War & Conflict Spending Impact on Women & Poverty
Author: Womens UN Report Network
Date: July 22, 2005
WUNRN
United
Nations Human Rights Council 17
Panel
on Women-Poverty-Crises-Human Rights
3
June 2011
IMPACT OF WAR & CONFLICT SPENDING ON WOMEN
& POVERTY
Beatrice
Fihn, Reaching Critical Will – WILPF
According to the new report
released by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global military
expenditures was estimated at $1,630
billion in 2010, an increase of 1.3 per cent in real terms since 2009.
This is the highest number ever.
At the same time, it becomes more
and more obvious to people around the world that such continued investment in
weapons and militarism does not make the state safer, and it definitely does
not make individuals safer. Military investments are underpinned by a belief
that states’ security can be guaranteed by threats of violence. It’s an
investment in war and conflict. But military might cannot address the main
threats that people all over the world are facing today, such as natural
disasters, increased food prices, and lack of adequate health care, education,
violence against women and a clean environment.
When states go to war, and use
all of that purchased military equipment, it’s mostly civilians that fall
victims, despite the arguments behind war often are based on assumptions about
protection.
These weapons instead have
disproportionate effects on women and increased military expenditures are
draining resources from the world’s poor and in particular from women. Over 1.2
billion live in what is known as “extreme poverty”, i.e. less tat 1.25 USD per
day. 70% of these are women. In addition, over 30,000 children die every year
because of poverty. All the time, all over the world, women and girls are being
discriminated against; they earn less money than men and suffer the worst
consequences of poverty, lack of education and lack of political and human
rights.
Despite the fact that the MDG’s
state that poverty in the world is to be halved by 2015, enough efforts are not
being made to reach them. The World Bank estimates that it would take between 35 to 76 billion USD per year until
2015 for the world community to be able to live up to the MDG’s. Compare these
amounts to the 1,630 billion USD
that was spent on world military expenditures last year. It’s nothing.
There is a strong connection
between high militarization and its disproportionate effect on the spending
available for development and poverty reduction.
One example that WILPF has
pointed out is the relationship between military expenditures and maternal mortality rates. Reducing the
maternal mortality rates is one of the MDG’s. The fourteen states which have
the highest rates of maternal mortality have ALL been involved in major
conflict, internal or external in the last 15 years. Most appear very high up
on the global militarism index and are in the top the list on high military
expenditures in comparison to GDP.
The war in Afghanistan had at the end of 2009 cost the coalition of
states 287 billion dollars. In real terms this equals a $300,000 cash payment
to each person in Afghanistan. One of these 287 billion dollars could pay for
2.5 billion meals for hungry people, or 31 million vaccinations against the six
main childhood killer diseases – diphtheria, whooping cough, measles, polio,
tetanus and tuberculosis, or 700,000 family homes, or 270,000 schools furnished
with desks, chairs, tables or 53 million children supplied with school books
for a whole year.
Unfortunately, military
expenditures are often left off the debate in human rights and poverty. There
needs to be a thorough examination of states priorities. Investments made into
militarism negatively impact upon the fulfillment of states obligations and
commitments in two ways:
1. Militarism and
weapons leads to and intensifies conflict and violence. They inhibit the
provision and protection of human rights in the most direct sense, especially
for the most vulnerable citizens – women in poverty.
2. Diversion of
resources to militaristic ends indicates states failure to use their resources
to fulfill their obligations and achieve their goals.
The Human Rights Council and
Universal Periodic Review process, as well as the Human Rights Treaty Bodies
could be the forums where we examine and evaluate this balance of priorities
demonstrated by governments. WILPF strongly believes that all issues of peace
are linked, you cannot separate weapons production from social injustice, economic
development and women’s rights. They are all interlinked and must be dealt with
in connection to each other.
Categories: Uncategorized
