Download “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired,

Disarming the world
By Leela Ramdeen
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold
and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone—it is spending the sweat of
its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”
—Dwight D Eisenhower, 1953
This week we are observing Disarmament Week. The UN asks that nations highlight the dangers
of the arms race, promote recognition of the need to stop the arms race, and increase public
understanding of the urgent tasks of disarmament.
As Malcolm Harper said: “As the Cold War came to an end in the late 1980s and the concept of
a New World Order was promulgated, a silent belief seemed to creep into many people’s minds
that, somehow, the disarmament struggle was over.”
Around the world people dream of general disarmament and non-proliferation. And yet
worldwide military spending has acquired a staggering magnitude and the global trend continues
to be towards a faster rate of annual increase in this expenditure, in particular in those countries
that have nuclear weapons.
The industrial countries are overspending on military means to security and underspending on
non-military means to security. The Human Development Report of 1997 notes many continuing
and grotesque imbalances, eg:
In at least 84 countries, military expenditures exceed expenditures on health alone.
In one out of three developing countries today, military expenditure exceeds half or more of all
expenditure on health and education. In eight cases, by two to four times.
The countries spending the highest proportion of their resources on military uses, are also those
countries in which their standing in human development lags most behind their standing in
wealth and GNP.
In contrast, in the countries with the lowest levels of military expenditures, their ranking in
human development is generally well ahead of their ranking in GNP per capita.
Trillions of dollars are spent preparing for war under the pretext of ensuring the preservation of
peace—in a world in which over 1.2 billion people live in abject poverty and where millions of
people are dying daily from starvation.
Human Development Reports have stated that the most important challenge now is human
security rather than military security. The world needs to move from military protection of
territorial borders to protection of people from the threats of personal violence, economic
insecurity, environmental degradation, ethnic prejudice, social rejection and community
instability.
In some countries, the military is more of a threat to human security than a protection, especially
in countries where civil conflict is rife. And the corruption that arms sales introduce into the
political process everywhere, both in terms of sellers and buyers, is profound.
And then there is the issue of destroying stockpiles of, e.g., chemical weapons, which is a very
expensive exercise. It is not clear whether wealthy countries will assist those that wish to destroy
their chemical weapons to do so.
Many chemicals, toxins and infectious agents that could be used as weapons can also have
peaceful uses. For example, phosgene was widely used as a war gas in World War I but
phosgene is important in the manufacture of many useful materials.
The reality, though, is that every one of the major technologies has been used not only for
peaceful purposes but also for hostile ones, e.g. metallurgy, internal combustion, explosives,
aviation, electronics, nucleonics, computers.
The issue of dual-use has been addressed in various conventions, etc. Generally, toxic chemicals
are not prohibited for certain purposes, e.g. industrial, agricultural, research, medical,
pharmaceutical and certain other stated purposes.
But, as Prof Matthew Meselson states:
“It is an evident risk that the nature of human conflict could be radically affected. Relatively
simple and inexpensive weapons able to threaten or kill people, animals, and crops over large
areas could enter the arsenals of many states and even of certain non-state entities.
“There is a further possible consequence. As biotechnology advances, it will become possible to
manipulate all of the life processes, including cognition, development, reproduction, and
inheritance. Exploited for hostile purposes, to suppress, coerce, or subjugate, such technology
could alter the very nature of human conflict.
“We have never prevented the hostile application of any previous major technology. What
chance do we have of holding this one back? There is something about our civilisation, about our
humanity, in many at least, that rejects the use of poison or disease for hostile purposes. If a truly
global and lasting prohibition of chemical and biological weapons is to be achieved, it will have
to draw upon and reinforce this widely held sentiment.”
Can we look to the International Criminal Court for arms control or international security when
the largest super-power, the USA, is not a signatory recognising the authority of the court?
Can we have a world security system?
If people from so many different parts of the world could be held by the USA at Guantanamo
Bay in unlawful custody without charge or trial and the world remains silent without demanding
justice, how can we be serious about holding everyone/nation responsible for grave human rights
violations?
We can have no justice and peace unless everyone, the big and the small, is subject to the same
measure of the law.
Here in T&T vast numbers of weapons continue to circulate and illicit arms trafficking is
rampant. Much money has been allocated to national security in the recent budget. However,
although law enforcement, better policing, etc have a vital role to play, we need to address the
issue of social exclusion also if we wish to move away from our gun culture.
Inga Thorsson, in presenting her expert report on disarmament and development in 1982,
concluded that “the world can either continue to pursue the arms race with characteristic vigour
or move consciously and with deliberate speed toward a more stable and balanced social and
economic development within a more sustainable international economic and political order. It
cannot do both.”
Let us pray earnestly for a conversion of hearts. No amount of paper treaties, conventions and
courts will bring about change. Since wars/conflict begin in the hearts and minds of people, it is
there that we must erect ramparts of peace.
Humankind must learn to settle personal, national and international disputes by peaceful means
and without endangering peace, security and justice.