That Religious Studies Website


Violence, War and Conflict

Applied ethics

Recently added to the site

Some thoughts on the matter of violence, war and conflict (Part 3): The cost of war and pacifism

Information: This article is the third in a series on the subject of violence, war and conflict. In Part 3 we explore the financial implications of war and consider the value of having a defence budget. We end with a review of pacifism, looking at the success of non-violent activism in the life of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., and the contemporary work of the Non-Violent Peace Force, which is based in the USA. In Part 1 we considered the nature of humans and some religious perspectives on the issue of war. In Part 2 we considered the issue of weaponry, how modern weapons have led us to de-humanise the 'enemy', and nuclear weapons. A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.

The cost of  war

Aside from the human cost, nations who commit themselves to implementing defense strategies often encounter huge economic burdens in the process of doing so.

World Military Expenditure

  • World military expenditure in 2005 is estimated to have reached $1,001 billion at constant (2003) prices and exchange rates, or $1,118 billion in current dollars;
  • This corresponds to 2.5 per cent of world GDP or an average spending of $173 per capita;
  • World military expenditure in 2005 presents a real terms increase of 3.4 per cent since 2004, and of 34 per cent over the 10-year period 1996–2005;
  • The USA, responsible for about 80 per cent of the increase in 2005, is the principal determinant of the current world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for almost half of the world total;
  • The 15 countries with the highest spending account for 84 per cent of the total;
  • The USA is responsible for 48 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, France, Japan and China with 4–5 per cent each.

(Source: http://www.globalissues.org)

United States defence budget 2008

  • Provides $481.4 billion for the Department of Defense's base budget - a 62-percent increase over 2001 - to ensure a high level of military readiness as the Department develops capabilities to meet future threats, defends the homeland, and supports the all-volunteer force and their families;
  • Supports operations in the Global War on Terror by providing an additional $93.4 billion in supplemental funds for 2007 and $141.7 billion for 2008, including funds to accelerate efforts to train and equip Iraqi and Afghan Security Forces;
  • Continues ground force modernization and the expansion of Special Operations Forces;
  • Enhances missile defense capabilities by adding additional interceptor missiles and sites to expand coverage against new threats;
  • Provides a 3.0-percent increase in basic military and civilian pay; and
  • Aligns military health care premiums and co-payments for retirees under 65 years of age with general health insurance plans.

(Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov)

At the start of 2008 the US budget deficit (that is how much less the US Government will receive in revenue versus how much they will spend) was estimated to be around $250 billion.

UK Defence budget 2007/8

  • The Defence budget is set to increase from £29.7Bn in 2004/05 to £33.4Bn in 2007/08. In real terms (i.e. after inflation) it represents average annual growth of 1.4%. It will amount to longest period of sustained real terms growth in planned Defence spending.
  • The is intended to promote investment in new capabilities to increase the UK's agility, flexibility and deployability. The Government also wants to provide world-class equipment to its Armed Forces, which requires major investment. However, aside from increasing its defence budget, the Government is also driving a major efficiency programme to maximise every penny spent in this area.
  • The UK Defence budget in 2005/06 is some £30.1Bn. In terms of monetary expenditure, this puts the UK second in the world on defence spending [after the United States].

(Source: http://www.mod.uk)

Something to do: Compare the amounts being spent on defence by the United States and the UK as set out in the tables above, with the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of other nations around the world using this information, and discuss your findings with a friend or colleague.

Such vast sums of money will often be found at the expense of other equally pressing needs:

'Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.' (US President Dwight D. Eisenhower)

Of course, in light of this the questions begs as to whether nations are justified in having such huge defense budgets, especially when other areas such as education and healthcare often lack the equivalent level (and commitment) of funding? One argument might be that in a day and age where global terror organisations are a constant worry, that no nation can afford to remain 'unprotected'. Also, maintaining some form of military force in one's own country prevents the possibility of occupation by another nation:

Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai LamaIn 1950 the Chinese army invaded Tibet, and has remained an occupying force there ever since (China actually saw their 'invasion' as a reclaiming of land, which they feel has always belonged to them). At the time of the invasion, the Tibetan army (numbering 8,000 soldiers) was ill-prepared and ill-equipped to deal with the forces that confronted them (40,000 Red Army soldiers), and as such Tibet was taken in two days and the Dalai Lama (the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people) exiled.

On the other hand, how should defense spending be regulated? What is a responsible and sensible amount of money to spend on defense? Should it be a priority over health and education spending for example? It seems that until there is world peace nations will always feel the need to justify a defense budget, and what is deemed to be a reasonable amount to spend will largely depend on the real and/or perceived threat at the time.

Advertisement

Pacifism

Pacifism is the belief that conflicts between people and nations can be resolved without resorting to violence. Although war and conflict have featured prominently in human history, Pacifists believe that violent conflict is not inevitable and that by utilising non-violent principles and means the tensions which flare up between people and nations can be resolved in a peaceful manner.

Photograph of Mohandas Gandhi Probably the most well-known Pacifist is Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948). During his time in South Africa, and later on in India, Gandhi utilised the principle of non-violence (ahimsa) in order to agitate for voting rights and a greater degree of independence under British rule. Although British soldiers imprisoned, beat and even shot those who followed Gandhi, instead of violence he advocated non-cooperation and peaceful resistance against their oppressors.

Gandhi's philosophy of non-violent resistance is also called Satyagraha. Aside from the advocate of non-violence (which Gandhi embraced after reading the Hindu scriptures such as The Bhagavad-Gita), Satyagraha is largely to do with the pursuit of truth by avoiding causing suffering to others. The key thing is to show love, respect and to be prepared to work with one's opponents in order to achieve Justice.

'[Satyagraha] is holding onto truth... in the earliest stages that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one's opponent... For what appears to be truth to the one may appear to be error to the other. And patience means self-suffering. So the doctrine came to mean vindication of truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent, but on oneself.' (Gandhi)

Gandhi's philosophy of Satyagraha greatly influenced the Civil Right leader, Martin Luther King Jr.

Photograph of Martin Luther King Jr.Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-68) was a key person in the formation of the Southern Leadership Christian Conference (SCLC), which organised non-violent protests against racially discriminatory laws in the USA. After visiting Gandhi in India in 1959, and inspired by his success with non-violent activism, King embraced Gandhi's philosophy of Satyagraha as the just means by which to 'fight' one's social and political oppressors.

'Since being in India, I am more convinced than ever before that the method of nonviolent resistance is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for justice and human dignity.' (Martin Luther King Jr.)

Although Pacifism has largely been a minority view throughout human history, one of the advantages in the Pacifist's position is that they will never be wrong in the question of whether a country should have gone to war. As they will never agree to engage in war, this means Pacifists will never have to address the question of whether they should have sent men and women to fight (and to die) for their country (because they would never make anyone do this). However, those who do believe war is a viable option will regularly find questions being raised about their decision to commit troops, resources and finances to this course of action. Wars are expensive in all manner of ways, and we need to be sure that the politicians who commit their country to war have sound, valid and just reasons for doing so. It is easy to fight a war with someone else's blood, and even more easier to do so for what seem to be right, but turn about to be the wrong reasons:

'"The premise of the [Iraq] war was ... all of the dots added up to a program and to weapons and a weapons program that was dangerous and getting more so."' (Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Advisor [Bracket mine])

The Nonviolent Peaceforce

As a final thought on the matter of Pacifism, I want to draw attention a US-based organisation known as The Nonviolent Peaceforce. This organisation is seeking to build a trained, international civilian peaceforce, which is committed to third-party nonviolent intervention. This official video (below) shows the nature and rationale of how they seek to resolve conflicts between political groups, in a peaceful manner.

Something to do: Watch and discuss this video with a friend. What are your thoughts on the aims of The Nonviolent Peaceforce? Do you believe that human nature is disposed towards this kind of action or not, and why?

Back to top