Global military spending and aid figures for 2005
Today, 12 June 2006, the Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute reported its findings for military expenditure last year. [<http://yearbook2006.sipri.org/sipri-yb06-release.pdf
and <http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_major_spenders.pdf]
The figures show once again that it is not a shortage of resources
preventing the richer nations from addressing climate change and poverty, which,
apart from being problems deserving attention in their own right, are probably
the greatest contributors to future insecurity and conflict [Source: Oxford
Research Group - <http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefings/globalthreats.pdf].
SIPRI's figures estimate that global military expenditure rose in 2005 to
$1,118 billion ($1.1 trillion) in current US dollars.
Using constant 2003 prices, military spending rose $26bn from $975bn in
2004 to $1001bn in 2005 - an increase of 2.7%. (Using 2003 prices is a useful
way to compare expenditures over time but it is more meaningful to quote current
military spending using current prices - ie $1,118bn for 2005).
In 2005, the United States spent $478.2bn on the military at 2003 prices
($534.1bn in current US dollars). In 2004, the US accounted for 47% of the
world total - in 2005 its share had risen to 48%. This is equivalent to $1,791
per head of population in the US.
The second largest military spender in the world is the UK, at $53.6bn in
current US$ (c.£29bn), or $904 (c.£490) per capita. This is despite the UK
government's view that: 'There is no direct military threat to the United
Kingdom or Western Europe. Nor do we foresee the re-emergence of such a
threat...' [Source: Strategic Defence Review, 1998 - this policy was reiterated
in the Defence White Paper of 2003 <http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/051AF365-0A97-4550-99C0-4D87D7C95DED/0/cm6041I_whitepaper2003.pdf].
France, Japan and China complete the top five military spenders.
SIPRI also found that the top 100 arms companies' sales rose by 15% in
2005.
Military spending towers above commitments to tackle the systemic causes
of future global insecurity such as the gap between rich and poor, the impact of
climate change and resource shortages, and militarism itself.
Spending on overseas aid has increased in recent years but still falls
well short of the estimated requirement for achieving the Millennium Development
Goals for poverty alleviation. The World Bank estimated in 2002 that the world
needed to be spending $100-130bn each year to 2015 in order to achieve the
goals. The latest figures for aid spending are from 2004, when the world spent
$87.3bn on aid (in current US$). The world currently spends over 12 times as
much on the military as on overseas aid. [Source: World Bank - <http://devdata.worldbank.org/external/CPProfile.asp?PTYPE=CP&CCODE=WLD]
There are no official estimates of the resources being committed globally
to tackling climate change. One careful estimate of the cost of implementing
the Kyoto Protocol (including theoretical US participation) is in the order of
$118 billion per annum over the next 50 years. The cost of stabilising CO2
concentrations at 550ppm by 2100 - regarded by many as the realistic long-term
goal - range up to $661bn per annum over the next 50 years. Both figures are
well within current military spending. [Source: R. Watson et al. 'Climate
Change 2001: Synthesis Report', (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001),
Figure 7.3, cited in House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs, 'The
Economics of Climate Change', 2005, p. 43 - <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf]
Also today, 12 June, the Oxford Research Group published 'Global Responses
to Global Threats: Sustainable Security for the 21st Century' - their assessment
of the major systemic threats to future peace and security, together with an
agenda for change. To quote from the Executive Summary of the report:
'This new approach to global security can be characterised as a
"sustainable security paradigm". The main difference between this and the
"control paradigm" is that this approach does not attempt to unilaterally
control threats through the use of force ("attack the symptoms"), but rather it
aims to cooperatively resolve the root causes of those threats using the most
effective means available ("cure the disease"). For example, a sustainable
security approach prioritises renewable energy as the key solution to climate
change; energy efficiency as a response to resource competition; poverty
reduction as a means to address marginalisation; and the halting and reversal of
WMD development and proliferation as a main component of checking global
militarisation. These approaches provide the best chance of averting global
disaster, as well as addressing some of the root causes of terrorism.' [<http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefings/globalthreats.pdf]
Finally, the web site <http:www.milspend.org has been updated with the
latest SIPRI data and now includes new features, including the facility to embed
the real time counter easily in your own web site, and the option of viewing the
counter in £ or $. Please link to it!
Email from Quaker Peace & Social Witness
W: http://www.quaker.org.uk/qpsw
and http://www.peaceexchange.org.uk
Thought for June: 'The Army is after all a killing machine. It seems to
me in a sense that society is trying to pretend that it isn't, when it watches
it on parade.' Army Major (cited in 'Soldier Soldier' by Tony Parker).