Who will benefit from ARC?

Introduction
Everyone Financially
Peace and Security
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and UN departments
Religious Groups
States of the United Nations
Developing countries
Developed countries
Jobs
Summary

Introduction

The Arms Reduction Coalition (ARC) is campaigning for the states of the United Nations (UN) to agree and implement a legally binding instrument, to reduce the amount of resources spent on arms by between 1 and 5 percent for a period of between 10 and 25 years, and to spend the resources saved on programmes that benefit humanity and the earth. This reasonable proposal is based on Implementing Article 26 of the UN Charter, which the states of the UN have committed "to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the worlds human and economic resources".

This paper looks at some of those who will benefit from a reduction in the resources spent on armaments.

By resources we include financial, human and physical. Human resources; some of the best brains in the world are used to develop more sophisticated weapons to kill people. The arms makers and sellers, for whom decent work means making and selling arms to kill people; such as the 4 million dead in Africa in the last 4 years. All those soldiers who could use their time, effort and skills to help their communities rather than just to training how to kill and actually killing people. Physical resources; all those lands and buildings that are used.

Everyone Financially

The value of the world's arms trade is currently over $800 bn (Billion Dollars) per year (The latest figures for 2001 is about $840 bn). A one percent year on year reduction on the previous year’s expenditure would make $8 bn available in the first year. Over ten years this would total $76 bn available for the improvement of humankind and preservation of our common home - Earth. During the same ten years $7,573 bn would still have been spent on things to kill people.

Note: The total net programmed budget of the UN for the two years 2002 and 2003 is (6, 082, 959, 000) 6 bn US dollars.

Table 1 showing the cumulative amount spent on armaments and the amount diverted from armaments in each period (based on year 2000 estimate of $800 billion dollars for world’s arms trade).

Estimate value of world's arms trade year 2000.

$800 bn

Billion Dollars

Year

Cumulative amount spent on armaments Cumulative amount diverted from armaments

1.00%

2.00%

5.00%

1.00%

2.00%

5.00%

1

$792 bn

$784 bn

$760 bn

$8 bn

$16 bn

$40 bn

5

$3,882 bn

$3,766 bn

$3,439 bn

$39 bn

$77 bn

$181 bn

10

$7,573 bn

$7,171 bn

$6,099 bn

$76 bn

$146 bn

$321 bn

15

$11,083 bn

$10,248 bn

$8,158 bn

$112 bn

$209 bn

$429 bn

20

$14,422 bn

$13,030 bn

$9,751 bn

$146 bn

$266 bn

$513 bn

25

$17,597 bn

$15,544 bn

$10,984 bn

$178 bn

$317 bn

$578 bn

So if 5% of previous years arms spending were diverted from armaments, over 10 years $331 bn could be made available for humanitarian and Earthism programmes.

ARC is about resources. Reducing the amount of resources being spent by the states of the UN on things to kill people, and diverting those resources to positive (UN based) humanitarian and Earthism programmes such as poverty reduction, sustainable development, protecting the vulnerable, peaceful resolution of conflict systems, maintaining the environment.

Example allocation of amounts spent on armaments on State's own programmes

In First Year Over 10 Years
% spent

1%

5%

1%

5%

Amount diverted from armaments

State's own Programmes

$8.00 bn

$40.00 bn

$76.49 bn

$321.01 bn

Admin and auditing

5%

$0.40 bn

$2.00 bn

$3.82 bn

$16.05 bn

Poverty reduction

10%

$0.80 bn

$4.00 bn

$7.65 bn

$32.10 bn

Health care

5%

$0.40 bn

$2.00 bn

$3.82 bn

$16.05 bn

Education

5%

$0.40 bn

$2.00 bn

$3.82 bn

$16.05 bn

Sustainable development

5%

$0.40 bn

$2.00 bn

$3.82 bn

$16.05 bn

Protecting the vulnerable

3%

$0.24 bn

$1.20 bn

$2.29 bn

$9.63 bn

Peaceful resolution of conflict systems

2%

$0.16 bn

$0.80 bn

$1.53 bn

$6.42 bn

Maintaining the environment

5%

$0.40 bn

$2.00 bn

$3.82 bn

$16.05 bn

Allocated Each year

10%

$0.80 bn

$4.00 bn

$7.65 bn

$32.10 bn

Total

50%

$4.00 bn

$20.00 bn

$38.25 bn

$160.51 bn

Similar amounts could be spent on world or UN and NGO based programmes

The ARC Resolution calls for all signatory States of the United Nations to ratify, a legally binding instrument "That specifies how amounts diverted from Armaments are to be used on State and UN programmes such as poverty reduction, sustainable development, conflict prevention, peaceful resolution of conflict, protecting the vulnerable, maintaining the environment; and effective and efficient implementation of the legally binding Instrument;".

Table 2 shows an example of allocating of 50% of the amounts diverted from armaments were spent on each state's own programmes. In the first year alone we could have between $0.4 bn and $2 bn more to spend on both education and health. Over ten years we could have between $3.82 bn and $16.05 bn more to spend on both sustainable development and maintaining the environment and between $7.65 and bn $32.1 bn on poverty reduction. Given these resources, imagine how many more houses, schools and hospitals could be built over ten years? By diverting resources from arms, imaging how many of these will be saved from destruction. Given these resources, imagine how much more human can develop. These amounts could provide decent work. They could make positive differences to the lives of all the peoples in the world and our common home, earth. Some of the $7.65 to bn $32.1 bn to be allocated each year could include tax cuts and those programmes governments would like to spend more on but cannot because the resources are being consumed by armaments. The States of the UN will of course decide the allocation of such resources.

"New weapons systems do not bring security. They squander economic resources; they subordinate research and development to military goals. Thinking in military categories deforms intellectual and cultural life. "
"Heavily armed, the world will remain without peace. Disarmament gives peace a chance. One fifth of today's military spending would suffice to ensure everyone a sustained basic supply of food, drinking water, education and public health services."
The Dresden Appeal of the Party of Democratic Socialism, Germany, adopted at the 2nd Session of the 7th PDS Congress on 7 October, 2001 From: http://www.spectrezine.org/war/pds.htm

Peace and Security

In The ARC Resolution we state we are "Concerned by the obstacles, threats and difficulties that the large amounts of arms in circulation pose to the maintenance of peace and security and to Non-Governmental Organisations and UN departments in carrying out their work;".

How can to the maintenance of peace and security be achieved when so few resources are spent on them, while vast amounts of resources are spent on armaments; the very things that destroy peace and create insecurity. We can talk, write, implore and pledge that we want peace, yet if resources are not put into it or the people are not given the tools and training required to achieve peace, then it is all just empty rhetoric. It would help if some of the resources spent on arms were instead spent on the peaceful resolution of conflict; such as training, non-lethal weapons. Guns kill people; they do not bring security. During the 20th century guns in the US killed more Americans, than all American soldiers killed in all wars.

"To the extent that money can solve conflicts and potential conflicts, not a huge amount is required compared to what the world is prepared to spend on everything else, including defence."
Gareth Evans, President of The International Crisis Group (www.intl-crisis-group.org ); Former Foreign Minister of Australia. - Preventing and responding to deadly conflict in UN2000 The United Nations Millennium Summit (available from UN Information Centre and UNA).

We fear that, unless the principles of this Culture (of Peace) are increasingly built into every activity undertaken by governments and others, the world will risk the continuation of the appalling bloodshed and of the destruction which so dominated great periods of the 20th century with its threat of termination of life throughout the world." Policy 2001. United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (www.una-uk.org ). Policy Statement adopted at Annual Conference April 2001.


"Emphasizes: in this regard, the need for more effective coordination of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, and reaffirms that adequate and timely funding of these programmes is critical to the success of peace processes".
UN Security Council resolution 1327 (2000) On implementation of the Report of The Panel on UN Peace Operations 13 Nov 2000 S/RES/1327 (2000).

 Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and UN departments

Non-Governmental Organisations and UN departments are often frustrated, disheartened and made cynical by how the large amounts of arms in circulation hamper them in carrying out their work. How their good work and progress made is often destroyed by war. Even governments at the Millennium summit stressed how they cannot achieve development or poverty reduction without peace.

The present cycle must be broken

"Without peace NGOs and the UN cannot achieve their aims. Without a reduction in weapons peace will be very difficult to achieve. The present cycle that must be broken is:

A) Large amounts of resources are used to make weapons.

B) The weapons are used to maim and kill people and to destroy their homes, their infrastructure and the environment.

C) The UN, NGOs and people who care are left to pick up the pieces and try to alleviate the resulting poverty and suffering and rebuilding their environments.

D) The world turns. Humanity advances. The weapons are replenished by more advanced and destructive ones and the cycle starts again."

Should we not be spending money on resolving conflicts before they explode into the destructive cycle of violence and destruction?

The ARC Resolution calls for, a legally binding instrument "That gives full opportunities to non-governmental organisations and other non state actors to make their contributions in implementation, compliance and allocation of resources;"

The NGOs and the UN departments are struggling to implement their missions. They are being constantly hampered by the vast amounts of resources are spent on armaments. To help them achieve their missions they should be given more resources and less resources spent on the destructive armaments. "Disarmament is not the only way to peace. It must be accompanied by genuine human security. It is imperative that NGOs be included in the dialogue for peace. The world community, civil society, including younger and older people and their governments have the resources and knowledge to move from a culture of violence to a culture of peace."... We the Peoples Millennium Forum Declaration and Agenda for Action. Strengthening the United Nations for the 21st Century - Declaration over 1,350 representatives of over 1,000 NGO from more than 100 countries. May 2000. (available from UN Information Centre and UNA)


Religious Groups

Most religious groups preach peace. Many have spent a lot of time praying and meditation for peace. Many have programmes to help the poor, and those affected by war. The vast amounts of weapons in circulation have tortured many souls. Implementing ARC will be a move towards achieving a culture of peace. It will be a significant answer to many prayers and meditations. It will provide more resources for their programmes to help the poor, and those affected by war. It will help many to develop spiritually; freed from their concerns for the threats posed to their security by the evils of armaments.

States of the United Nations

By ratifying the ARC legally binding instrument, the States of the United Nations could at last hold their heads up high; and say they are now implementing article 26 of the UN charter to which they have pledged for "the least diversion for Armaments of the world’s human and economic resources".

"In the Millennium Declaration [September 2000] ... governments from all over the world pledged themselves to free their peoples from the scourge of war, from abject and dehumanising poverty, and from the threat of living on a polluted planet with few natural resources left ...[and] to promote democracy and the rule of law; to protect children and other vulnerable people; and to meet the special needs of Africa. And they promised to make the United Nations itself more effective, as an instrument for pursuing all those aims. ....
The Charter was written in your name .... In the end, only you can ensure the Declaration is more than fine words. It is up to you to see the pledges honoured, and so to make the new century better than the old".
Message to the Peoples of the United Nations from Secretary-General Kofi Annan 24 October (United Nations Day), 2000.

Developing countries

The developing countries would benefit. Rather than spending scarce resources on armaments (scrap metal) they could spend them on developing their countries and peoples. Professor Peter Willetts of City University reports that the IMF concluded that many developing countries can only satisfy the needs of their populations by diverting funds from their military budgets. "Small arms remain available in the Great Lakes Region of Central Africa, in Angola and in many other countries and continue to fuel conflict, exacerbate human rights abuses, undermine development programmes and peace processes and defy the effects of our and other governments and of civil society to curb them. We believe that reductions in Military budgets remain the cornerstones to achieving the international development and environmental targets and greater human rights implementation" Policy 2001. United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (www.una-uk.org ). Policy Statement adopted at Annual Conference April 2001.

"How will any form of equity be established unless more resources are aimed at developing people who are at the bottom of the economic ladder? Years after the end of the cold war, the world’s governments continue to spend more than $800 billion a year on arms and the arms trade is once again expanding. Though the bulk of military spending is on conventional arms, the possession of nuclear weapons by the powerful is driving militarism around the globe. Grotesque imbalances result:

"The Western nuclear powers are primarily responsible for keeping the relationship between disarmament and development off the political agenda.

There is a dynamic, triangular relationship between disarmament, development, and security. The more disarmament and development are advanced, the more security is enhanced and strengthened. But most nations haven’t yet made the mental leap that security today requires the development of the human being, not the preparation for war."
DEVELOPMENT AND EQUALITY by Douglas Roche A former Canadian Member of Parliament and ambassador for Disarmament, Douglas Roche is author of The Ultimate Evil: The Fight to Ban Nuclear Weapons and other books, and served for 6 years as GEA's Chairperson

Developed countries

The developed countries also stand to benefit from ARC. They will have more resources to spend on improving the lives of their peoples. They have to spend fewer resources cleaning up the mess and helping to deal with the tragedies caused by arms. Some of the technologically advanced ones will benefit from the non-lethal weapons that will replace the present murderous armaments.

Jobs

It a shame that many of their best minds are employed making things to kill people. One of the most popular arguments of those opposed to arms reduction is the loss of jobs argument. The implication is that the only decent work the government can invest in is making and trading in weapons to kill people. A UN study by Nobel Prize winning economists concluded that diverting spending from arms to the supply side of the economy would increase employment four times (7 times for the consumption). Each arms trade job is subsidised by your taxes.

I hope many of those involved in the arms industry would choose to do something other make things to kill people given the chance.

Summary

This paper looked at some of those who will benefit from a reduction in the resources spent on armaments. Benefits will be achieved in areas such as:

Some of the benefits to these groups are highlighted:

I short everyone will benefit; not only financially but also in terms of peace, human security and ultimately human development.

Just imagine how great it will be when we succeed. For the Young peoples, for poor people, for all peoples, and indeed life on earth. Its worth a try! Do you as young people want to live in a world where more taxes are spent on making weapons to kill people than on Housing and Environment or Agriculture and employment or Transport? Is that civilized progress?

"Every gun, every warship, every tank and every military aircraft built is, in the final analysis, a theft from those who are hungry and are not fed, from those who are naked and are not clothed."
Dwight D Eisenhower, General Commander Allied Forces, World War 2 and US President 1952-1960 (from Peace New's Nonviolent Action Issue 22 June 2001.

The ARC resolution calls for a 1% to 5% reduction over 10 to 25 years of the resources being spent by the states of the UN on things to kill people. I hope you agree that is reasonable, and you and everyone will benefit from it.

Read more on our web site at www.arcwebsite.org

Karl Miller  Aug 03