A Wasteful, Bloated
[FY2003] Military Budget
No Way to Advance Peace or Human
Security
Friends Committee on National
Legislation, March 2002
The U.S. is spending about $1.8 billion
per month to fight the war against terror in Afghanistan. Now,
President Bush is asking Congress for almost $4Q0 billion to expand
the war on terror and to create a global U.S. military power that
can dominate in any future conflict. This would be a $46 billion
increase over fiscal year 2002 (FY2002). This includes the following:
Department of Defense $378.5 billion
Dept. of Energy nuclear weapons programs 15.4 billion
Military-related activities of other agencies 1.4 billion
Foreign military aid and training 3.8 billion
Subtotal (budget authority) 399.1 billion
This includes $7.8 billion to build a
ballistic missile shield and $8.0 billion to maintain the U.S.
nuclear arsenal. Add the mandatory payments for military retirement
and retiree health care programs ($32.9 billion), and the total
FY2003 budget authority will exceed $432 billion.
A Wasteful, Bloated Military Budget By
Any Measure
This budget would spend about three times
the combined military budgets of all potential U.S. military adversaries
(Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria),
and it would exceed the combined expenditure of the next 25 military
powers. The next five military powers would spend the following
(in billions): Russia--$60; China--$42; Japan--$40; United Kingdom--$34;
Saudi Arabia--$27 (Source: Center for Defense-Information).
This Is No Way to Peace and Human Security
War, threats of war, and a bloated, wasteful
military budget will not bring an end to international terrorism
or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) around
the world. Nor will these policies advance true human security.
Expanding the war against terror to Iraq, Colombia, and the Philippines
will only compound the assault on humanity that occurred on September
11 and in the war in Afghanistan. Threatening war against Iran,
North Korea, and others will only stimulate more fear, hatred,
violence, and suffering, and it may, in fact, contribute to the
proliferation of WMD. Building a military capacity to dominate
the globe will only provoke other countries and groups with grievances
against the U.S. to resist in kind with violence. At a time when
the capacity to build and use WMD is spreading, such provocative,
dangerous policies will only aggravate and escalate the current
violence and human suffering.
The Root Causes of Violence and War: Poverty,
Oppression, Ignorance
The U.S. must seek another way to advance
peace and human security--a way that addresses the root causes
of violence, strengthens the international rule of law, demonstrates
respect for human rights, and breaks the cycle of violence. Traditions,
beliefs, and structures which are precursors to war must be changed
if we hope to prevent violence in the future. These precursors
include economic deprivation, structural inequity, oppressive
power, greed, prejudice, and war itself.
The UN Development Programme's Human Development
Report 2001 provides a snapshot of these conditions around the
world:
* More than 854 million adults are illiterate,
including 543 million women;
* Over 960 million people lack access to improved water resources;
* 325 million children do not attend school, including 183 million
girls;
* 11 million children under five die each year from preventable
diseases;
* 1.2 billion people live on less than $1 a day, and 2.8 billion
live on less than $2 a day; and
* Employment and economic growth in Arab countries has lagged
well behind all but the poorest countries in Africa over the past
decade.
Shift Military Spending to Address the
Root Causes of War
The President's budget would do relatively
little to address these conditions.
* The U.S. government ranks last among
developed countries in terms of the percentage of the U.S. gross
domestic product that it allocates for international development
(0.11%).
* Outlays for all foreign assistance programs in FY2003 (including
strategic economic aid to Israel, Egypt, former Soviet Republics,
Colombia, and anti-narcotics programs) will comprise only 0.55%
of all federal outlays (Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).
* The President would spend more on the national ballistic missile
shield ($7.8 billion) than he would for international humanitarian
and development assistance ($7.6 billion). (This amount does not
include "strategic economic aid" mentioned in the previous
item.).
* The President would increase humanitarian and development assistance
by only $0.7 billion for FY2003, while he would increase military
spending by 65 times that amount ($46 billion).
New budget priorities are needed to help
address the root causes of violence, reduce terrorism, and prevent
deadly conflicts. At a minimum, the U.S. should triple its current
meager commitment to international development and humanitarian
assistance programs such as child disease and survival, food aid,
refugee assistance, multilateral development banks, Peace Corps,
USAID operations, voluntary contributions to international organizations,
debt relief, and other development and humanitarian aid.
For greatest impact, U.S. aid should be
channeled through the UN and other multilateral agencies to people
and countries where it is needed the most. Programs should be
designed a) to maximize local community participation in planning
and implementation; b) to build on the indigenous strengths, knowledge,
and assets of local communities; c) to foster long-term economic
self-sufficiency; and d) to minimize harm to the environment.
This extra expenditure could be offset easily by cutting the wasteful,
dangerous, and provocative ballistic missile shield and nuclear
weapons programs.
Military
Budget watch
Home Page