Poverty

Poverty September 4, 2010 “World leaders call for a redirection of military funding to go towards health and education in poverty stricken countries” (Adelaide Now news). If much needed military funding was being cut in your country to supply aid to poverty stricken countries, would you consider this an ethical decision' A catastrophic decision would be made, if military funding was cut, as this could mean lack of defence for the countries that need protecting. At a recent United Nations conference Dr Ban said that, “The UN was falling behind on some of its health goals due to lack of funds”. This is a clear indication that the UN needs consistent funds. The question is though, whether these funds should be taken from the military. “World military expenditure in 2009 is estimated to have reached $1.531 trillion in current dollars” says Paul Krugman (Professor of Economics and International Affairs) (2010). Krugman agrees that taking money from the military will force it to struggle and will pressure the countries where the military is currently at work. UN Security-General Kofi Annan has said, “The fastest and most efficient way for poverty devastated countries is to accept money from the military”. But the fastest option does not always turn out to be the safest option. Instead of money coming from the military, humanitarian organisations need to be publicised so that the need for money appeals to large profit organisations and companies that can help sponsor organisations such as the UN. This would help eliminate the need for military funding. Clearly the military needs a lot of money to keep countries safe. Almost half of the global military funds are used by the United States. The United States is also the biggest contributor to the UN giving over 22% of its funds to the UN organisation and 27% of the UN’s peace keeping missions funds. Although the fight against poverty must continue, to do this, funds need to be distributed somehow, however military funding cannot be cut short. Leaving the military with no funds could be a huge problem. If funds towards the military were cut short countries that are in poverty would almost positively fall into a state of war, allowing the enhancement of militia groups such as the Taliban. In Afghanistan (where the Taliban is based) the military reached a week point due to the greater concentration on poverty, at this time the country was attacked and since then, there has been a steady war taking place involving many countries including Australia. Throughout the world there are 2.2 billion children, 1 billion of these live in poverty and over half of these children live in poverty because of preventable wars. “From 1990 to 1993, the period encompassing Desert Storm, per capita GDP in Iraq fell from $3500 to $761” (MSU). If there had have been more military involvement in the Gulf-War it would have been stopped or at least slowed quicker, this would have allowed the country to keep its income consistent. The end of poverty will one day be found, but search for world peace will without doubt never end. Emphasis must be placed on the need to have sufficient funding for the military, if this means that anti-poverty organisations have to find financial support elsewhere, then so be it.