Email this article

The Washington Post, Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress

President Clinton has chosen to begin the new year by advocating the largest increase in defense spending since the Reagan era — a proposed addition of $110 billion over the next six years. For Americans and for members of the international community alike, this decision is truly lamentable. Instead of offering world leadership on arms control, President Clinton's renewed focus on military build-up promises to replicate both flawed security reasoning and outdated spending priorities.

Those who believe that a bigger defense budget is an effective response to post-Cold War security challenges ignore the fact that the United States and its allies already spend more than twice as much as all of their conceivable adversaries combined. Yet this production and distribution of weapons only has made for a more dangerous world.

International terrorism and nuclear proliferation, in particular, are not problems that can be solved simply by a show of American military strength. World leaders must stop viewing militaristic investment as a measure of national well-being. And they must embrace multilateral efforts that recognize the complex and politicized nature of contemporary security questions.

By maintaining a massive military-industrial complex, the United States sends the wrong signal to other countries whose national budgets desperately need to be directed toward human needs. The sad fact is that half of the world's governments decide to invest more in defense than in health programs for their people.

If we channeled just $40 billion each year away from armies and into anti-poverty programs, in 10 years all of the world's population would enjoy basic social services — education, health care and nutrition, potable water and sanitation. Another $40 billion each year over 10 years would provide each person on this planet with an income level above the poverty line for their country

The United States has been notoriously hesitant to participate in initiatives to establish a cooperative framework for global security. Congress has yet to ratify major agreements on chemical and biological weapons, on the use of land mines, on nuclear testing and on international courts that could hold war criminals responsible for their actions.

Perhaps most significant, the United States, which is responsible for 43 percent of all arms exports, has been unwilling to strengthen humanitarian restraints on these transfers, and from 1993 to 1996, 85 percent of U.S. arms sales to the developing world went to non-democratic governments. This proliferation of armaments bolsters the power of militaries, impedes the process of democratization, destroys economic advances, perpetuates ethnic and territorial conflicts, and creates situations in which basic human rights are at risk.

In pursuing true solutions to its security concerns, the United States urgently needs to work with its international partners to limit the availability and spread of deadly weaponry.

An important step in this direction would be to show full support for the International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers, an initiative sponsored by a commission of 17 Nobel Peace laureates. By insisting that arms-importing nations uphold internationally recognized standards of democracy and humanitarian law, the code would end the practice of selling weapons to dictators and human rights abusers.

Recently, an American Code of Conduct has been held up by the back-room dealings of arms merchants. Nevertheless, promising legislation is set to be reintroduced before Congress in the coming session.

By holding itself to high moral standards on weapons sales, the United States would affirm a key maxim for the post-Cold War world: Security today is not found in unilateral build-up and aggressive posturing. Instead, it must be based on an increased commitment to international cooperation and on a renewed investment in the health, education and well-being of all humanity.

back to the top