increases from June of 23 % in the Bahirdar main growing area and of nine per cent in the capital, Addis Ababa, it adds
“Maize prices have been on the rise since February, and the July quotations were generally well above their levels a year earlier (from 50 to 75 per cent up), although still below the peaks reached during the 2008 food price crisis.”
Prices Of Wheat In Ethiopia, 76 % Higher Than A Year Ago
Prices of wheat in Ethiopia eased in July from record levels of June in Addis Ababa, but were still 76 per cent higher than at a similar period last year, FAO informs.
Despite improved prospects for the main “Meher” season cereal crops, to be harvested from October, a spike in the fuel prices and transport costs has contributed to keeping food prices high. The price of diesel in Ethiopian was 69 per cent higher in June compared to a similar period last year.
FAO reports that the price of milk, a key staple in the drought-affected pastoralist areas, has surged with the deteriorating conditions of the livestock in recent months.
In Djibouti, where imported wheat is a staple, prices remained stable in June for the third consecutive month after surging earlier in the year.
“However, wheat flour prices were 67 per cent higher than a year ago and similar to the peaks of July 2008 during the global food price crisis. The sharp increase is mainly attributable to higher international wheat prices.”
Go to Original – human-wrongs-watch.net
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Dear Badriya Khan,
How right you are when you say “the world is over-armed”; but you don’t say what is an “armed” world, without becoming “over” armed. Will you be happy if in a war, instead of 2,000 dead we only had 1,500 losing their lives??
You correctly state the figure – over 1,6 trillion dollars – spent in a year on weapons. If instead, the world only spent 1,6 billion or even a mere 150 million dollars, will you think that’s reasonable?
You say “more than one billion people are hungry”. Will you be a contented man if “less” than one billion people went hungry? what would be an acceptable figure for you? half a billion? 50 million?
You say “…..and record high food prices are causing more hunger”. However, the starving masses you refer to, don’t even know what “food prices” mean. They not only have no money, the even have no food.
Europe and America have successfully staged the political comedy called “Abolition of Slavery”, and made the credulous world believe it is a “reality” show. Sadly, it was/is not the case. Slave countries continue to be slave countries and their inhabitants work for a pittance for their European and American masters.
You talk of the “one billion good reasons to disarm the planet.”, when the planet should not have been armed in the first place.
You write about “….the weapons business is too commercially profitable and politically powerful – much more than governments and logic.” I don’t understand your “– much more than governments and logic.”, since it is Governments “and their logic” who create the business.
You seem to imply that countries who “sell” weapons make money but you under-estimate the business done by countreis who buy weapons. People in African countries, in South America, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, etc, are all “paid” by Europe and USA to stage wars.
Europe and America are also keen on encouging military activity in poor countries; the absence of money has the welcome effect of producing drugs, oil, gold, copper, etc.
The International Peace Research Institute in Stockholm(SIPRI) reports don’t help me in the least. The great loss of lives, the massive number of people who go hungry, the collapse of buildings, etc, are proof enough for me of the inhuman violence that goes on in the world and I know who benefits from all this suffering.
You are surprised by the reported big military expenditure, adding “in spite of the global financial crisis.”, when in reality it is the other way round: the big military expenditure is possible “because” of the global financial crisis.
You quote Carina Solmirano. who says. when referring to South American military expenditure: “This continuing increase is surprising given the lack of real military threats to most states and the existence of more pressing social needs”, which gives me the impression Ms Solmirano hasn’t got a clue about the United Nations, an organisation I call United Necrologers, for how united the member countries are in creating death. The United Nations is a Business Club disguised as an organisation for the promotion of Peace in the world.
Having lived for 7 years in Geneva – UN’s European Headquarters – I’m witness to the many wars brewed or planned there, including the 27 years of the Angolan Civil War.
Anyway, UN convinces all countries, rich or poor, they must have respectable, modern Armed Forces, Forces that on a regular basis must be “updated”. This insures a continuation and development of the weapon business, which also benefits the UN. I will not go now into the dirty business of weapons, military vehicles, uniforms, and the also dirty business of the UN Refugees Commission and Human Rights Commission.
You say “Part of the explanation for this rise is to be found in the strong economic growth the region has experienced in recent years”. I don’t know who or what gave you this idea. I am South American and can tell you that poverty, unemployment, hunger is everywhere, even if not within the site of the ordinary tourist. I could also cite dozens of cases of South American countries which in times of crisis were buying not only a massive amount of weapons, but also air-fighters, warships, etc.
The U.S., Exceptional In Military Spending
You mention the billions of dollars spent by the USA, but don’t mention the billions they make with sales.
And you call their vast spending a “large economic burden”. Why burden? politicians make so much money for themselves with all this buying and selling, that the “last” thing in their minds is the effect on the economy of their country, although they have to pretend they worry about it.
You talk about cuts in “smaller, more vulnerable economies of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as those with particular budget difficulties such as Greece.”, but the cuts have a far more sinister side to it. As they have not “improved or updated” their Armed Forces, USA tells them “not having a modern Armed Forces you are very vulnerable and at risk. You need protection. We can offer this security to you, by installing military bases in your country”
Well I said enough !!!! I wish you more good writings.
Alberto Portugheis
PS when thinking of weapon exporting countries, don’t forget the one you live in, Belgium snd Switzerland
War is over if you want it !