FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Star Wars or Earth Wars?

The Revenge of the Sith, the sixth movie in the Star Wars saga, is drawing record crowds and grossing millions by the week. George Lucas, heady with the success of American Graffiti in 1973, conceived the series two years later. It was to be the story of Anakin Skywalker’s rise, fall and ultimate redemption. Since the story was too large for one film, he divided it into two trilogies and decided (for reasons best known to him) to make the second trilogy before the first one.

He offered the science fiction concept to Universal Studios, who had produced American Graffiti. In a decision they would regret badly in the years to come, Universal passed on it because they dismissed the story as “unfathomable and silly.” In fact, every single studio in Hollywood passed on it except for 20th Century Fox.

The first film in the series was released in 1977. By the end of its first theatrical run, it had become the most successful in the history of cinema and turned Lucas into a multi-millionaire. In the decades to come, the Star Wars brand would acquire a cult following equally among the young and the old. Some would be drawn to it because of the lure of space travel. Others would love the stunning special effects that became its hallmark. And many would love its portrayal of war between good and evil. Located in a “galaxy far, far away,” war seemed glorious.

However, it you strip the exotic location and the stunning special effects, the film is a gripping portrayal of the arrogance, anger and hostility that drive people to make war on planet Earth. By not calling it “Earth Wars,” Lucas ensured that millions of people seeking to escape the real wars going on around them would become moviegoers.

Addressing the Asian defense ministers in Singapore earlier this month, an indignant US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asked why China was increasing its defense spending in consecutive years by double-digit percentages since it faced no immediate threats. He said such high spending rates could destabilize the Asian military balance. One may, of course, ask the same question of Rumsfeld. The only known enemies of the US are non-state actors that hardly justify the type and level of military spending that it is engaged in.

While accounting for only 5 percent of the world’s population, the US accounts for half of global defense spending, according to figures released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, global military spending topped a trillion dollars last year. This amounts to 2.6 percent of the world’s gross domestic product and represents an expenditure of $162 for every man, woman and child on the planet.

In addition to spending $500 billion annually on its military, the US has allocated $238 billion to prosecute the global war on terror since 2003. As Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute argues in his new book, “The End Of Poverty,” the US has unfortunately neglected the deeper causes of global instability that lead to terror. Its spending on extremely poor people who live on a daily income of less than a dollar a day is about 3 percent of its defense budget. These people are chronically hungry, ill, and uneducated. They lack basic housing and clothing. Today, there are 1.1 billion such people in the globe, all in danger of being killed by poverty.

Yet a callous world continues to increase military spending. No where is this more evident than in South Asia, where defense spending grew by 14 percent last year, compared to a global average growth rate of 5 percent.

While always arguing that it is not engaged in an arms race with India, Pakistan has just raised its defense spending by 16 percent to $3.8 billion. The saving grace is that in the same budget, the government has announced it will raise infrastructure development spending by almost 35 percent to $4.6 billion. Higher economic growth rates in the 6 to 8 percent range have made it possible to raise spending on both defense and development. However, this should not be taken to mean that there is no trade-off between spending on development and defense. If there is any ironclad law in economics, it is that there is no free lunch.

Peace economist Kanta Marwah and Nobel laureate Lawrence Klein have published an analysis of the impact of defense spending on economic growth, drawing upon data from five Latin American countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay and Peru. During the 1970s and 1980s, these countries spent on average 3.3 percent of their GDP on defense, which translated into an annual military expenditure of $7.4 billion (measured in 1990 US dollars). Marwah and Klein quantify the “hidden cost” of defense spending during this period, by assessing how much it lowered the rate of economic growth.

Applying econometric methods to annual data over the 1970-91 time frame, they find that military spending had a negative impact on economic growth in all five countries. The worst affected country was Paraguay and the least affected was Bolivia. To determine the impact of the defense burden, they simulated what would have happened had the burden been reduced to 1 percent of GDP, emulating the spending cap set by the Central American nation of Costa Rica.

Marwah and Klein find that high military spending caused Argentina to lose nearly 2 percentage points in its annual economic growth rate during the 1976-81 period. It was during this time that the generals in Argentina waged a “dirty war” after having overthrown the civilian government of Isabel Peron.

Similarly, Chile lost annually 1 to 1.5 percentage points in its economic growth rate between 1974 to 1988, when the military government of August Pinochet held sway, after having overthrown the government of Salvadore Allende. For the five countries collectively, excessive military spending took off 1.5 percentage points of the annual rate of economic growth.

The findings of this exercise in revisionist history are very revealing and worth pondering over by governments in all developing countries who are seeking a brighter future for their citizens. In particular, they should be of interest to the leaders of South Asia, which is home to a third of the world’s poor.

Pakistan and India need to take the lead in reducing the defense burden on their populations, especially now that their longstanding tensions seem to be dissipating. Capping (and eventually reducing) military spending would be the ultimate confidence building measure on the road to peace.

AHMAD FARUQUI is a member of Economists for Peace and Security and can be reached at faruqui@pacbell.net.

This article was first published in Daily Times, Pakistan.

 

More articles by:

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

June 27, 2019
Kris Hermes
Syrian Refugee Terror Plot or Latest in Pattern of FBI-Manufactured Terrorism Cases?
Charles Pierson
Don’t Leave Nukes on the Shelf. Use Them!
Manuel García, Jr.
American Climate Change Policy: You Don’t Matter
Robert Hunziker
At 100, Gaia Faces its Biggest Challenges
Ramzy Baroud
The Day After: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank?
Peter Bolton
The Failed Venezuelan Coup and the Decline of US Hegemony
Thomas Knapp
One Cheer for Trump on Iran
Robert Lipsyte
Jockpocalypse: From the Ballpark to Team Trump
Rev. Jesse L. Jackson
When Trump Did the Right Thing…Twice
John W. Whitehead
Mass Arrests, Power Grabs and the Politics of Fear
Myles Hoenig
Voter Disenfranchisement in Toronto
Binoy Kampmark
The Pinkerton Effect: The US Marines in Darwin
Michael Galant
Time for a Global Minimum Wage
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
How We Are All Climate Change Deniers
June 26, 2019
Melvin Goodman
The U.S.-Iran Imbroglio: Dangerous Lessons To Be Learned
Paul Street
Reflections and Correspondence at the Abyss
John Laforge
Trump’s Ministry of No Information
Paul Edwards
Fool Me Twice
Rob Hager
Warren and Sanders: Compare and Contrast
John Steppling
The Monkey’s Face
Evaggelos Vallianatos
A World of Shadows
Jaspal Kaur Sadhu Singh
Correcting a Colonial Injustice: The Return of the Chagos Islands to Its Natives
Binoy Kampmark
Violent Voyeurism: Surveillance, Spyware and Human Rights
Jonah Raskin
Reflections on Abbie Hoffman and Joshua Furst’s Novel, Revolutionaries
Dave Chapman
The Hydroponic Threat to Organic Food
June 25, 2019
Rannie Amiri
Instigators of a Persian Gulf Crisis
Patrick Cockburn
Trump May Already be in Too Deep to Avoid War With Iran
Paul Tritschler
Hopeful Things
John Feffer
Deep Fakes: Will AI Swing the 2020 Election?
Binoy Kampmark
Bill Clinton in Kosovo
Kenneth Surin
Brief Impressions of the Japanese Conjuncture
Edward Hunt
Is Mexico Winding Down or Winding up the Drug War?
Manuel E. Yepe
Trump’s Return to Full-Spectrum Dominance
Steve Kelly
Greed and Politics Should Not Drive Forest Policy
Stephen Carpa
Protecting the Great Burn
Colin Todhunter
‘Modified’: A Film About GMOs and the Corruption of the Food Supply for Profit
Martin Billheimer
The Gothic and the Idea of a ‘Real Elite’
Elliot Sperber
Send ICE to Hanford
June 24, 2019
Jim Kavanagh
Eve of Destruction: Iran Strikes Back
Nino Pagliccia
Sorting Out Reality From Fiction About Venezuela
Jeff Sher
Pickin’ and Choosin’ the Winners and Losers of Climate Change
Howard Lisnoff
“Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran”
Robert Fisk
The West’s Disgraceful Silence on the Death of Morsi
Dean Baker
The Old Japan Disaster Horror Story
David Mattson
The Gallatin Forest Partnership and the Tyranny of Ego
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail