Global Response 2010 Global Militarization and Military Spending matter! Future challenges

1. Global Response 2010 Global Militarization and Military Spending matter! Future challenges Peter J. CrollDirector, BICC Copenhagen, January 22nd -25th 2010

2. About BICC (Bonn International Center for Conversion) Facilitating Peace and Development through Research, Advisory services, Training • BICC seeks to assist in preventing violent conflict and hence contribute to their constructive transformation. • While disarmament frees resources, which can be employed in the fight against poverty, conversion allows for a targeted, best possible reuse of these resources.

3. About BICC (Bonn International Center for Conversion) Our work • Peace and development • Arms—global trends, exports and control • Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) • Resources and conflict • Migration and conflict • Base conversion

4. About BICC (Bonn International Center for Conversion) Our services • Applied research • Advisory services • Capacity-building • Public relations

5. Farewell speech by Dwight D. Eisenhower to the nation in 1961 as retiring president of the United States of America: “… guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence … by the military complex”

6. Current developments in military spending: Figures from 2008 • World: US $1,464 billion (1,226 billion in constant USD 2005) = 4% increase compared to 2007 • Regions: (all in constant USD 2005, billion) Highest spending in North America (564) Lowest spending in Africa (20.4)

7. Current developments in military spending • Global military spending increased by 45% in real terms over a period from 1999-2008 • Regional increase in distribution is different: Highest increase in Eastern Europe, lowest increase in Western Europe Conclusion: • High increase in emerging economies (NIC) • USA more than doubled its expenditure • Low increases in least developed countries (LDC)

8. Future challenges Need for comparable, valid and consistent military expenditure data! • Increase capacity indeveloping countries to report consistent data over time • Planning and programming processes for military expenditure • Disaggregated data for more transparency • Promote public discussion for more transparency and accountability

9. Future challenges • Capacity-building must go hand in hand with the development of a new political framework to counter the great concern that public data will be used for criticism • In order to increase the participation of developing nations in reporting military expenditure, an approach is needed to strengthen national capacities to compile military data

10. Future challenges • Consistency: Report actual spending, budgeted and planned data to the UN – Public Expenditure Management (PEM) • Promote a generally recognized, easy definition of military expenditure and advertise the simplified reporting instrument The difficulties of comparing the simplified and full reporting instrument must be overcome

11. Future challenges • Increase transparency of military expenditure data – data need to be comparable, challengeable and analyzable • Include consistent time series for comparison and trends (as SIPRI does) • Overcome most state assumptions that more transparency would affect their national security

12. Military expenditure as an indicator • Input measurement category on the amount of money which flows into the military sector • Indicator for military power • Limited value as a stand alone indicator: Countries use different definitions; disaggregated data is very rare

13. Military expenditure as an indicator By using military expenditure as one indicator in relation to others, we can • make assertions on the level of militarization in a specific country • combine military expenditure data with other indicators such as weapons systems, military personnel, etc. as well as public health expenditure and education The GMI (Global Militarization Index) does this!

14. The GMI at a glance • Comparison of 150 states • Overview of funds made available by the state to the military in relation to other economic and societal factors • Reliable data from internationally renowned sources • Unique, non-normative index • Well-founded tool for creating country assessments

15. The GMI at a glance

16. “Militarization” in the GMI • Militarization uniquely refers to the amount of resources the state provides to the military. • The moremilitarized a country the moreresources are devoted to the military sector compared to other sectors.

17. “Militarization” in the GMI Examples from the category “high militarization”: • Bulgaria – No. 16 • Greece – No. 17 • Finland – No. 40 None of these countries is considered to be ‘aggressive’. This means: The GMI does not understand “militarization” as warmongering but, very objectively, as the relative importance of the state military sector.

18. The GMI as ranking The GMI creates a ranking of resources available to the state military compared to other economic and societal factors State resources are: • the budget the government makes available to the military • the personnel (soldiers in armed forces, state paramilitaries, reserve forces) • heavy conventional weapons systems (armored vehicles, artillery above 100mm caliber, combat aircraft, and major fighting ships above corvette size)

19. The GMI • the budget in relation to the - GDP and - government expenditure on health services • the personnel:- military and paramilitary forces in relation to the totalpopulation- reserve forces in relation to the total population- military and paramilitary forces in relation to the numberof physicians in the country • heavy conventional weaponsin relation to the total population

20. The GMI weighting

21. Examples from the GMI Example Nigeria: • No. 145 on the GMI; one of the least militarized countries • Military expenditure: US $825 million (constant 2005) • GDP: US $165,690 million (constant 2005) • Milex as a share of GDP: ~ 0,53 percent • Health expenditure as a share of GDP: 3.9 percent • Heavy weapons systems: 1370 • At the same time: armed conflict between Christians and Muslims; regional and local clashes around political power (AKUF, Hamburg University) This means: A low degree in militarization does not mean per se that the situation for the population is peaceful and secure. Here, the GMI advises a country analysis with regard to security governance.

22. Examples from the GMI Example Eritrea: • No. 1 on the GMI; the most militarized country • Military expenditure: US $231million (constant 2005) • GDP: US $1,201million (constant 2005) • Milex as a share of GDP: ~ 20 percent • Health expenditure as a share of GDP: 3.7 percent • Heavy weapons systems: 370 • According to the HDI, Eritrea is one of the poorest countries on earth.

23. Conclusion • Rethink what the instrument wants: global disarmament, transparency or a tool for confidence-building?

24. Capacity-building PEM support as an indicator for the political willingness to provide military expenditure data • Coalition to provide technical support in order to implement public expenditure management (PEM) • Training in military expenditure planning processes • Strengthen budget control (most likely through parliament) • Improve budget implementation • Provide technical expertise for budget review processes - more transparency • Single public expenditure management steps (e.g. just implementation, not the full budget cycle) are probably more successful as it creates less resistance within the states

25. I thank you for your attention!