We have updated our infographic with the most recent figures available at SIPRI’s military expenditure database (2019). On April 26, 2021, SIPRI will launch military spending data for the year 2020.
This infographic shows through bubbles the 30 biggest military spenders in the world, drawing data from SIPRI’s Military Expenditure Database. It also displays on the upper side a bar graphic with world total (1.92 trillion USD), and the proportion of this represented by the U.S. (731$b –more than a third), the 7 next biggest spenders (almost another third) and everyone else (the last third). NATO aggregated spending is 1.03 trillion $. The European Union’s aggregated spending is the second highest, after the U.S., and amounts to 268.2 billion $.
This is a reproduction of the Executive Summary. The full report can be found (in Spanish) at the website of Centre Delàs.
The environmental crisis, which includes a large number of interrelated phenomena at the planetary level, will be the great global problem of the 21st century. For decades, and guided by the absurd myth of unlimited growth that some defend, we have come to exceed the capacity of the Earth to generate resources, we have broken the ecological balances and we have been approaching a multiple point of no return. A point such that, if we pass it, we will disappear as a species. We know that global warming has gotten out of control, we see that the depredation of natural resources is advancing without any kind of regulation, new pandemics surprise us, but some, and especially the centres of power and large corporations, continue to prioritize short-term economic benefits for a few instead of the well-being of the majority of the people and the sustainability of the planet. We know that human activity facilitates pandemics, because deforestation and loss of biodiversity (extinction of species due to anthropogenic causes) favour the leap of pathogens from animals to people, in addition to contributing to global warming and the climate crisis. The global temperature continues to rise, with the annual average of deforested hectares exceeding 26 million, with proven effects on warming and on the spread of new viruses and epidemics. We face fast and unforeseen crises, such as global pandemics, which coexist with the climatic crisis, slow and almost imperceptible, but which can have devastating effects for our descendants. The current environmental crisis can easily turn into a complete planetary collapse.
According to a
recent IPBES Report[1],
developed by 150 international experts assisted by 350 contributing authors and
drawn from the analysis of more than 15,000 scientific publications and from
the study of local and indigenous knowledge, climate change is a direct driver
that increasingly exacerbates the effects of other drivers on nature and human
well-being:
“On average, about 25% of the species of animal and plant groups assessed are threatened, so that around a million species are already in danger of extinction, many within a few decades, unless measures are taken to reduce the intensity of drivers of biodiversity loss. If no action is taken, there will be a further acceleration in the rate of extinction of species around the world, an extinction that now is already tens, if not hundreds of times higher than the average of the last ten million years”.
The Report continues explaining that “current negative trends in biodiversity and ecosystems will undermine progress on 80% (35 out of 44) of the specific targets of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals related to poverty, hunger, health, water, cities, climate, oceans and land”.
But we cannot speak
about the Environmental Crisis without taking into account Military Spending
and militarism. Because, as the Covid’2019 pandemic has shown, neither the
national security model based on the security concept nor its militarized
solutions, can solve the great problems that humanity has and will have, given
that the environmental crisis is essentially global while security solutions,
designed to defend the borders of nation-states, are useless in these cross-border
challenges.
We need fewer
soldiers, less military aircrafts and weapons, and instead we need more medical
doctors, more hospitals, green energy and solutions to meet the needs and
guarantee the rights of all people. For decades we have been wrong in setting
our priorities. It is time to consider that military spending has absorbed a
large amount of public resources, providing a false notion of security that has
nothing to do with the needs of the majority of the population and with the
right to have access to health care, education, energy justice, housing and
quality of life, which would require sustainable and environmentally friendly
solutions. And it is time to note that the military system is also one of the
major contributors to emissions and global warming. Constructive solutions are
needed for people and the planet, not destructive “solutions” based
on imposition, curtailment of rights, violence and armed conflict. It is time,
therefore, to demand a change in priorities and a transfer of resources,
transferring military budget funds to items related to the construction of new
security systems serving all people.
The
main results of this report are, in relation to the privileges that require a
depredation of resources:
The main arms exporting countries
together represent 35.48% of the world’s population, accounting for a 82% of global
military spending and being responsible for two thirds of the world’s CO2
emissions.
These
countries generate 67.1% of the global CO2 emissions that cause global warming
and concentrate the Centres of Power that effectively control more than 63,000
Transnational Corporations.
China,
the United Kingdom, Spain, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, South Korea,
Ukraine, Switzerland, Turkey, Sweden, Canada, Norway, the United Arab Emirates,
the Czech Republic, Belarus, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Japan, add up to just
over a third of the world’s population (35.48%), but they manufacture and
export practically all the weapons made in the world, weapons that end up triggering
conflicts and killing people, especially in the countries most affected by
climate change.
In
relation to the dominant system, militaristic power and armed conflicts:
Environmental
degradation leads to a scarcity of resources that generates greater confrontations
between population groups, thus increasing the possible outbreak of armed
conflicts.
The
inclusion of climate change as a relevant factor in NATO’s strategic plans is
an indicator of the militarization of the climate, showing that it is in fact an
opportunity to justify increases in military spending, nuclear deterrence
strategy, and operations of the Allied military.
Recent
security policy documents, both in Spain, the United States, the European Union
and NATO, point to climate change as a relevant security element, as a “risk
enhancer” or “threat multiplier”. However, approaching climate change as a
security issue carries a clear risk: militarization.
The
concept of climate wars eludes human responsibility in these wars, by claiming
that the cause of these conflicts lies in uncontrollable climatic factors.
The 11 countries that are considered
to be at the highest risk of humanitarian crises and natural disasters globally
are Somalia, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Chad, Yemen, Niger, Burundi, Cameroon and Burkina Faso.
All of them are currently immersed in armed conflicts.
In
relation to the emissions and environmental damage caused by the military
establishment:
Ecological
degradation is inherent in the processes of militarization. As military
expenditures increase, military environmental impacts are expected to increase.
All
stages of the military economic cycle are related to specific damage to the
environment, from the consumption of energy and resources necessary for normal
military activity, testing and production of weapons as well as their
transport, to post-conflict reconstruction, and even pollution caused by toxic
waste, deforestation, loss of habitat, and ecosystems as a result of
militarization and armed conflicts.
The
most relevant sources of greenhouse gas emissions related to the military
sector are emissions from military facilities and activities not directly
related to war, emissions related to war in contingency operations abroad,
emissions from the military industry, and emissions generated by attacks and
oil targets.
The
CO2 emissions of armies around the world are estimated to be between 5 and 6%
of total carbon emissions.
US
military spending is the highest in the world. The year 2019 was 732,000
million dollars; this is 38% of world military spending and more than double
the sum of the military expenditures of Russia (65,100 million dollars) and
China (261,000 million dollars). The US has the largest war machine in the
world. The US military uses more oil and emits more GHGs than most mid-size
countries.
If
the US Department of Defence were a state, it would be the 47th largest emitter
of greenhouse gases in the world. US military activity was responsible for the
emission of 212 million tons of CO2e in 2017. These emissions are almost double
the emissions of Belgium (114 million tons) or half of those of France (471
million) during the same year.
In
relation to the violation of people’s rights:
There
are militarized walls on the main migratory routes used by people fleeing
climate crises. This implies that people displaced by environmental issues will
have to face the militarized violence of the walls, and will have to change and
lengthen their route to reach potential host countries, with the risks and costs
that this implies.
Estimates
for forced displacement due to climatic causes show that they will exceed 200
million people in 2050.
Of
the ten countries most affected by the environmental crisis in 2018, four of
them (Japan, Germany, India and Canada) are also in the ranking of the 15 most
polluting countries in terms of carbon emissions in the same year. And in the
ranking of these 15 most polluting countries, 4 of them (the United States, India,
Saudi Arabia and South Africa) have built walls that interfere with the
migration routes of people displaced by environmental causes.
Environmental
human rights defenders (EHRDs) are three times more likely to experience
violence and coercion than other human rights defenders (HRDs).
Out
of the total HRDs defenders murders registered worldwide in 2018 (321 deaths),
77% were EHRDs, mostly linked to conflicts arising from the activity of
extractive industries and macro-projects that had the support of the States.
In
2018, 164 environmental human rights activists were murdered, after protesting
mainly against the extractive industry, the mining industry, dams, logging and
agribusiness.
Latin
America and Asia-Pacific are the regions that account for the highest number of
murders of defenders, and indigenous groups are the main victims of these
murders.
In
relation to the necessary ecological transition from a perspective of peace:
The
ecological transition necessarily requires disarmament and demilitarization
processes: reduction of world military spending, conversion of the arms
industry into a renewable energy industry, and dismantling of the nuclear
arsenal.
It
is necessary to build peace from an environmental peace approach, that is, addressing
the environmental crisis from the study of violence (direct, structural and
cultural) committed on nature and people.
In a context of climate
transformation, security will be impossible without climate justice. In this
sense, the proposals for an ecological transition must necessarily incorporate
a rigorous study of current military spending, of arms production and trade,
and of the priorities to redistribute the budgetary expenditures of the
countries, in order to move from approaches based in the concept of military
national security to an approach based on the needs and social rights of all
people.
In the same way that long-term
security cannot exist without social justice, human security must be put at the
centre. The solution to the environmental crisis requires international
demilitarization and disarmament.
In this context, we believe that it is necessary to bet on an ethic centred on all people and on the planet, overcoming this patriarchal, capitalist and militaristic model that is destroying the environment and people’s lives, and beginning to think in terms of ecological balance, of the rights of all people and in terms of care. It is essential that both the fight against the environmental crisis and the ecological transition incorporate and require the reduction of world military expenditures and the transfer of these funds to finance security policies for peace. It is essential to change the security paradigm, and to move from militarized security to human security.
This is a reproduction of the Executive Summary. The full report can be found (in Spanish) at the website of Centre Delàs.
The environmental crisis, which includes a large number of interrelated phenomena at the planetary level, will be the great global problem of the 21st century. For decades, and guided by the absurd myth of unlimited growth that some defend, we have come to exceed the capacity of the Earth to generate resources, we have broken the ecological balances and we have been approaching a multiple point of no return. A point such that, if we pass it, we will disappear as a species. We know that global warming has gotten out of control, we see that the depredation of natural resources is advancing without any kind of regulation, new pandemics surprise us, but some, and especially the centres of power and large corporations, continue to prioritize short-term economic benefits for a few instead of the well-being of the majority of the people and the sustainability of the planet. We know that human activity facilitates pandemics, because deforestation and loss of biodiversity (extinction of species due to anthropogenic causes) favour the leap of pathogens from animals to people, in addition to contributing to global warming and the climate crisis. The global temperature continues to rise, with the annual average of deforested hectares exceeding 26 million, with proven effects on warming and on the spread of new viruses and epidemics. We face fast and unforeseen crises, such as global pandemics, which coexist with the climatic crisis, slow and almost imperceptible, but which can have devastating effects for our descendants. The current environmental crisis can easily turn into a complete planetary collapse.
According to a
recent IPBES Report[1],
developed by 150 international experts assisted by 350 contributing authors and
drawn from the analysis of more than 15,000 scientific publications and from
the study of local and indigenous knowledge, climate change is a direct driver
that increasingly exacerbates the effects of other drivers on nature and human
well-being:
“On average, about 25% of the species of animal and plant groups assessed are threatened, so that around a million species are already in danger of extinction, many within a few decades, unless measures are taken to reduce the intensity of drivers of biodiversity loss. If no action is taken, there will be a further acceleration in the rate of extinction of species around the world, an extinction that now is already tens, if not hundreds of times higher than the average of the last ten million years”.
The Report continues explaining that “current negative trends in biodiversity and ecosystems will undermine progress on 80% (35 out of 44) of the specific targets of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals related to poverty, hunger, health, water, cities, climate, oceans and land”.
But we cannot speak
about the Environmental Crisis without taking into account Military Spending
and militarism. Because, as the Covid’2019 pandemic has shown, neither the
national security model based on the security concept nor its militarized
solutions, can solve the great problems that humanity has and will have, given
that the environmental crisis is essentially global while security solutions,
designed to defend the borders of nation-states, are useless in these cross-border
challenges.
We need fewer
soldiers, less military aircrafts and weapons, and instead we need more medical
doctors, more hospitals, green energy and solutions to meet the needs and
guarantee the rights of all people. For decades we have been wrong in setting
our priorities. It is time to consider that military spending has absorbed a
large amount of public resources, providing a false notion of security that has
nothing to do with the needs of the majority of the population and with the
right to have access to health care, education, energy justice, housing and
quality of life, which would require sustainable and environmentally friendly
solutions. And it is time to note that the military system is also one of the
major contributors to emissions and global warming. Constructive solutions are
needed for people and the planet, not destructive “solutions” based
on imposition, curtailment of rights, violence and armed conflict. It is time,
therefore, to demand a change in priorities and a transfer of resources,
transferring military budget funds to items related to the construction of new
security systems serving all people.
The
main results of this report are, in relation to the privileges that require a
depredation of resources:
The main arms exporting countries
together represent 35.48% of the world’s population, accounting for a 82% of global
military spending and being responsible for two thirds of the world’s CO2
emissions.
These
countries generate 67.1% of the global CO2 emissions that cause global warming
and concentrate the Centres of Power that effectively control more than 63,000
Transnational Corporations.
China,
the United Kingdom, Spain, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, South Korea,
Ukraine, Switzerland, Turkey, Sweden, Canada, Norway, the United Arab Emirates,
the Czech Republic, Belarus, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Japan, add up to just
over a third of the world’s population (35.48%), but they manufacture and
export practically all the weapons made in the world, weapons that end up triggering
conflicts and killing people, especially in the countries most affected by
climate change.
In
relation to the dominant system, militaristic power and armed conflicts:
Environmental
degradation leads to a scarcity of resources that generates greater confrontations
between population groups, thus increasing the possible outbreak of armed
conflicts.
The
inclusion of climate change as a relevant factor in NATO’s strategic plans is
an indicator of the militarization of the climate, showing that it is in fact an
opportunity to justify increases in military spending, nuclear deterrence
strategy, and operations of the Allied military.
Recent
security policy documents, both in Spain, the United States, the European Union
and NATO, point to climate change as a relevant security element, as a “risk
enhancer” or “threat multiplier”. However, approaching climate change as a
security issue carries a clear risk: militarization.
The
concept of climate wars eludes human responsibility in these wars, by claiming
that the cause of these conflicts lies in uncontrollable climatic factors.
The 11 countries that are considered
to be at the highest risk of humanitarian crises and natural disasters globally
are Somalia, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Chad, Yemen, Niger, Burundi, Cameroon and Burkina Faso.
All of them are currently immersed in armed conflicts.
In
relation to the emissions and environmental damage caused by the military
establishment:
Ecological
degradation is inherent in the processes of militarization. As military
expenditures increase, military environmental impacts are expected to increase.
All
stages of the military economic cycle are related to specific damage to the
environment, from the consumption of energy and resources necessary for normal
military activity, testing and production of weapons as well as their
transport, to post-conflict reconstruction, and even pollution caused by toxic
waste, deforestation, loss of habitat, and ecosystems as a result of
militarization and armed conflicts.
The
most relevant sources of greenhouse gas emissions related to the military
sector are emissions from military facilities and activities not directly
related to war, emissions related to war in contingency operations abroad,
emissions from the military industry, and emissions generated by attacks and
oil targets.
The
CO2 emissions of armies around the world are estimated to be between 5 and 6%
of total carbon emissions.
US
military spending is the highest in the world. The year 2019 was 732,000
million dollars; this is 38% of world military spending and more than double
the sum of the military expenditures of Russia (65,100 million dollars) and
China (261,000 million dollars). The US has the largest war machine in the
world. The US military uses more oil and emits more GHGs than most mid-size
countries.
If
the US Department of Defence were a state, it would be the 47th largest emitter
of greenhouse gases in the world. US military activity was responsible for the
emission of 212 million tons of CO2e in 2017. These emissions are almost double
the emissions of Belgium (114 million tons) or half of those of France (471
million) during the same year.
In
relation to the violation of people’s rights:
There
are militarized walls on the main migratory routes used by people fleeing
climate crises. This implies that people displaced by environmental issues will
have to face the militarized violence of the walls, and will have to change and
lengthen their route to reach potential host countries, with the risks and costs
that this implies.
Estimates
for forced displacement due to climatic causes show that they will exceed 200
million people in 2050.
Of
the ten countries most affected by the environmental crisis in 2018, four of
them (Japan, Germany, India and Canada) are also in the ranking of the 15 most
polluting countries in terms of carbon emissions in the same year. And in the
ranking of these 15 most polluting countries, 4 of them (the United States, India,
Saudi Arabia and South Africa) have built walls that interfere with the
migration routes of people displaced by environmental causes.
Environmental
human rights defenders (EHRDs) are three times more likely to experience
violence and coercion than other human rights defenders (HRDs).
Out
of the total HRDs defenders murders registered worldwide in 2018 (321 deaths),
77% were EHRDs, mostly linked to conflicts arising from the activity of
extractive industries and macro-projects that had the support of the States.
In
2018, 164 environmental human rights activists were murdered, after protesting
mainly against the extractive industry, the mining industry, dams, logging and
agribusiness.
Latin
America and Asia-Pacific are the regions that account for the highest number of
murders of defenders, and indigenous groups are the main victims of these
murders.
In
relation to the necessary ecological transition from a perspective of peace:
The
ecological transition necessarily requires disarmament and demilitarization
processes: reduction of world military spending, conversion of the arms
industry into a renewable energy industry, and dismantling of the nuclear
arsenal.
It
is necessary to build peace from an environmental peace approach, that is, addressing
the environmental crisis from the study of violence (direct, structural and
cultural) committed on nature and people.
In a context of climate
transformation, security will be impossible without climate justice. In this
sense, the proposals for an ecological transition must necessarily incorporate
a rigorous study of current military spending, of arms production and trade,
and of the priorities to redistribute the budgetary expenditures of the
countries, in order to move from approaches based in the concept of military
national security to an approach based on the needs and social rights of all
people.
In the same way that long-term
security cannot exist without social justice, human security must be put at the
centre. The solution to the environmental crisis requires international
demilitarization and disarmament.
In this context, we believe that it is necessary to bet on an ethic centred on all people and on the planet, overcoming this patriarchal, capitalist and militaristic model that is destroying the environment and people’s lives, and beginning to think in terms of ecological balance, of the rights of all people and in terms of care. It is essential that both the fight against the environmental crisis and the ecological transition incorporate and require the reduction of world military expenditures and the transfer of these funds to finance security policies for peace. It is essential to change the security paradigm, and to move from militarized security to human security.
Stop Fuelling War supported GDAMS 2020 campaign by sharing one of the campaign’s infographics on its social networks and calling for a reduction in military spending to reinvest in health, education and ecology.
“Infographie comparant le coût des systèmes d’armes au matériel et aux services de santé nécessaires pendant la pandémie #COVID19 Les solutions ne peuvent venir du financement du matériel militaire mais plutôt en soutenant les soins de santé, l’éducation et l’écologie”
With the occasion of Europe’s Day, Stop Fuelling War prepared a press release: Communiqué de presse: Sortie de crise COVID-19, le choix de l’UE : œuvrer à la paix ou se préparer à la guerre?
The regional party ‘Més per Mallorca’ submitted a motion in the Spanish Senate through its Senator Vicenç Vidal Matas to demand the reallocation of military spending towards health care. The group denounced how military spending in Spain is 4 times higher that the total budget of the Balearic region. The group also created 3 infographics based on the reference provided by GCOMS and Centre Delàs.
Centre Delàs of Peace Studies prepared and shared infographics and reflections on military spending within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain, bringing attention to the vast opportunity costs of military outlays and to human security-based alternatives.
Centre Delàs adapted the GDAMS infographic to the Spanish case, comparing its military spending (more than 20 billion €) and its major arms programmes (such as Eurofighter jets, submarines, tanks or frigates), with the costs of health care equipment and personnel, much needed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This infographic follows the same logic as the general one from GDAMS, but bringing attention to the imbalance between expenditure in health services and what has been spent in weapons systems in Spain for the last two decades and what’s been approved for new weapons programmes. This infographic was launched at the same time as the April 27 press conference was held. Together with a press release (here) and messages on social media, Centre Delàs and IPB Barcelona demanded the cancellation of all new arms programmes approved by the current government (over 13 billion €) and a major reduction of Spanish Military Spending. This infographic was widely shared on social media, reaching also political parties as Compromís (València), Més Mallorca or CUP (Catalonia)
You can download this infographic here with translations available in Catalan and Euskera.
Global Freeze Weapons Now is a campaign by SCRAP, an initiative of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy (CISD) at SOAS, University of London.
This campaign created a series of videos and infographics which had as a reference the GDAMS infographic Healthcare Not Warfare, and disseminated them widely on social media.
This report is a thorough compilation of all actions, statements and materials prepared by partners, collaborators and friends across the world during this year’s Global Days of Action on Military Spending. For this edition we’ve listed over 100 online actions carried out by organizations (partners and others) in at least 27 different countries. Similarly, thousands of individuals engaged with the campaign on social media sharing its message and infographic, and it was mentioned in dozens of media outlets.
This year’s Global Days of Action on Military Spending were tremendously conditioned by the health emergency provoked by the COVID-19 pandemic. These difficult circumstances demanded a change in course for this special period of the campaign, in order to address the dramatic crisis concerning everyone across the world. In view of the necessary measures for the containment of the pandemic, there were almost no public events during GDAMS and most actions were carried out online. But these limitations didn’t keep us from campaigning to express our criticism and demands, which we considered more relevant than ever. This health emergency had (yet again) revealed the flaws and inconsistencies of the current “defense and security” model, the incapacity of states to provide true security to their citizens despite the billions spent on the military sector for the sake of it, so we decided to adapt this year’s GDAMS to the new context, prepare a new strategy, statement and materials and adopt a new motto: Healthcare Not Warfare!
GDAMS had always been about taking the streets,but this time we had to rely more than ever on social media and other non-contact forms of communication and protest. Despite the difficulties and the little time to react, this new approach to GDAMS gave us the opportunity to reach new audiences and to contribute with a critical perspective to the debate on security and spending priorities taking place globally. Our message resonated widely within this context and was referenced and shared by several major peace and disarmament organizations and campaigns.
– International organizations and campaigns referencing GDAMS included: SIPRI, UNODA, Greenpeace, WILPF (Reaching Critical Will), ICAN, PNND, IPPNW, ENAAT, Women Nobel Laureates, Control Arms, Global Campaign for Peace Education, War Resisters International, BDS, SCRAP, AEPF and RAMALC.
– At least 18 online events, including international conferences, press conferences and webinars.
– 12 statements in support of GDAMS’ message.
– Over 30 infographics (including translations) with the GDAMS message.
– Around 100K impressions on our social media during the GDAMS period.
– GDAMS coverage in at least 45 media outlets.
– Political advocacy: interesting developments in the US, Colombia, Italy, Spain and EU. In the U.S., pressure on congresspeople and candidates of the Democratic Party increased even more with key actions as the joint statement by 34 U.S. organizations and online tools to write to Congress representatives to demand cuts on the Pentagon budget. In Colombia, after a meeting with a GDAMS partner, congressman Iván Cepeda proposed a shift of the military budget to healthcare, which was accepted, although with a much smaller amount than originally suggested. In Italy, Rete Disarmo and partner launched a policy proposal to the Italian government in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic: a 1 year moratoria on all military and arms acquisitions. In Spain: a motion and an official question to the Spanish Government were presented at the Senate by 2 different regional political groups to demand a redirection of military budget to health and social spending, using GDAMS materials as a source. At the EU level, the joint letter and online actions organised together with ENAAT were addressed to MEPs and put the focus on the European Union’s policies during these times of crisis
– Articles and op-eds dedicated or referencing GDAMS, including:
A global struggle: healthcare not warfare – Kate Hudson (CND) Read it here
COVID-19: Divest, Demilitarise, and Disarm – Ray Acheson (WILPF) Find it here
‘Halt This Madness’: US Drove Last Year’s Over $1.9 Trillion in Global Military Spending – Jessica Corbett (Common Dreams). Find this article here
World military spending surges to new heights – Caroline Jones (CAAT). Read it here
Will the EU fight for peace or prepare for war? It can’t have it both ways – Laëtitia Sédou (ENAAT) Read it here
Pentagon Spending: A Primer – William Hartung (Centre for International Affairs) Read this article here
As Global Military Spending Hits Nearly $2 Trillion, These Weapons Are Useless Against Biggest Threats We Face – Tori Bateman (AFSC).Read this article here.
This report is a thorough compilation of all actions, statements and materials prepared by partners, collaborators and friends across the world during 2020’s Global Days of Action on Military Spending. For this edition we listed over 100 online actions carried out by organizations (partners and others) in at least 27 different countries. Similarly, thousands of individuals engaged with the campaign on social media sharing its message and infographic, and it was mentioned in dozens of media outlets.
This year’s Global Days of Action on Military Spending were tremendously conditioned by the health emergency provoked by the COVID-19 pandemic. These difficult circumstances demanded a change in course for this special period of the campaign, in order to address the dramatic crisis concerning everyone across the world. In view of the necessary measures for the containment of the pandemic, there were almost no public events during GDAMS and most actions were carried out online. But these limitations didn’t keep us from campaigning to express our criticism and demands, which we considered more relevant than ever. This health emergency had (yet again) revealed the flaws and inconsistencies of the current “defense and security” model, the incapacity of states to provide true security to their citizens despite the billions spent on the military sector for the sake of it, so we decided to adapt this year’s GDAMS to the new context, prepare a new strategy, statement and materials and adopt a new motto: Healthcare Not Warfare!
GDAMS had always been about taking the streets,but this time we had to rely more than ever on social media and other non-contact forms of communication and protest. Despite the difficulties and the little time to react, this new approach to GDAMS gave us the opportunity to reach new audiences and to contribute with a critical perspective to the debate on security and spending priorities taking place globally. Our message resonated widely within this context and was referenced and shared by several major peace and disarmament organizations and campaigns.
– International organizations and campaigns referencing GDAMS included: SIPRI, UNODA, Greenpeace, WILPF (Reaching Critical Will), ICAN, PNND, IPPNW, ENAAT, Women Nobel Laureates, Control Arms, Global Campaign for Peace Education, War Resisters International, BDS, SCRAP, AEPF and RAMALC.
– At least 18 online events, including international conferences, press conferences and webinars.
– 12 statements in support of GDAMS’ message.
– Over 30 infographics (including translations) with the GDAMS message.
– Around 100K impressions on our social media during the GDAMS period.
– GDAMS coverage in at least 45 media outlets.
– Political advocacy: interesting developments in the US, Colombia, Italy, Spain and EU. In the U.S., pressure on congresspeople and candidates of the Democratic Party increased even more with key actions as the joint statement by 34 U.S. organizations and online tools to write to Congress representatives to demand cuts on the Pentagon budget. In Colombia, after a meeting with a GDAMS partner, congressman Iván Cepeda proposed a shift of the military budget to healthcare, which was accepted, although with a much smaller amount than originally suggested. In Italy, Rete Disarmo and partner launched a policy proposal to the Italian government in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic: a 1 year moratoria on all military and arms acquisitions. In Spain: a motion and an official question to the Spanish Government were presented at the Senate by 2 different regional political groups to demand a redirection of military budget to health and social spending, using GDAMS materials as a source. At the EU level, the joint letter and online actions organised together with ENAAT were addressed to MEPs and put the focus on the European Union’s policies during these times of crisis
– Articles and op-eds dedicated or referencing GDAMS, including:
A global struggle: healthcare not warfare – Kate Hudson (CND) Read it here
COVID-19: Divest, Demilitarise, and Disarm – Ray Acheson (WILPF) Find it here
‘Halt This Madness’: US Drove Last Year’s Over $1.9 Trillion in Global Military Spending – Jessica Corbett (Common Dreams). Find this article here
World military spending surges to new heights – Caroline Jones (CAAT). Read it here
Will the EU fight for peace or prepare for war? It can’t have it both ways – Laëtitia Sédou (ENAAT) Read it here
Pentagon Spending: A Primer – William Hartung (Centre for International Affairs) Read this article here
As Global Military Spending Hits Nearly $2 Trillion, These Weapons Are Useless Against Biggest Threats We Face – Tori Bateman (AFSC).Read this article here.
While
unable to vigil in Central London, Women in Black are everywhere, working
against militarism and war.
Solidarity at a Distance. Week 6. Women in Black London focuses the week of April 20-26 on the Global Days of Action on Military Spending sharing its infographics and supporting IPB’s petition to invest in healthcare not warfare.
The Global Days of Action on Military Spending (GDAMS) 2020 bring attention to the vast opportunity costs of the current levels of military spending, 1’82 trillion US$ a year, almost $5 billion per day, $239 per person. When a minority of the global population decides to finance war preparations, we all lose the opportunity to fund policies that tackle our real security threats.
Global Days of Action on Military Spending (GDAMS) will take place from April 10 to May 9.
These dates include 🗓️
– April 15: Tax Day in the U.S (postponed))
– April 27: GDAMS press conferences on the occasion of SIPRI’s release of new data on military spending (figures for 2019)
– May 1: International Workers Day
– May 9: Europe’s Day of Peace & Unity
Take action to move the money from the military to health, join GDAMS 2020!
· Join our online campaign!
· Use and share our statements and infographics.
· Sign and share IPB’s petition: Invest in Healthcare Instead of Militarization
· Organize a webinar or a national press conference on April 27. So far we have confirmed Seoul, Sydney, Berlin, Barcelona, Washington D.C, Buenos Aires, Rosario, Montevideo and Cucutá.
· Contact online your local/national representatives/congresspeople and ask them to position themselves and support demilitarization and major reductions of military spending.
· Use your social networks, stay active on social media debates, find allies, write an op-ed! How we understand and tell the story of this crisis as a society will define the measures to be taken afterwards.