Global Day of Action on Military Spending
“Military and development spending in an era of austerity”

Mr. Archer
Dear Colleagues
Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am pleased to be with you to mark the Global Day of Action on Military Spending, and I thank the International Peace Bureau for the invitation to take part today.

The Global Day represents a unique opportunity to appeal to Governments across the globe to review military spending. I appreciate that Geneva, as the world’s disarmament capital, joins that appeal.

As the human family, we are increasingly faced with non-military challenges such as poverty, climate change and humanitarian emergencies. We need to ensure that our resources are spent responsibly to be able to confront them effectively. Disarmament has to be part of those efforts. As we have just entered the final 1,000 days before the deadline for the Millennium Development Goals expires in 2015, the discussion of the role of disarmament in development is both timely and highly necessary.

This year’s event takes place against the background of the recent adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of the Arms Trade Treaty. This new instrument represents a significant step forward for strengthening the rule of law and transparency in the area of arms control. It is my hope that, in addition to reducing human suffering, this positive development can provide momentum and inspiration for a broader political push for disarmament.

With the end of the Cold War, global military expenditure started to decrease. There were expectations that this would result in a peace dividend. It was thought that more limited military spending and a less confrontational international environment would release financial, technological and human resources for development purposes. However, after decreasing for several years, the trend changed and global military expenditure started to rise again in the late 1990s.

Over 1.7 trillion dollars are spent on armaments globally, representing some 2.5% of global GDP. Despite the welcome fall between 2011 and 2012, military spending is still higher today than at the height of the Cold War. The Secretary-General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, has frequently stressed that “the world is over-armed and peace is underfunded”. This clearly summarizes the global imbalance in the allocation of resources between military expenditure and development.

Military expenditure reflects a mix of political and policy choices. They are influenced by factors such as threat perceptions, the dynamics of the arms industry, international commitments, regional arrangements and strategic alliances. It is imperative that military expenditure be weighed against competing priorities in a transparent and open political decision-making process.

As demonstrated by the data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the trend in military expenditure over the past two years does give us a small hope that the situation may change in the right direction. This is to be welcomed and further cuts should be encouraged. However, against the background of the modest decrease in military spending of some developed countries, we also observe growth in others, including developing States, which reflects changing geopolitical relations and realities. Sadly, despite the urgent need for social and economic development, there is also a growing demand for weapons.

While we should not fall into the trap of believing that a decrease in military spending will necessarily lead to an increase in development funding, it is clear that military spending can divert resources and political attention from other priorities. Excessive military expenditure can also affect a State’s economy, including investment, as spending on armaments is often economically non-productive.

At the same time, increased military spending often results in a heightened sense of insecurity in other countries, which can create a vicious cycle of ever-growing spending and insecurity, which affects the pace and extent of development.

The development, use and destruction of weapons also have substantial environmental costs. Contamination from nuclear waste or accidents, chemical and biological agents, landmines and explosive remnants of war can devastate the environment and pose significant social, financial, logistical and scientific challenges.

The costs to human health associated with the use of armaments are high. The expense of treatment, rehabilitation and long-term care for those injured places a heavy burden on health systems, if such systems exist at all. Moreover, health costs incurred by research on, use of and clean-up relating to weapons of mass destruction are considerable. In the worst cases, some of the ill effects might be transmitted to subsequent generations. I have seen this first-hand in Kazakhstan in the effects of the Semipalatinsk test site. The financial costs of treating injuries from some conventional weapons, such as landmines, are extensive.

Above all, we must keep in mind that the greatest suffering related to armed conflicts and underfunded socio-economic programmes is borne by the most vulnerable members of our society, including women and children.

Despite decades of discussions and proposals on how to release resources from military expenditure for development purposes, the international community has not yet been able to agree on limiting military spending.

Lack of transparency is one of the main obstacles to understanding the magnitude and consequences of military expenditure, and levels of armament. Reliable data on military expenditure and on arms procurement would help the international community to better understand the level of the imbalance between military and development spending in different countries and compare them with needs. This could be one practical step to address the problem.

Ladies and Gentlemen:
The question remains whether growing military expenditure is the right response to emerging risks and challenges to security, and whether we have done everything possible to find other, more sustainable ways to address these risks. I believe that the answer to that question is still “no”. We have much work to do, to raise awareness, to find appropriate ways of meeting legitimate security needs and to fund properly our sustainable development challenge. And to achieve this aim, we need to build trust so as to advance multilateral disarmament.

I hope that today’s debate can help towards that objective.

Thank you very much.