gaining permission to establish base facilities. As early as 1940,US President Roosevelt offered Britain 50 destroyers as "payment" for bases in the Caribbean. US bases in Ethiopia, Somalia, Paki­stan and Oman were acquired in a similar fashion. The Soviet Union in turn obtained facilities in South Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Cuba, as well as use of American-built bases at Cam Ranh Bay and Danang, Vietnam, in exchange for arms.70

Beyond the impact that foreign military personnel and foreign bases have on the socio-economic development of host countries (see article on Olongapo City for a discussion of the impact of a military base on a Philippine community), they heighten the poten­tial for conflict throughout the world. Not only do they bring Soviet and American military forces virtually "nose to nose" in Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean, thus risking confrontation between the major powers; they also draw host countries into the geopolitical struggle of the superpowers and make them vulnera­ble to attack. The storage of nuclear weapons and the docking of nuclear-capable ships at US bases in the Philippines, make the Philippines a target for Soviet missiles in the event of nuclear war. Foreign bases and personnel also make direct military intervention by the major powers in situations not to their liking much more probable.

Consequences of MilitarizationWe turn now to the specific ways in which militarization contrib­utes to underdevelopment in the Third World.

a) Misuse of ResourcesMilitarization utilizes scarce resources which might otherwise be used to enhance the quality of life for all people.

1) Money: Current global military spending is estimated at US $900 billion. In a world where 1.5 billion people have no effective medical care, 500 million are severely malnourished, and 600 mil­lion are illiterate, this is testimony to gravely distorted priorities.

70 Ibid., pp. 20-21.

The developed countries on average devote 5.4% of their GNP to military purposes and only .3% to development assistance.71 Some people argue that if even a portion of the financial resources presently spent on the military could be channelled into foreign aid, great advances in socio-economic development could be made. This is open to debate. Critics argue that where exploi­tative relations between rich and poor nations remain unchanged, development aid is a sham. Nevertheless, the tremendous gap in the military and aid budgets of the developed countries is still a telling indicator of priorities.

Third World governments and elites are also guilty. In I980, the Ethiopian government devoted 10.9% of its GNP to military pur­poses, five times the amount it spent for education, and nine times the amount it allocated to health. Within the country, adult literacy is 7% and life expectancy is about forty years. At the height of the famine in I984, 42.6% of government revenues were being used for the military.72

Money that is used for the production or purchase of arma­ments is money that is not available to vaccinate children against disease, to provide people with clean drinking water, to assist local industry, or to supply credit to small farmers. At present, a World Health Organization program to eradicate malaria, a scourge to many developing countries, is not moving ahead because of a lack of funds. The estimated $450 million needed to complete the program is only 1/2 of what is spent each day for military pur­poses, and only 1/3 the cost of a Trident nuclear submarine.73 Similarly, the cost of erecting a dyke across the Gulf of Bengal to hold back tidal waves which drown thousands of people in Ban­gladesh each year is estimated to be $1 billion — less than 4% of what the US will spend on SDI research in the next five years.74

71 Sivard, WMSE 1985, p. 5.72 Sanford J. Ungar," The Military Money Drain," Bulletin of Atomic

Scientists 41:8 (I985): 33.73 United Nations Group of Consultant Experts,"Economic and

Social Consequences of the Arms Race," in Ghosh, p. 90.74 Thomas L. Perry, "What the Arms Race is Doing to People in

the Third World," in Thomas L. Perry and James G. Foulks, eds., End the Arms Race: Fund Human Needs (Vancouver: Vancouver

Yet the opportunity costs of militarization cannot be calculated simply by estimating how many more hospitals, schools and roads could be built if financial resources could be diverted from military use. The effects are cumulative.

Better social services improve workers' economic perform­ance; the resulting increase in social productivity facilitates fur­ther development in education, public health, culture, and ser­vices. Human skill, knowledge, and creativity, if used for social development purposes, can multiply the growth rate of the very sources that satisfy human needs; at the same time higher satisfaction of such needs increases human creativ­ity.75

2) People: An estimated 45 million people worldwide make up the military work force. This includes 35 million who serve in regular armed and para-military forces, 4 million civilians in government defence departments, 5 million in the production of military equip­ment, and 500,000 scientists and engineers engaged in research and development for military purposes.76 Millions more carry out support functions.

While this work force does make some positive contributions from a civilian point of view — armed forces personnel occasion­ally build roads and bridges and assist in disaster relief operations— this is secondary to the military's main purpose of preparing for and practising war. Moreover, the recruitment of highly skilled workers into the armed forces and defence industries seriously restricts the quality of the labour force available to civilian employ­ers. In India, the Defence Research and Development Organiza­tion and other military research projects employ more scientists, engineers, and technicians than are employed for research and development by private industry.77 This results in a kind of internal

Centennial Commission, 1986), p. 174.75 Tamas Szentes, "The Economic Impact of Global Militarization,"

Alternatives 10:1 (I984): 60.76 Sanger, p. 16.77 Peter Lock and Herbert Wulf, "Consequences of the Transfer

militarization and underdevelopment

"brain drain."

3) Research and Development: At present 1/4 of all money spent globally on research and development (R & D) is for military- related R & D. More is spent on military R & D than on research into energy, pollution control, health, and agriculture combined. Twenty percent of the world's scientists and engineers are engaged in military research and development.78

Defenders of military R & D claim that the civilian sector ben­efits through spin-offs. As one example of spin-off, research into the B-47 bomber was useful for the design of the Boeing 707 air­craft. Military R & D has also played a role in advancing the fields of nuclear energy, space technology, microprocessors, radar and electronics.

However, a growing body of evidence refutes the spin-off argu­ment. An analysis of seventeen non-communist industrial coun­tries over a two-decade period, conducted by the US Council on Economic Priorities, confirmed that civilian research is the most effective means for civilian product development. The Council examined three key industrial sectors in each of the seventeen countries to see whether these constituted an expanding market for American firms with significant military production. Assuming that a positive correlation would support the spin-off theory, the study found the opposite was true. Those firms making inroads into the new markets were not American military firms, but Japa­nese and European companies with emphasis on civilian techno­logical innovation79

While the spin-off argument holds little validity for the devel­oped countries, it is even more of a myth for developing econo­mies, where there is a wide gap in the level of technology between military and civilian sectors. Next to military factories out­fitted with the most sophisticated and expensive equipment, are communities where the ordinary civilian telephone system and the

of Military-oriented Technology on the Development Process," in Ghosh, p. 115.

78 Sanger, p. 19.79 Regehr, Arms Canada, p. 165.

supply of electricity are unreliable.80 Because of this gap, virtually no spin-off occurs onto civilian production.

4) Raw Materials: An estimated 5-6% of total world consump­tion of petroleum is presently used for military purposes. This is nearly half of what all developing countries, excluding China, con­sume, and more than is used in France alone. Additionally, military consumption accounts for more than 11% of world consumption of copper, more than 8% of lead, about 6% of aluminum, nickel, sil­ver and zinc, and nearly 6% of platinum 81

None of these minerals are in short supply at present, even though declining reserves of non-renewable energy sources are cause for concern. However, the major military producers are increasingly dependent on the Third World for cheap supplies of strategic minerals, and they are meeting with growing resistance from the latter. The potential for the eruption of "resource wars"— conflicts in which access to strategic minerals is an important factor — is very real. Such wars have already occurred in Algeria, Nigeria, Congo (Zaire), and Western Sahara.82

5) Land: The amount of land used by the military on a global scale amounts to between .3 and .5% of total land available. Overall, this is rather insignificant, but in a place like Singapore, the military occupies 10% of a 226 square mile island. Land used for civilian purposes must now be reclaimed from the sea.83

Even where the military land requirements do not compete directly with civilian uses such as agriculture, forestry, and urban expansion, they are a source of concern from an environmental perspective. The long-term damage to land, air and water for the storage and testing of weapons (particularly nuclear) can have a profound impact on civilian activity far beyond the immediate area of use.

80 Hunger and Militarism: A Guide to Study, Reflection and Action, 2nd ed. (New York: American Friends Service Committee, n.d.), p. 38.

81 Sanger, p. 17.82 Ibid., p. 18.83 Lock and Wulf, p. 115.

b) InflationThe existence of inflation may not necessarily be an indicator of underdevelopment — inflation is also a reality in the developed world — but it does weaken an already fragile economy, making the pursuit of development much more difficult. High levels of mil­itary spending, as one of the key elements of the process of mili­tarization, contribute to inflation in several ways.

First of all, military spending generates additional income, and thus purchasing power, without producing any more consumer goods or without expanding production capacity to meet increased demand. There is more money chasing the same amount of goods, therefore inflation results.

Secondly, military industry is characterized by high wages because of the highly skilled labour force needed, and high profits because of the financial support and guaranteed purchases by governments and the more or less monopolistic position that pri­vate companies in the military sector enjoy. The high profits and wages in the industry stimulate demands for higher profits and wages in other industries.

Thirdly, inflation can result where goods and services required by the military sector are scarce. Prices for such goods and servi­ces thus rise, provoking price increases in related industries. It is this kind of inflations which is particularly intense in developing and war-damaged countries.

In I980 inflation in Israel ran at 100%. Military spending, exclud­ing expenditures on veteran's benefits, interest on war debts, civil defence, and outlays for strategic industrial stockpiling, was about 24% of GNP. There appears to be a definite correlation between the two figures.

c) UnemploymentOne of the arguments used to justify military spending is that it creates jobs. While this may be true in some instances, more and more studies indicate that in the long run sustained high military expenditures actually contribute to unemployment.

A US Department of Labor study in I976 indicated that $1 bil­lion of military expenditure created 76,000 jobs, yet $1 billion spent for civilian programs created 100,000 jobs; even more if the funds

A t present the developing world owes approximately $950 billion (US) — of which, 25% is for arms imports.

were channelled into labour-intensive fields.84 A Norway case study showed that public expenditures in general generated 120% as much employment as military expenditures per unit.85

A I985 study by the Canadian Union of Public Employees pro­duced even more striking results. In 1983-1984, spending by the Department of National Defence created an estimated 146,641 jobs in 181 industries. But had the same amount of money been spent by Canadian consumers on housing, food, clothing, education and other needs, the outcome would have been 257,844 jobs — or 111,203 more.86

Similar statistics are not available for developing countries, but it seems evident that the situation would be even worse. Most modern weaponry is capital-, rather than labour-intensive, the exact opposite of what is appropriate to the resources of Third World nations. Jobs created are frequently ones which require highly skilled personnel and which are not accessible to the uns­killed masses. Indeed, many countries must import skilled techni­cians and advisors because they are not available at home. At the time of the Shah's demise, there were some 50,000 American specialists assisting with arms production and maintenance in Iran.

Secondly, there is, as previously mentioned, a wide gap in the level of technology between military and civilian sectors in the economies of developing countries, especially where a local arms industry exists. Because of this gap, there is little spin-off onto civilian production, and therefore little indirect employment that results. This pertains particularly where the economy of a devel­oping country has little or no manufacturing base, and is almost totally dependent on the export of primary products.87

84 United Nations Group of Consultant Experts, p. 94.86 Nils Pieter Geditsch, "Military Spending and Economic Struc­

tures with Reference to Market Economies," (Paper prepared for United Nations General Assembly, Preparatory Committee for the International Conference on the Relationship between Disarma­ment and Development, 1986), p. 6. See Wolpin, "Comparative Perspectives . . " p. 146 for information on more studies.

86 The Facts, January-February I986, p. 8.87 Szentes, p. 55.

d) DebtMost developing countries must import military equipment, whether complete weapons systems or components. These imports results in a serious drain on precious foreign exchange reserves and con­tribute to a country's debt.

At present, the developing world owes the developed world approximately $950 billion. Arms imports account for 25% of the debt burden. Moreover, a United Nations report noted that in at least four of the twenty countries with the largest foreign debt in I983, the value of arms imports amounted to 39-40% of the debt increase between I976 and I980.88

Peru is one example of a country whose arms imports have aggravated the debt problem. In I976 it imported $600 million worth of arms, an amount which accounted for 1/3 of all Peru's exports. The following year arms purchases were $350 million. By I977 public debt had reached $5 billion, with a service ratio (ser­vice payments as a ratio of total exports) of 36%.89

Military purchases divert foreign currency away from essential imports at the time of transfer, as well as far into the future. The purchase of a jet fighter, for instance, necessitates ongoing expenditures for spare parts and servicing, as well as the con­struction of additional airports, the extension of runways, and the installation of navigational and control systems. Even weapons provided as gifts impose maintenance, operation, and infrastruc­ture costs that can be staggering.

As pointed out earlier, one of the reasons that a growing num­ber of countries have ventured into arms production is to save on foreign exchange. However, in many instances there is no saving. It is often more expensive to buy unassembled weapons parts than to purchase a completed weapon.90 There are also licensing fees and royalties to be paid. Moreover, even relatively simple arms-producing facilities set up in a developing country are highly

88 Sivard, WMSE 1986, p. 5.89 Vayrynen, p. 148.90 Signe Landgren-Backstrom, "Arms Trade and the Transfer of

Military Technology to Third World Countries," in Asbjorn Eide and Marek Thee, eds., Problems o f Contemporary Militarism (London: Croom Helm, I980), p. 244.

dependent on imported inputs. A US government study revealed that between 53% and 80% of the cost of installing M-16 machine gun factories in developing countries over a five-year period was for imports. All the countries involved, included among them Tai­wan, South Korea, and the Philippines, had at least an incipient industrial base to begin with 91

A special problem with military-related imports is that they gen­erate no income with which debt can be paid. Unlike the pur­chase of industrial technology, which can be used to produce goods for export, military imports cannot improve the balance of payments. They either are used up or become obsolete and are replaced.

e) Production for ExportIn order to generate foreign exchange to pay their debts, develop­ing countries increase production for export, usually to the neglect of local needs. Countries with some industrial base can export manufactured items like clothing and assembled electronics — items which, because of lower labour costs, are cheaper than comparable items made in the industrialized countries. But the majority must rely on raw materials like oil and minerals and cash crops like peanuts, pineapples, bananas, sugar, tobacco, cotton, and coffee.

While many people argue that production for export is the most viable development strategy for Third World countries, there are numerous problems, particularly from the perspective of the poor.In the first place, where some 35% of people in the developing countries are underfed, more and more land is being used to produce crops for export. In the last twenty years, global land area devoted to sugar has doubled and tea quadrupled. In India between I974 and I982 the area under soybeans increased five times. At present 1/4 of the land under cultivation worldwide is given over to non-food crops, and this amount is growing.92

The irony is that the same countries engaged in production for export are having to import foodstuffs for their increasingly hungry people. In Brazil in the I970s, soybean production so greatly

9' Lock and Wulf, p. 113.92 South, April I986, p.99.

replaced the production of black beans, the traditional staple of the poor, that the government had to start importing black beans from Chile.93 Similarly, in I984 Zimbabwe had to import 400,000 tonnes of maize at the same time that larger acreages resulted in record harvests of tobacco, cotton and soybeans.94 Cereal imports by the developing world have increased by 75% in the last ten years.95

A second problem is that the expansion of export agriculture often displaces small farmers from the land which is their source of livelihood — frequently against their wishes. In the early I980s in the Philippines, the British-Malaysian firm Guthrie became engaged in palm oil production. Its original land holdings were acquired through a lease from a government agency. Later on, Guthrie set its sights on nearby land occupied by small farmers. When these persons resisted leasing their land, the company employed armed goons, called the Lost Command, to harrass, intimidate and even kill them. In one instance, Lost Command members walked into a village and promptly killed twelve men before the eyes of their families. Several days later, Guthrie agents appeared in the village, again offering to lease the land from the terrified survivors — at a reduced price.96

Thirdly, the pressures to export lead to widespread use of hybrid seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, all of which need to be imported. These imports not only further strain the balance of payments, but they also create dependencies which are difficult to break out of. Hybrid seeds, for instance, deplete the soil rapidly, and thus require ever increasing amounts of fertilizer. Indiscrimi­nate use of pesticides can cause pests to develop a resistance, resulting in the application of greater amounts and more powerful chemicals. Aside from the damage done to the environment, this

93 Francis Moore Lappe and Joseph Collins, Food First: Beyond the Myth of Scarcity, rev. ed. (New York: Ballantine Books, I978), p. 224.

94 Nigel Twose, Cultivating Hunger: An Oxtam Study of Food, Pov­erty and Power (London: Oxfam, I984), p. 18.

95 South.96 The author learned of this incident while living in the Philip­

pines, I982-I986.

kind of strategy often leads to indebtedness and bankruptcy for small farmers.

Fourthly, export agriculture often leads to unemployment. Fre­quently, agribusiness involves high investments in machinery, with the result being a decline in the total number of persons employed per unit area. In other instances, some export crops simply require fewer workers than do food crops. The production of sugarcane, for example, is much less labour-intensive than the cul­tivation of rice and corn.

A fifth problem of gearing production to export is that the economies of developing nations become extremely vulnerable to the vagaries of the world market, particularly when such nations are dependent on only one or two commodities. A decline of one cent in the price of coffee can mean a loss of millions of dollars for a country such as Colombia; a substantial drop can mean dis­aster. At the same time, a sudden price increase can trigger debilitating inflation. In 1977-78 the price of cocoa, Ghana's pri­mary export, sky-rocketed. Before long, tomatoes, a staple food used in all traditional recipes, were selling for one dollar each. Tomatoes quickly became an unattainable luxury for many.97

Related to this is the fact that, overall, the price of agricultural commodities exported by the developing nations has been declin­ing relative to the manufactured goods they must import. It takes two to three times as many tonnes of bananas to pay for one mili­tary transport truck as it did ten years ago. Commodity prices are now at their lowest level in forty years.

While production for export is harmful to most people, there are several groups who benefit. One of these includes producers and plantation owners who can pass on their losses to workers through wage cuts and lay-offs. Another group consists of better-off city dwellers who can afford the imported consumer goods which exported commodities pay for. A third group includes those asso­ciated with transnational corporations (at home and in the host country), as well as government bureaucrats who are paid for managing the export system. The maintenance of the system by these elites and by foreign consumers ensures the continued underdevelopment of the Third World.

f) Hostage to the IMFA second alternative to countries with balance of payments

problems is to try to get loans from international lending agencies like the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In 1983 an unprece­dented 63 states drew on credits from the IMF to service their debts.

Unfortunately for the recipients, the granting of loans is depen­dent on compliance with a set of harsh austerity measures. Gov­ernments must agree to remove price controls and subsidies on basic consumer goods (usually foodstuffs and fuels), cut back on spending for health, education, and social welfare, and hold down wages. They must also encourage more production for export by devaluing currencies and removing export controls.

These measures are beneficial to the industrialized nations which dominate the IMF. They facilitate foreign investment by, and higher profits for, transnational corporations, they make pur­chases of raw materials and food commodities cheaper, and they ensure that loans will be repaid. In other words, they serve as another mechanism which upholds relationships of inequality between developed and developing countries.

But the cost paid by the poor — those who must bear the brunt of these measures — is high. In Costa Rica, which entered into an agreement with the IMF in 1981, the number of children treated for severe malnutrition doubled between 1981 and I982. In Chile, typhoid fever and hepatitis are on the increase as a result of the "adjustments" made by government cutbacks in sanitation and drinking water programs. That the IMF is unconcerned about the impact of its adjustment programs on the poor is attested to by a study of 30 countries receiving credits during I964-I979. In only one instance was an attempt made to protect the poorest against possible adverse effects of the IMF measures.98

The irony of the so-called "stabilization" programs of the IMF is that they often contribute to instability, as people protest increased hardship. In Cairo in I977, 79 people were killed in riots protesting the removal of food subsidies. In Casablanca in 1981, 600 were killed and 2000 arrested when army and police attacked people demonstrating against wage cuts. And in I984 in Tunisia,

Lappe and Collins, p. 222 98 New Internationalist, February I987, p. 15

80 deaths were registered in riots caused by an increase in the price of bread99

Yet the price which must be paid by developing countries ref­using to abide by the dictates of the IMF is also high. Peru serves as an example. In 1985 President Alan Garcia announced that Peru's debt repayment would be limited to 10% of exports in any year. When the South American nation missed its payments in I986, the IMF immediately declared it ineligible for future loans. Since the IMF's stamp of approval serves to define a borrower's credit-worthiness, it is very likely that Peru will have difficulty acquiring other loans.

g) Internal ContradictionsThe militarization of the Third World reinforces certain internal con­tradictions which are inimical to development. This applies particu­larly to situations where there is a local arms industry or a foreign military presence.

In the first place, these manifestations of militarization widen the gap between rich and poor. Military industries draw on the highly skilled few, rather than the unskilled masses; indeed, many countries rely on foreign technicians and advisors to supply the necessary expertise. Disproportionately high wages in turn stimu­late a standard of living way out of line with that of the general populace. Little islands of militarized wealth appear amidst a sea of poverty. Iran under the Shah is a prime example of this.

Secondly, military industries and foreign military personnel drain the hinterland (periphery) of resources and income for the benefit of the city (metropolis) in the same way that resources flow from the less developed nations to the developed ones. As indicated previously, military imports are paid for primarily by the export of commodities which are produced in the rural areas. The peas­antry thus end up paying for goods used by a small city-based elite of military bureaucrats and industrialists to build up local mili­tary production. They also pay for the imported luxury items con­sumed by this elite and by foreign service persons. Few benefits ever return to the countryside.100

Related to this, military industries and foreign military personnel reinforce the dualism present in the economies of many develop­ing nations.101 This dualism is characterized by the existence of, and lack of integration between, "modern" export-oriented agribu­siness and industry and "traditional" production for local consump­tion. Military industry and foreign military personnel, being highly dependent on imports, identify strongly with the modern sector, and do little to stimulate production in the traditional sector or local manufacturing. In the Philippines, for example, American mili­tary personnel and the Filipino upper-class (including the military elite) prefer to eat bread, which relies on imported flour, rather than rice, which is the traditional Filipino staple and which is grown locally. These consumption habits bolster the country's economic dualism and thus undermine even development.

h) Authoritarianism and RepressionOne of the clearest indicators of the militarization of the Third World is the number of governments where the armed forces have come to hold a controlling share. In I960 only 22 of 78 or 28% of developing countries were under military-controlled governments. By I986 that number had increased to 57 of 114 or 50% of inde­pendent states.102 This does not include many other countries where the military is not actually in control, but where it wields great influence.

Where political power is militarized, there is a high level of authoritarian rather than participatory decision-making. The Inter­national Peace Research Association explains why:

A participatory democratic system will lead to decentralization, and a preference for an appropriate and labor-intensive tech­nology that gives priority to basic needs; the military repre­sents an entirely different organizational structure, with a high degree of centralization and hierarchy. The emphasis is on command and subordination, on discipline rather than creativ­ity, defining alternative thinking and approaches as "subver­sive": these attitudes, closely associated with the organization

99 Ibid., p. 14. 101 Szentes, p. 62.100 Mary Kaldor, "The Military in Third World Development," p. 88. 102 Sivard, WMSE 1985, p. 25.

Militarization strengthens the mechanisms by which the North exploits the South in a worldwide hierarchy of power.

of the armed forces, are deeply anti-democratic in nature.103

Militarization of the state apparatus is also associated with a high reliance on coercion to enforce decisions, as well as the sys­tematic violation of human rights. Voting is restricted, the press is censored, organizing activity is closely monitored, and there is quick resort to arbitrary arrest, torture, disappearances and mur­der. In 1986 all 57 military-controlled governments exercised repression in its most extreme forms.104

Human rights violations are especially frequent among countries which pursue a rightist open-door development strategy, their tar­gets being those who oppose such a strategy.105 These regimes tend to attract investment and political support from western mar­ket economies and from lending agencies (like the IMF and the World Bank) which these economies dominate. And despite severe human rights abuses, such countries are rarely repri­manded or subjected to diplomatic pressure from nations which espouse the principles of freedom and democracy.106 Brazil, Indonesia, and Iran under the Shah are examples.

Although development is usually conceived of in terms of soci­o-economic indicators like infant mortality rate, literacy rate, and GNP per capita, human rights must also be considered an essen­tial component of just development. Where people are prevented from freely exercising their political rights, there is no assurance that the benefits of development will be evenly distributed. All members of society must be guaranteed an opportunity to draw attention to and work towards the fulfillment of their needs.

The relationship between militarization, underdevelopment, and repression is a cyclical one. Militarization, particularly through arms transfers, deepens poverty, oppression, and underdevelop­ment in the Third World. As people rise up in protest against these injustices, governments resort to repression to maintain social control, More military equipment is required to break up

103 International Peace Research Association, pp. 176-177.104 Sivard, WMSE 1986, p. 25.105 Szentes, p. 61.106 Richard Falk, "Militarisation and Human Rights in the Third World," in Eide and Thee, p. 215.

demonstrations and strikes, to arrest, torture, and kill dissidents, and to wage counter-insurgency campaigns. This in turn invites greater economic hardship, which invites more dissent, which invites more repression, and so on. The very arms which are sup­posed to provide security, in fact foster insecurity.

i) WarfareThe more militarized a society, the more quickly it will resort to armed solutions to social and political problems. Thus, the arming of the Third World provokes and prolongs war. In the I973 Middle East war, the superpowers flew weapons to both belligerents within days of the outbreak to avoid a surrender by "their" side. Similarly, the Iran/Iraq war would have ended long ago if arms manufacturers were not so eager to "make a killing."

Since I945 some 120 wars have been waged, virtually all of them in the developing countries. Twenty million people have been killed and many more injured. Three million alone died in Indochina between I945 and I975, and of those killed in Vietnam, 80% were civilians.

While the loss of human life is the most tragic result of war, there are other consequences which also have serious implications for development. War creates refugees. There are now some 8 million refugees worldwide, most of them women and children, who have become refugees as a result of war. A nation pays doubly when its citizens become refugees: there is the cost of lost production of the refugees themselves, and the cost of supporting them, often for long periods of time.

War disrupts food production and destroys food supplies. The western media attributed food shortages in the Horn of Africa in 1984-1985 almost entirely to drought. Virtually ignored was the fact that ongoing military conflicts in the Horn have taken much land out of production. In Laos, more than a decade after the conclu­sion of hostilities, much farmland still cannot be cultivated because unexploded bomblets from US-dropped cluster bombs remain hid­den in the soil, detonating when touched by a hoe or plow.

War devastates infrastructure. Where roads, bridges, and drainage systems are destroyed, communication and power lines cut, and factories bombed, commerce grinds to a near halt. The impact on developing countries may not be so great as in the developed nations, but the cost of reconstruction may be much more burdensome.

Finally, war causes serious damage to the environment. The use of chemical weapons to remove sheltering forests or to destroy crops upon which the enemy depends, can bring long­term damage to soil, agriculture and the ecological balance. In Vietnam, defoliants completely destroyed 1500 square kilometers of mangrove forest and damaged 15,000 more. One herbicide has also been linked to human birth defects, miscarriages, and liver cancer.107 In the event of nuclear war, the consequences for the environment would be widespread destruction of vegetation, soil erosion, possible genetic mutations of animal and plant life, reduction in the ozone layer, and climatic changes.

* * * *

It is evident that militarization contributes to underdevelopment in many ways. What is perhaps even more significant than the individual consequences outlined here is the manner in which mili­tarization strengthens the various mechanisms whereby the indus­trialized nations of the North engage in the exploitation and under­development of the South. In particular, by compounding the foreign debt of developing economies, by gearing production toward export and away from urgent local needs, by contributing to dependence on the IMF, and by fostering authoritarianism and repression, the militarization of the Third World serves to reinforce the structure and dynamic of a world hierarchy of power. At a very basic level, militarization makes for underdevelopment by inte­grating the developing countries into a global economic order in which they are destined to be losers.

ConclusionAccording to the thinking of the United Nations Group of Experts, world disarmament is a prerequisite for world development; that is, only when nations seriously begin to control military spending and restrain the arms race, will the goal of balanced economic and

social development become attainable. Others argue that world development is needed before disarmament can proceed. In other words, not until reasonable equity and economic balance prevail, will it be possible to develop conditions for a lasting disar­mament.108

Either way, as outlined in this paper, the problems of militariza­tion and underdevelopment are intimately related. Therefore, the struggles for world disarmament and global economic justice must go hand in hand. Any brakes applied to the proliferation of mili­tary force will mean less underdevelopment, and any measures fostering economic justice will mean less need for armed might to protect the privileges of the world's elites.

There are a variety of ways in which concerned Canadians might join in these struggles and attempt to break the militariza­tion/underdevelopment cycle as it occurs in the Third World. One important strategy is the pursuit of alternate government policies, seeking to check the spread of militarization to the developing nations, as well as to remove some of the mechanisms which maintain relationships of inequality between the rich and poor countries. In addressing, first of all, the problem of global militari­zation, policies should be aimed particularly at controlling the inter­national arms trade, the primary means for the militarization of the Third World. At the level of domestic policy, Canada should, as a first step:

• prohibit all arms exports to governments identified as human rights violators;

• provide full public disclosure of all military exports;• terminate grants and subsidies to industries seeking military

markets outside Canadian borders (especially grants under the Defence Industry Productivity Program).

At the international level, the Canadian government should

• work to place the control of weapons transfers on the agenda

107 United Nations Environment Program, "The EnvironmentalEffects of Military Activity," in Ghosh, p. 184.

108 Augusto Varas, "Economic Impact of Military Spending: Military Spending and the Development Process," Disarmament, 9:3 (I986): 89.

of international disarmament fora;• encourage the UN Secretary General to study the feasibility and

implications of an international arms trade register.

The problem of how to remove some of the obstacles to greater economic justice between the developed and developing nations is extremely complex, especially given that those who are in a position to make changes very often have vested interests to protect. A great deal more work needs to be done in identifying various measures that could promote a more balanced global eco­nomic order. Still, the recently tabled report of the Standing Com­mittee on External Affairs and International Trade on Canada's Official Development Assistance Policies and Programs (the Wine- gard Commission), provides some helpful suggestions as a start­ing point. The committee recommends, among other things, that Canada should

• withhold official development assistance from governments iden­tified as human rights violators, and work to have human rights placed on the agenda of international financial institutions such as the IMF;

• reduce present requirements that 80% of official aid be "tied" to the purchase of goods and services in Canada;

• reduce the protectionist barriers to imports from developing countries;

• use its position within the international financial institutions to promote structural adjustment programs which take into account the impact of such programs on the poor;

• extend a moratorium on the repayment of debt to countries unable to repay their loans, and urge other donors to adopt sim­ilar measures.

Given the rampant militarization and desperate poverty and oppression which characterize much of the world, the vision of peace with justice has become an ideal that few people dare even to dream. Yet the pursuit of these policies by the Canadian government, supported by a well-informed public, would represent a concrete step in that direction. At the very least, Canada would be setting an important example in its relations with the Third World — an example that, hopefully, other industrialized nations would follow.

Selected Resources on Militarization and Underdevelopment

A. Printed Materials

1. Hunger and Militarism: A Guide to Study, Reflection and Action (New York: American Friends Service Committee, I985). A 75-page guide providing introduction to links between militarism and underdevelopment, case studies of Guatemala, Ethiopia, and the Philippines, and suggestions for action.

2. Ghosh, Pradip K., ed., Disarmament and Development: A Global Perspective (Westport Conn.: Greenwood Press, I984). A col­lection of major articles on the linkages between disarmament and development.

3. Gold, Howard, ed., Making the Connection: Disarmament, Devel­opment and Economic Conversion: A Reader and a Resource Guide (New York: UN NGO Liason, I985). A collection of arti­cles accompanied by an exhaustive listing of written materials, A-V's, proposed legislation, conferences, agencies, institutes, etc.

4. Graham, Mac et al, eds. Disarmament and World Development, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Pergamon Press, I986). A recent collection of articles on militarization and underdevelopment.

5. Sanger, Clyde, Safe and Sound: Disarmament and Development in the Eighties (Ottawa: Deneau Publishers, I982). A popularized version of the United Nations study on the relationship between disarmament and development.

6. Sivard, Ruth Leger, World Military and Social Expenditures 1986

(Washington: World Priorities, I986). An excellent annual com­parison of global expenditures on military and social needs.

B. Audio-Visuals.

1. Let them eat Missiles. A 23-minute slide set introducing the links between hunger and militarism, using- examples from South Africa, Ethiopia, El Salvador, Poland, Vietnam. Available from Mennonite Central Committee Ontario, 50 Kent St., Kitchener, ON, N2G 3RI.

2. Militarization: An Obstacle to Development. A 22-minute slide set on the relationship between militarism and underdevelop­ment, exploring the dependencies of Third World countries on the industrialized countries, and the myths justifying Canada's growing military role. Available from Canadian Catholic Organi­zation for Development and Peace, 3028 Danforth Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4C 1N2.

3. Controlling the Arms Trade (working title). A half-hour video cas­sette featuring Ploughshares' Research Director, Ernie Regehr, and several other experts. This tape explores the effect of the arms trade on underdevelopment, giving a particular emphasis to Canadian involvement. A discussion of Canadian actions that would help to curb the export of arms rounds out the pro- grammme. Available for purchase or rental from Project Ploughshares.

Project Ploughshares is a taskforce on disarmament and development sponsored by the Canadian Council of Churches and supported by Canadian churches, development agen­cies, and other concerned groups and individuals. Through its research, publication and education, the Project explores problems in disarmament and development both at home and in the less developed countries. Project Ploughshares publishes the quarterly Ploughs­hares Monitor which reports on current issues related to militarism and the arms race. Project Ploughshares also publishes occasional Working Papers which provide background on issues of disarmament and development. For more information, write:

Project Ploughshares Conrad Grebel College

Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G6

Other papers in the series:

Canada and the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific . . .The Media, Cold War and Disarmament..............................A Proposal for a Demilitarized Zone in the A rc tic ...............Peace, Employment and the Economics of Permanent WarCanada and Nuclear W eapons.............................................The Church and Nuclear Disarmament (Revised 1985) . . .The Defence Industry Productivity Programme.....................Canada and the Comprehensive Test B a n ...........................Making Canada a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone .....................

PROJECT PLOUGHSHARES

Project Ploughshares is sponsored by the Canadian Council of Churches and supported by: Anglican Church of

Canada, Canadian Friends Service Committee, Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, Canadian Unit­

arian Council, CUSO, Christian Church (Disciples), Christian Movement for Peace, Conrad Grebel College, Frontiers Founda­

tion, Inter-Pares, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, Mennonite Central Committee, Oxfam-Canada, Presbyterian

Church in Canada, United Church of Canada, Voice of Women, The Union of Spiritual Communities in Christ (Doukhobors).

. . August 1984 September 1984 . . October 1984 November 1984

. . . . July 1985 December 1985 . . . . April 1986 September 1986 . . . . April 1987

Price: $2.50

Collection Number: AG1977

END CONSCRIPTION CAMPAIGN (ECC)

PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers Research Archive

Location:- Johannesburg

©2013

LEGAL NOTICES:

Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only.

People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate,

distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of paper documents and the information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or

omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.

This document is part of a collection held at the Historical Papers Research Archive at The University of the

Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.