Military spending has grown immensely. World military expenditure increased for the ninth consecutive year in 2023, reaching a total of $2443 billion. Not enough, say some people. There are calls for it to increase even more.
There are at least four problems with this growth. Firstly, resources that go into it are denied to more productive causes. Secondly, the growth itself encourages more growth.,, through arms races. Thirdly, the growth encourages a sense of fear and foreboding that discourages civil investment and innovation. Fourthly, it makes actual warfare more likely, killing people who would otherwise be alive and would reach their potential, and dehumanising the killers, turning them from decent people into haunted, tortured, guilt-ridden soldiers.
Understandably, since the beginnings of human warfare, there have been calls for a better way of settling human conflicts. It is usually presented as a dichotomy: “the world must stop doing X, and do Y instead”. Sadly, this continues to be an unrealistic goal. This is not to say that it should be abandoned. In fact, we should increase our efforts for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. But we also need to accept that armaments and armies are not going away. Especially with today’s conflicts, actual and potential. So we need new approaches.
One idea could be a penalty for war-related production. A tax could be imposed on the armaments industry, the chemical and engineering industries insofar as they are engaged in military-related activity, and those service industries who assist these or provide mercenaries, This is a bit like the idea that many governments have, of putting taxes on unhealthy things like alcohol and tobacco. The idea is to reduce consumption and possibly to eliminate it eventually. An armaments tax would be difficult politically. All the same it would be easier than getting governments to commit to reduce their arms expenditure.
The tax would have to be imposed nationally. But it could be the same rate in all countries. In a way it would be similar to the Tobin tax, which proposed a global tax on foreign exchange activity to discourage unproductive speculation. .So-called foreign transactions taxes are spreading. Collecting the tax would also show whichbusinesses were active in war-related activities, even though the details might still be confidential. This in itself would be educational for investors and consumers.
A tax on armaments production etc. would generate an income stream. What would it be used for? Well, a fund could be created specifically for peace-making activity. Not for military peace-making, either, and not for conferences to bring like-minded people together. Instead, it would be used, if necessary with financial inducements, for radical encounters and dialogue between traditional enemies. It would also be used for educational purposes using social media, and for healing purposes and learning from the victims of war, making sure that the learnings are diffused effectively to the many people who still think that guns and bombs are the answer.
But isn’t this completely unrealistic? Well, lots of things that seemed impossible fifty or a hundred years ago have been brought about by international agreement. And this was the result of patient persistence by those who saw the need for change. Many conferences, many testimonies, many analyses and much peer-pressure have led to practical measures for better human rights, better health, better environment, more justice, and less starvation. Why not less killing? Peer pressure is often effective when the recalcitrant are consumed by guilt and fear. And there´s enough of that to go around.