Will Trudeau choose war or peace in his upcoming budget?
Will Trudeau choose war or peace in his upcoming budget?
Boosting military spending comes with a hefty cost
Why Two Percent?
by Robin Collins and Sylvie Lemieux
As global spending on weapons and war reaches its highest level ever—more than US$2.2-trillion, about twice what it was in 2001—NATO allies such as Canada have been called upon to pay up, including reaching the arbitrary two per cent of GDP that the alliance collectively “agreed” to. The clamour among columnists for Canada to step up is deafening, and we think this noise is misleading.
In 2006, NATO’s then-26 members committed themselves to the two per cent to ensure “military readiness,” and to enhance the “perception of the Alliance’s credibility.” This would entail a significant increase for Canada—now at ~1.4 per cent—even while this country is already NATO’s seventh largest provider—out of 31 members—in dollar figures, and 14th in a world of 193 states. Some freeloader!
The United States share (39 per cent) and Chinese share (13 per cent) combined are over half of all the world’s military spending. Russia (at 3.9 per cent) is far behind. This raises many questions. What is the money being spent on? Is increased military spending in perpetuity the best way to commit to global security, or is it intended to maintain a particular power dynamic?
We face a multitude of global crises that require global cooperation. Every dollar spent on weapons escalation will inevitably deprive funding of other important services. Addressing the climate crisis is urgent, and requires immediate attention and huge expenditures. The same goes for pandemic preparedness, international attention to artificial intelligence threats, and increased spending on conflict resolution mechanisms.
We face a multitude of global crises that require global cooperation.
But the goal of an arms race is to achieve power superiority over a rival. We need to outspend them and—therefore, logically—they us. Particularly in a multi-polar world, this is a pointless, endless, and dangerous endeavor.
Two per cent for NATO also means cutting back on foreign aid. The rarely-mentioned competing alternative is former Canadian prime minister Lester Pearson’s proposal—which made it into a UN resolution in 1970—that States pay 0.7 per cent of their gross national income for overseas development. That would have the advantage of raising the material wealth of the world’s poorest countries, and simultaneously reducing the weaponizing mechanisms that lead to violent conflict.
We all have seen how nuclear deterrence both failed to impede Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and raised the risk of nuclear war, while conventional weapon inventory is quickly depleted in the bloodbath that is still in progress.
NATO’s strategy, however, is substantially based on costing a reliance on “essential” nuclear deterrence for alliance security. This includes new spending earmarked for modernization of nuclear missile inventories held by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office, for example, predicts modernization of U.S. nuclear arsenals alone will reach US$60-billion per year through 2030.
While polls show NATO remains popular among many of their citizens, nuclear weapons certainly are not. A strong majority of Canadians—80 per cent—think the world should work to eliminate nuclear weapons, not modernize them.
There is a financial and security relationship between steering away from a global warring framework based on nuclear threats and military superiority, and shifting spending towards cooperative alternatives that help solve our common problems. While conflicts will continue for the foreseeable future, there are better options available to reduce them than the ones we are being badgered to fulfil.
Canada can engage in diplomatic efforts to stifle and end our reliance on nuclear deterrence. This means also signaling to all NATO’s members to slow and reverse momentum in support of a global arms race. Instead, let’s increase overseas development and peacekeeping contributions. NATO members could start by agreeing to cut their military spending to 0.7 per cent and increase foreign aid to two per cent. This is a viable trend all nations and the planet will benefit from.
Robin Collins and Sylvie Lemieux are co-chairpersons of the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. They are members of Canadian Pugwash Group.
The Berlin-based International Peace Bureau (of which I am a Board member) has published the dates for its annual Global Days Against Military Spending, or GDAMS. In 2024, GDAMS will take place From April 12 to May 15, with the main day of action being Monday, April 22.
How can you get involved?
If you’re part of an organization:
Prepare your own GDAMS action or join activities prepared by other organizations near you. Once you know the details of your action, please send the IPB an email so they can also add them to their map & agenda and help you spread the word: coordination.gcoms@ipb.org
April 22 will be the main day of action. Using new military spending data released that day by SIPRI (figures for 2023), they’ll do media work and launch a Social Media Storm. IPB will send instructions for social media actions soon, and if you’re preparing media work in your city/country, they can help you plan it.
Stay active during GDAMS by sharing ideas, articles, actions and debates through your own network and social media, with other GCOMS partners, and with the IPB (Twitter and Instagram).
As an individual:
Join a local group working on the issue, or set one up! Here’s the IPB’s list of partners: http://demilitarize.org/global-campaign-on-military-spending/
Do Online Campaigning: join the IPB’s social media storm on April 22; use your social media to protest military budgets by sharing pictures, news, materials and actions;
Write an op-ed; Send a letter to representatives in your country responsible for defence budgets.
Stay tuned for further details from the IPB
More reaction to last week’s top story
Canadian peace icon, former Senator Douglas Roche, says that NDP Foreign Affairs critic Heather McPherson has become, “one of the most important MPs in Ottawa” following her successful negotiation of the Gaza ceasefire motion last week.
“She got the government to bend to her humanitarian-centred motion to stop these sales and help end the violence in Gaza and, in so doing, took Canada into a G7 leadership position,” he wrote in the influential Hill Times.
(Image: http://www.heathermcpherson.ca)
The NDP-sponsored motion was doomed to failure until the Liberals realized they faced a potentially embarrassing split in their caucus.
“To save the heart of the motion—ceasefire, more help for Gaza, no arms sales to Israel, support for the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, continued funding for UNRWA—McPherson gave up the call for Canada to officially recognize Palestine,” said Roche.
One of the most important MPs in Ottawa
As I wrote last week, the Liberals were not ready to break with Western allies in the long-held position that the elusive two-state solution must precede the recognition. Roche says that MacPherson deftly agreed to “water-down” the motion in order to win a bigger political prize.
“In her valiant work, McPherson is not just standing up for Palestinians, but for a rules-based order that the world needs reaffirmed at this fraught moment in history, and which too many Canadian politicians are ignoring,” he wrote.
The amended motion, supported by the Liberals, passed 204-117. Only three Liberal MPs voted no. Several Liberal MPs openly cheered McPherson.
Did you miss last week’s newsletter?
Thank you for everything you do for peace.
Steve
