Download Beatrice_Fihn - UN-NGLS

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
www.reachingcriticalwill.org
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.