Today on BBC there was news that Russia is to increase its military spending to modernize its military. In the last few weeks, the focus has been on China, which once again reported a significant increase in military spending. Of course, the US has and continues to devote large expenditures to the military, and recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased spending further.
Now that China and Russia are also spending more on military, it means that some kind of arms race could be emerging again. It is likely, and has already been seen, that some countries have taken notice, particularly of China’s increased arms expenditures. In recent years, Japan has taken moves to become more militarized, departing from a tradition in its “pacifist” constitution.
We should try to remember that all of this money, effort, and expenditure is actually a waste, which is the result of humanity’s inability to live harmoniously in the current nation state system. It is a failure which is costing other humans dearly, as that money would certainly be better used to provide healthcare and food to all of the world’s people. If the money spent on arms could be freed up, it would open the possibility for great improvements in human welfare.
As I noted before in a blog post about “World Government and National Competition”, one of the main drivers of this problem is competition between nations, especially major powers. Lesser powers, as well, want to get in on the act and aim to become regional powers. It is actually usually the political elites in the countries which are most interested in maintaining military power, since they are the ones with the power to potentially use it in global or regional political games.
The people of these countries have no real say in these decisions, except in countries which are more democratic. Even in this case the impact is small. The people of a country may be influenced to support militarism, including using nationalistic themes, however. It is often actually not in the people’s interest to be involved in war, but in many cases the people in countries affected are powerless to prevent it or are influenced by the powerful so that they support it.
It seems that what is needed is less nationalism, a more international perspective, and ways to reduce competition between nations. If this means that greater multi-lateralism is needed, or new innovations in the international system tried, then so be it. We must remember, despite the continuing military presence and its growth even into this century, that it is actually a waste of funds and human energy.
Today on BBC there was news that Russia is to increase its military spending to modernize its military. In the last few weeks, the focus has been on China, which once again reported a significant increase in military spending. Of course, the US has and continues to devote large expenditures to the military, and recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased spending further.
Now that China and Russia are also spending more on military, it means that some kind of arms race could be emerging again. It is likely, and has already been seen, that some countries have taken notice, particularly of China’s increased arms expenditures. In recent years, Japan has taken moves to become more militarized, departing from a tradition in its “pacifist” constitution.
We should try to remember that all of this money, effort, and expenditure is actually a waste, which is the result of humanity’s inability to live harmoniously in the current nation state system. It is a failure which is costing other humans dearly, as that money would certainly be better used to provide healthcare and food to all of the world’s people. If the money spent on arms could be freed up, it would open the possibility for great improvements in human welfare.
As I noted before in a blog post about “World Government and National Competition”, one of the main drivers of this problem is competition between nations, especially major powers. Lesser powers, as well, want to get in on the act and aim to become regional powers. It is actually usually the political elites in the countries which are most interested in maintaining military power, since they are the ones with the power to potentially use it in global or regional political games.
The people of these countries have no real say in these decisions, except in countries which are more democratic. Even in this case the impact is small. The people of a country may be influenced to support militarism, including using nationalistic themes, however. It is often actually not in the people’s interest to be involved in war, but in many cases the people in countries affected are powerless to prevent it or are influenced by the powerful so that they support it.
It seems that what is needed is less nationalism, a more international perspective, and ways to reduce competition between nations. If this means that greater multi-lateralism is needed, or new innovations in the international system tried, then so be it. We must remember, despite the continuing military presence and its growth even into this century, that it is actually a waste of funds and human energy.
Posted in China, Country commentaries, International system and law, Nuclear weapons, Russia, United States | Tags: arms budget waste, arms race, arms spending, budget waste, China, competition between nations, human welfare, international power struggle, international system, internationalism, military, military arms race, military impact human welfare, military race, military spending, military waste, national competition, nationalism, new arms race, people's interest, political elites, political elites war, Russia, United States, USA, war, war people's interest, waste