An Elephant in the Room: Military Spending Seminar
November 17, 2009
Washington, DC

An Elephant in the Room: Military Spending took place on November 17, 2009 as a collaboration between the International Peace Bureau and the Institute for Policy Studies. The morning portion of the seminar focused on issues of military spending in the United States, with presentations by Frida Berrigan (New America Foundation), Bob Edgar (Common Cause), and Miriam Pemberton (Institute for Policy Studies).

Frida Berrigan, of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, presented an overview of U.S. military spending, bringing attention to the 2009 budget of $680 billion, which included a base budget of $550 billion and an additional $130 billion in war spending. Commenting on the anticipated 2.5% increases in military budget compared to the 8% increases of previous years, Berrigan noted that it is not the accomplishment the media frames it to be. Although an improvement, the budget represents only a reduction in the rate of increase rather than a reduction in overall spending. Berrigan explained that for the contemporary military, spending is defined by “boots” (human resources), “bots” (new research and development), and “bombs” (classic Cold War military systems). The last military budget passed included a 3.4% increase in personnel pay, with $80 billion allocated for new research and development and $105 billion for procurement of weapons. In addressing future prospects for spending in these areas, Berrigan noted the difficulty of cutting spending in personnel pay, as well as the perpetually expensive technology the military desires in this era of unconventional warfare.

Bob Edgar, president and CEO of Common Cause, discussed issues of public financing and accountability regarding military spending. Beginning with the motivating statement that “we are the leaders we have been waiting for,” Edgar focused on the unique calling of the present generation to solve the issue of military spending. Edgar also emphasized the “smartness” of the American military system in dispersing military production and thus encouraging congressional districts to view the defense budget as a job budget. He urged activists to be bolder in their actions and less hesitant about cooperation, and to actively seek media attention and raise awareness through civil disobedience. He strongly pushed for more efforts by activists and organizations to invest in training and educating the public to serve as local advocates to contact media and confront local businesses, building on the passion for “hope” and “change” the public had during the Obama campaign. Edgar also called for international police action against terrorism, urging people to recognize that military action on terrorism only increases militarism.

Miriam Pemberton of the Institute for Policy Studies introduced the civil society perspective on conversion during the final portion of the morning program. She emphasized the need for a new national mission after the Cold War, and proposed the construction of a green economy as a potential replacement. Addressing the difficulty of reducing military spending without providing an alternative job force, Pemberton suggested linking the two goals of cutting Pentagon waste and creating a green economy, both of which are supported by the Obama administration. More specifically, she called for a mapping project to highlight areas where most cuts are possible, suggesting that $60 billion worth of deductions can be made, especially through cutting waste in Cold War military systems. Furthermore, to win support from those who risk losing jobs in the military sector, she proposed the conversion of facilities to producing for the new green economy.

Notable points made throughout the morning session included the use of media, civil disobedience, and public awareness to advocate the agenda of decreasing military spending, as well as the integration of a green economy as an alternative job force to the defense industry. The question of whether to use the war in Afghanistan as a way to bring up the issue of military spending was also considered, as well as the overarching question of whether to advocate an overall reduction in military spending or cuts on a system-by-system basis.

The afternoon session of the seminar focused on current peace movements throughout the world with a roundtable discussion including representatives from various international organizations. John Feffer from the Institute for Policy Studies discussed the Pacific Freeze campaign, which emphasizes using the Six Party Talks platform to address the critical need of reducing military spending in Northeast Asia. He noted that those six countries alone contribute 65-70 percent of the world’s total military expenditure and have all increased their military budgets significantly in recent years. As Feffer explained, the Six Party Talks is an appropriate platform for the dialogue because North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is related directly to its insecurities stemming from the relative decline in its conventional weapons capability. Furthermore, it could bring to the forefront the fear of many Northeast Asian governments that the United States would abandon the region. The Six Party Talks mechanism established a working group on regional peace and security where countries and NGOs can discuss military spending and press for coordinated budget reductions. As part of the freeze campaign, a volume of Asian Perspective journal devoted to a scholarly examination of Northeast Asian military spending will be published and a meeting of parliamentarians from United States, Japan, and South Korea is being planned for the spring. Although the Pacific Freeze campaign is currently waiting for the restart of the Six Party Talks, there are positive signs coming from the region due to recent reduction of tensions in the Taiwan Strait and the Obama administration’s greater willingness to hold direct talks with the North Koreans.

Representatives from international civil society groups reported on the developments within each of their respective countries. According to the Japanese representative, the emphasis on military spending in Japan revolves around the US-Japan security alliance. The concern she brought up was how best to readjust that alignment. The situation in Southeast Asia remains problematic with the countries in the region threatening each other and the many cases of dominant military regimes. In France, military spending has gone up drastically since the September 11th attacks. The situation is seemingly more positive in Finland, where a more modest military budget exists due to absence of any imminent or direct security threat. Similarly in The Netherlands, activists are less worried about their country’s military spending, but instead focus on maintaining peacekeeping actions. In the Americas, the current conservative government in Canada has escalated its military budget. The Canadian government has justified this increase by arguing that it needs to protect its coastlines from the effects of climate change and, in the Arctic, from increased sea traffic. The militarization of society and the need for disarmament on a local level in cities continue to be the most potent issues on the agenda for Latin American peace activists.

The seminar concluded with remarks by the organizer, Colin Archer from the International Peace Bureau. He stated that there is very little campaigning and public awareness around military spending issues. The statistics about military budget are accessible to the public yet remain largely undiscussed. The general public does not perceive it as a problem in many parts of the world, especially since the governments often use terrorism or external security threats as justifications for increased military spending. Archer believes that the real reason behind the escalation of military spending is countries trying to secure and protect their natural resources, which will be an arena for future economic competition. Ultimately, Archer remained positive in seeing the possibilities for alliances with other movements, whose own causes have been neglected because of the budgeting of resources to the military, to help reduce military spending. He believes reaching out to partners internationally and across a broad spectrum will only strengthen the peace movement and get military spending issue on the agenda.