Overarmament and underdevelopment - relations between developed and developing nations - from an address to "Facing the 21st Century: Threats and Promises" conference

Overarmament and underdevelopment

DEVELOPMENT and peace are interdependent questions of such vital international importance that, especially if the ecological aspect is also taken into account, the destiny of our planet and that of humanity hinges on adequate solutions being found for them.

In scientific analyses and in political practice these interdependencies often go unrecognized. Although the close relationship between peace and development is immediately obvious in the countries of the South, it is also true that disasters in the South have an immediate impact on the countries of the North.

The reports submitted by the Brandt Commission (1977), the Palme Commission (1980), and the Brundtland Commission (1987) were firmly based on the concept of common responsibility for the future of our planet and also attached importance to the concept of interdependence--though with varying emphasis.

The notions of "common interests", "common security", and "common future" demand that uncompromising confrontations should be ended throughout the world and give way to harmonious coexistence.

None of the major problems prevailing between industrialized nations and developing countries can be effectively solved by means of confrontation. Reasonable solutions can only be based on dialogue and co-operation.

However, this will not be possible without a new understanding of mutual dependencies. There are many positive sides to this interdependence: all countries would benefit from a strengthening of the world economy involving a reduction of national debts and an improvement of the climate for growth and investment.

All of them would also benefit from a more careful use of non-renewable raw materials and greater respect for environmental resources; and all of them would benefit from stabilization of the world population.

Objectively speaking, all countries--be they North or South, East or West, industrialized or developing--have an obvious interest in more security and less defence spending. And they are equally interested in an improved capacity to tackle global problems.

Children are still dying every minute because they do not have enough food or water, or because they lack basic medical care. Over 500 million people throughout the world still suffer from hunger. In these circumstances, it is not much consolation to be told by experts that at international level food production has continued to increase. On the contrary, it is all the more scandalous that such a vast number of people are condemned to starve in a world that seems obviously capable of providing enough food for all. And who would deny today that hunger and poverty could be more effectively overcome in large parts of the world if some of the funds wasted on overarmament could instead be used for productive and humanitarian ends?

We possess relatively reliable estimates on worldwide arms expenditure. In future agreements on arms reductions, serious efforts should be made to use at least part of the funds thus saved for economically, socially, ecologically--and thus politically--useful purposes.

We are also aware of the external debt burden that many developing countries are suffering from. An increasing portion of their export earnings has to be spent on servicing foreign debts. For a number of years now, the flow of funds from the South to the North has been greater than in the opposite direction.

Excessive arms spending has not made peace any less precarious, and the desperate position in which many developing countries find themselves is certainly not an adequate basis for future-oriented economic and ecological decisions.

According to the findings of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) and of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), humanity is now able to bring about radical changes on the planet Earth, which may either take a destructive or a constructive course.

The crisis observed in large parts of the developing world is due to both worldwide structural changes and to internal and external mismanagement. The United Nations Conference on Disarmament and Development held in 1987 also came to the conclusion that disarmament, development and security are interdependent.

Up to now there have been no sufficiently high level talks on the interrelationship between overarmament and underdevelopment. Instead, intergovernmental North-South negotiations in a "multilateral" framework have all but petered out. But where bilateralism predominates, the disadvantages of the weaker party are accentuated.

All those who see other peoples as neighbours for whom they feel responsible must put pressure on their governments to initiate a process of systematic and future-oriented negotiations. More specifically, I would like to ask for your support in passing on a message to all those who are currently in government. The message is that they should finally recognize that an objective interrelationship exists between peace, development and the protection of the environment, and that they should act accordingly.

This interdependence--long unrecognized--must no longer be underrated. There must be a growing realization that all countries are linked by their common interest in survival and that solutions to our problems will only be achieved by adopting a far-sighted and global approach. Our "mutual obligation" requires the adoption--as quickly as possible--of a new ethic of human survival.

COPYRIGHT 1988 UNESCO
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group