Cooperation, Not Militarisation

Thiago Santos/Flickr

In 2019, global military expenditure reached its highest level since 1988 at a total of 1.917 trillion US dollars. Military expenditure is so large that it’s hard to even fathom the huge amounts of money that states are spending on their militaries every year. Although enormous amounts of money are allocated to militaries globally, many people are so desensitized to the military’s large funding that they do not question whether it should be reduced. For example, the US military has the greatest amount of funding in the world, accounting for about 38% of global military funding, but 2018 research found that 33% of US citizens still believe that the US spends too little on the military. This support for increased militarisation is becoming normalized in the global community, highlighting the need for us to be critical of military spending.

This year, the US military budget is over 720 billion dollars, making it once again the largest military budget in the world. This extreme expenditure allows the US to interfere in numerous foreign conflicts, but this comes at a cost much greater than a high economic cost. In 2019 alone, an annual Pentagon report documented that the US military killed 132 civilians in wars in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Somalia. Had the US military killed 132 innocent white people, there would have undoubtedly been public outcry and calls to reduce the military’s strength. However, the vast majority of the innocent people the US military killed were people of colour, causing the continuation of US military intervention in international conflicts to be accepted and even encouraged.

Although the deaths of innocent people caused by militarisation alone should discourage military investment, some still argue that large military spending is a necessity. Many people defend excessive military funding by arguing that states must have a strong military in order to protect themselves and survive in the international community. However, states such as Iceland, Panama and Vanuatu are among the 31 states that do not have their own military, illustrating that states can function- and are functioning- without their own militaries. As well as this, there is a substantial difference between a sufficient military and an overfunded military, such as the US military with its over 720 billion dollars of funding. This 720-billion-dollar budget is higher than the Pentagon’s maximum expenditure during the Vietnam War, emphasizing that in the current political climate, such spending is completely excessive and unnecessary.

By overfunding the military, states promote an isolationist approach to politics which is becoming redundant in the 21st century as globalization is making the international community more interconnected and interdependent than ever. The necessity of having a strong military is rapidly diminishing; research from the Rand Corporation has found that interstate war, “has become a rare event,” as the resource expenditure, economic risks, dangers to international trade partnerships and social toll of interstate war is discouraging states from declaring war on each other in our modern era. With the frequency and severity of wars declining, it seems absurd that military spending would increase. However, in 2019, the world saw its largest increase in military spending in a decade, and expenditure was 7.2% higher than it was in 2010, signifying that although there is a decreased need for military strength, military expenditure is increasing.

Additionally, in many states, we are conditioned to accept ridiculously large military funding but question how the state could afford to increase social welfare. For instance, Australia’s recently announced $270 billion military budget could fund free university and Technical and Further Education (TAFE) for every Australian twice over, or we could even end world hunger (with 5 billion dollars to spare) yet our politicians are prioritizing ‘protecting’ our country over protecting the vulnerable during a global pandemic in which international military conflicts are highly limited. In political discourse about whether we should raise social welfare benefits to a rate above the poverty line or whether we should invest in housing for the homeless, governments frequently argue that it is simply too great an economic cost to invest in giving people access to their basic needs. Despite this, when it comes to military funding, no cost is too high, as is exemplified in how spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the military is barely questioned in our society.

This massive military spending is not only unnecessary but also extremely reckless. By creating an environment in which each state has to continually increase its military budget in order to compete, we are escalating militarisation around the world. With increased militarisation, the risk of the development of devastating military conflicts increases while preventative measures like peacekeeping and diplomacy are discouraged. It is often argued that we need to spend extensively on the military to increase our safety, but by creating a global community that prioritizes militarisation, we are decreasing both our safety and our security. Instead of funding militarization and weaponization, we should focus on how we can foster cooperation and collaboration to maintain safety, security and peace globally.