ar Industry and Unjust Distribution al Problem Mustafa Koylii The article identifies the global growth of the war industry and weapons trade along with inequitable distribution of wealth and unjust econom- ic systems as major reasons for the lack of peace and prosperity every- where in the world. The article discusses the political economy of war and its implications on the socioeconomic elements of society. The paper illustrates through an economic evaluation of the Gulf War and the Iran-Iraq War the enonnous damage that modem weapons and modem wars can burden a nation and its civilian population. The arti- cle does not offer any specific strategies to deal with either the ravages of the war industry during war as well as during peace, or with the inherent inequity in the economic system. But the author hopes that the awareness of these problems and their incredibly devastating conse- quences will exhort everyone into address them. Developments in science and technology have brought many advantages to human beings but at the same time have caused them many serious prob- lems. The conflicting results of the technological and scientific develop- ments in the last two centuries are most apparent in two major fields: the armament industry and economic distribution. Nations that excel techno- logically become richer and richer and possess the most powerful and destructive weapons, and those who cannot adapt themselves to these developments become poorer and poorer. Worse, it seems likely that this disparity between rich and poor nations will not narrow but rather will con- tinue to widen to the detriment of the majority of the earth's population. The main purpose of this article is to examine what is going on in the world in general in two areas: war and peace and socioeconomic justice. This article consists of two major sections. The first includes a brief treat- Mustafa K6yltl teaches in the Faculfy of Divinity at Ondukw, Mayis University. Samun, Turkey. 68 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 164 ment of war and humanity: the economic cost of militarization, the rela- tionship between military expenditures and both employment and social welfare, some features of new weapons, and two contemporary, high tech- nology wars (Iran-Iraq and Gulf) that demonstrate the power of new weapons. The second part discusses socioeconomic justice around the world, including the unjust economic distribution of resources both between and within nations and the consequences for the poor living in the developed and underdeveloped countries. War and Humanity War, which has been the most well-organized and destructive fonn of violence in which human beings engage, is an integral part of mankind’s history. Both the Bible and the Qur’an record its ubiquity.’ But why have human beings fought throughout history? What are the rea- sons for such wars? Why have the number of wars and conflicts increased in the twentieth century? And will this situation continue forever? The first answer, derived from a historical study of relationships between the West and the East or between Christians and Muslims, might be that religion is a main reason for war. However, reducing the causes of war to only one explanation is not correct. As Quhcy Wright points out, there are many reasons for war: To different people war may have very different meanings. To some, it is a plague which ought to be eliminated; to some, a mistake which should be avoided; to others, a crime which ought to be punished; and, to still others, it is an anachronism which no longer serves any pur- pose. On the other hand, there are some who take a more receptive attitude toward war and regard it as an advantage which may be inter- esting, an instrument which may be useful, a procedure which may be legitimate and appropriate, or a condition of existence for which one must be prepared? There is no single reason for war, but rather many - political, social, and economic. John Huddleston lists among the causes of twentieth century wars the following: the nature of human beings, nationalism, racism, extremes of wealth and poverty, religious fanaticism and strife, male dom- ination of public affairs, and competitive arms races? Whatever the reason, it is a fact that wars have continued both between and among nations. However, as Betty A. Reardon points out, “Physical or direct violence, par- ticularly military violence, in the twentieth century, appears to be more var- Koylii: War Industry and Unjust Distribution as a Global Problem 69 ied and certainly more destructive than it has ever been.”4 Why are twenti- eth century wars so destructive, dangerous, and inhumane? The following facts may help answer this question. Scholars estimate that between 1480 and 1940 there were 244 important wars in which the nations of the world participated. There were 2,659 important battles fought by European nations a10ne.~ It must be noted here that contrary to common belief, most of these wars were between nations that followed religions other than Islam.6 Since World War I1 there have been 149 wars? According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the number of major wars (those that kill at least 1,OOO persons) per year rose to 34 in 1993, after having dropped from 36 in 1987 and to 30 in 1991.8 As a result of these wars, just since the sixteenth century, some 142 mil- lion people have died. Of that number 108 million, or 75 percent, have died in wars during the twentieth century.’ Overall, according to William Eckhardt’s estimation, 73 percent of all war-related deaths since 3000 B.C. have occurred in the twentieth century.l0 In addition to this direct killing, some 40 million people have died as a result of war-related famine or ill- ness. One analysis asserts that “more than twice as many people have been killed in wars in this supposed postwar period than in the entire nineteenth century, and seven times as many as in the eighteenth century.”” Another important feature of twentieth century wars is that more conflicts and killings have occurred in the developing countries. From 1945 through 1992 over 92 percent of all conflicts were in the developing countries.’* By contrast, the more industrialized and democratically governed states have constituted a vast zone of relative peace for their more than three-quarters of a billion pe0~le. l~ The Economic Cost of Militarization It is a fact that, especially since World War II, both the developed coun- tries, which have met their basic human needs, and the developing and, underdeveloped countries which have far from met their peoples’ basic needs, compete fiercely for superiority in destructive power. Although there has been a slight reduction recently in worldwide military expendi- tures, they still make up an important proportion of the Gross National Product (GNP) of most countries. In 1987, world military expenditures totaled more than U.S.$l trillion, equaling the total income of the 2.6 bil- lion people of forty-four of the poorest nations in the w0r1d.l~ As of 1993, the developed countries spent as much on military power in a year as the 70 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 164 total income of the poorest 2 billion people on earth.15 Since World War 11, global military spending amounts to U.S.$3&35 trillion.16 Globally, between 5 and 6 percent of the world’s total annual product is spent on mil- itary a.ffairs.l7 This means that the world spends $1,9OO,OOO each minute for the purpose of defense.18 Who spends excessively for military defense? Ironically, it is not only the developed countries, which can better afford military expenditures, but also the developing and even underdeveloped countries, with great foreign debts and m e t basic human needs, which spend significant amounts of their GNPs for military defense.19 During the seventies and eighties, three-quar- ters of the global arms flow went to the developing countries. The Middle East countries became the world’s largest arms market, how- ever, as they waged war against each other during the last half of this cen- tury. According to Shimon Peres, since Israel’s recognition in 1948, Arab countries have fought six wars with Israel and another six among them- selves.2o Between 1977 and 1987, SPRI estimates the cumulative military spending of all the countries of the Middle East to be approximately $615 billion. As a share of the GNP, military expenditures in the region averaged 17 percent between 1978 and 1985 and represented nearly 40 percent of all arms imports in the world?l While there was a worldwide economic reces- sion and Third World debt crisis, “Iran and Iraq accounted for more than half of the arms purchased by Third World nations in the mid-l980s, with total purchases in excess of $100 billion over the course of a decade.”22 When we add the nations of the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, this fig- ure rises to $150 billion.= A report to the U.S. Congress indicated that U.S. arms sales to the Middle East from 1978 to 1988 represented two-thirds of total foreign sales.” Figures show that investments in military equipment in that region consumed between 21 and 26 percent of all government e~penditures.2~ Therefore, the U.S. diplomats see the Middle East countries in general, and Saudi Arabia in particular, as a “great cash cow.” In the words of William Quandt, a Middle East specialist formerly on the National Security Council, “It takes King Fahd about 10 seconds to write a check. It takes Congress weeks to debate the smallest issue of this sort.”26 Escalating debts are one result of this excessive military spending. By 1985 the external debt of Third World countries was about $750 billion - 330 percent higher than in 1975.” By 1993 the debt of the world‘s devel- oping countries rose to $1.77 trillion28 and to $1.9 trillion in 1994.29 It is K6ylU: War Industry and Unjust Distribution as a Global Problem 71 estimated that on average about 40 percent of developing countries’ debts result from the importation of arms.3o While these Third World countries continue to militarize themselves, they are not likely to repay their debts anytime soon. Usually, they make occasional payments of interest rather than paying off the principal. Hal Kane points out that “developing coun- tries pay $180 billion every year in debt service. Taken as a whole, the Third World owes an amount equal to about half of its yearly income.”31 Although Third World countries, including Muslim countries, spend bil- lions of dollars on militarization, when we compare them with the devel- oped nations, they are (and will be) always at a disadvantage in terms of their economies, societies, and military powers. There are several reasons for this. First, they lack the resources for military development, research, and manufacturing that developed countries have. The money that the U.S spends for the purpose of militarization every year - an average of $300 billion - exceeds the total collective GNP of most of the developing coun- tries. Even if Third World countries buy the newest and latest weapons, they are quickly obsolete. This was Iraq’s situation during the Gulf War. Although the U.S. had sold Iraq billions of dollars worth of planes, tanks, and missiles during the Iran-Iraq conflict, Iraqi soldiers and forces could not respond well against America and allied bombings in the Gulf War. While the United States was selling weapons to Iraq, it was spending tril- lions of dollars on more sophisticated military machines. Since Iraq had the old military machines and the U.S. had the new ones against which the old ones wouldn’t be very effective, Iraq lost and America won the ~ a r . 3 ~ Second, military organizations around the world do not sell all the essen- tial parts of the weapons, “so that some proportion of the nominal order of battle must always be ~navailable.”~~ For example, one Western military expert asserted that only 10 percent of the Iranian Air Force’s F-14s were battle ready when the war with Iraq ~tarted.3~ Third, in an arms race there is no end. New purchases of arms systems by one group of countries automatically elicits similar moves in neighboring countries. As George Kim observes, “This is a kind of chain reaction result- ing in permanent expansion, an uninterrupted replenishment of military arsenals, a kind of race in the quantitative and qualitative accumulation of arms.”35 Fourth, since the manufacture of modem weapons and arms needs an out- let, the war industry requires field testing for new weapons, warplanes, and 12 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 16:4 other sophisticated devices. Therefore, as Naji Abi-Hashem asserts, “‘I‘he heavy production of weapons and the substantial economic value they can generate may at times cause powerful governments to manipulate tender spots around the globe or to feed regional conflicts in order to market their products.”36 Fifth, while sellers of weapons, such as the U.S., see the Middle East countries as the “great cash cow,” they are not happy about selling their products. A U.S. diplomat said, “But, in order to keep the great cash cow happy, the flow of advanced U.S. arms to the Saudis has to continue virtu- ally uninterrupted, regardless of how these arms may ultimately be used by the Saudi Sheikdom or a successor regime.”37 Consequently, it can be said that the Third World countries in general, and Muslim countries in particular, must know that the true aim of the developed nations is not to keep peace in the globe, but to sell their weapons and gain benefit even at the cost of millions of peoples’ lives. During Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the attitude of U.S. President George Bush reflected this when he argued for U.S. involvement: “Our jobs, our way of life, our own freedom, and the freedom of friendly countries around the world would suffer if control of the world’s great oil reserves fell into the hands of Saddam H~ssein.”~* The Effects of Militarization an Development, Employment, and Social Welfare These are some disadvantages of militarization for developing countries that are importing their weapons from the developed countries. What about the developed countries? What effect does excessive militarization have on both developed and developing countries in terms of employment and the social welfare of their people? Although the answers to these questions dif- fer somewhat from country to country, the fact is that excessive militariza- tion in both developed and developing (or underdeveloped) countries is not an economic advantage, but rather an economic burden on the people. Let’s look first at the relationship between employment and militariza- tion. Contrary to common belief, continuation of the arms race creates unemployment, since disarmament and reallocation of money into the civil- ian sector would create more jobs and reduce unem~loyment.~~ Many econ- omists see arms spending as subtracting from a nation’s total resources. The first economist, Adam Smith, presented this position in his famous book, The Wealth of Nations: KSylii: War Industry and Unjust Distribution as a Global Problem 73 [Tlhe whole army and navy are unproductive laborers. They are the servants of the public, and are maintained by a part of the annual pro- duce of the industry of other people. Their service, how honorable, how useful, or how necessary soever, produces nothing for which an equal quantity of services can afterwards be produced.40 It is a fact that military expenditures employ some people; there can be no doubt about that. However, this does not mean that military spending creates more jobs than equivalent money spent for the domestic economy. Spending for defense not only produces nothing that consumers can buy, but also is a very poor way of creating jobs. According to one account given by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in America, “Every $1 billion spent on [the] military creates on average 75,000 jobs. The same $1 billion spent on mass transit creates on average 92,000 jobs; construction, 100,ooO; health- care, 139,000; education, 187,000.”41 Military expenditure not only creates fewer jobs compared with altema- tive civilian expenditure, but also uses the most highly skilled, scarce, and best educated people. For example, in 1989 in the U.S. “twenty-one percent of all engineers, 24 percent of all electrical engineers, 32 percent of all mathematicians, and 34 percent of all physicists went to the military indus- tries.’” Meanwhile, gIobally, 25 million soldiers were serving in the armed forces of different nations, more than 500,000 scientists and engineers were engaged in research and development for military purposes, and another 5 million workers were involved in weapons prod~ction.4~ While both developed and underdeveloped countries spend billions of dollars for defense and hire the most skilled and educated persons for the military sector, most of the poorer nations have not met the basic food, health, and literacy needs of their people. According to the World Development Report of 1994, one billion people in the developing countries still lacked clean water and nearly two billion people lacked adequate san- itation.‘”’ In 1993, as a result of the lack of clean water, adequate sanitation, and ample nutrition, preventable infectious diseases accounted for an esti- mated one-third of all deaths in the world - 16.4 million out of 51 million. More than 99 percent of deaths from infectious diseases occurred in devel- oping countries, most of which spend much more money for militarization than for In’ addition, in 1993 seven million adults died of condi- tions that could have been inexpensively prevented or cured.& Illiteracy is also a serious problem in the developing countries. According to Ruth Leger Sivard, “one-quarter of the adults in the world 14 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 16:4 cannot read and write, and most of them are in the low-income countries. Over half of the adults in South Asia and in Africa are illiterate, and almost half of those in the Middle East as well.”47 As a result, we can say that the ancient Roman maxim: Si vispacem,para bellum (If you want peace, prepare for war), does not work in our times. Contrary to this famous dictum, as Renner points out, ‘The accumulation of unprecedented military power has brought not eternal peace but massive destruction during war and high economic and environmental costs in preparing for it.”48 The Features of New Weapons and Wars in the Twentieth Century When we compare modem conflicts and wars with earlier ones, we see that they have declined in average duration but have enormously increased in frequency, intensity, magnitude, and severity.”49 One view is that mod- em weapons and wars are “more ruthless, more immoral, and more inhu- mane than ever conceived in past history.”50 Why is this so? The following comparison summarizes the judgments of scholars on this question: Noncombatant fatalities. In the past, there was always the possibility that wars could be fought between the armed forces of nations without involv- ing civilians. This is no longer possible. While at the beginning of the twen- tieth century approximately 50 percent of all war-related deaths were civil- ians, by the 1980s as many as 75 percent were civilians; in the active wars in the 1990s more than 90 percent of war-related deaths were civilians.51 UNICEF claims that during the last decade, 2 million children have died in civil wars - wars in which more children than soldiers were killed.52 Environmental destruction. While in the past environmental damage from war was limited, such destruction has reached a new magnitude in our time. Robert McAfee Brown points out that “today’s weapons and wars not only kill people and destroy cities, but also destroy forest, vegetation, arable land, and may upset the ecological balance for generations to come.”53 No winners. In the past, when the weapons were bows and arrows or even guns and bombs, there were ways in which one side could be considered the winner and the other side the loser. However, there are no winners if nuclear weapons are used.54 That is why General Douglas MacArthur said, regarding a possible nuclear war, “If you lose, you are annihilated, if you win, you stand only to lose. [Nuclear] war contains the germs of double sui- ~ i d e . ” ~ ~ Koylii: War Industry and Unjust Distribution as a Global Problem 75 The above-mentioned differences are just a few in comparing past and present warfare. The most significant differences between past and present wars, however, are the nuclear weapons and nuclear wars that emerged in the twentieth century. Now we must speak of nuclear weapons that threaten all nations, whether they have them or not, and their possible effects when they are used. Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons and the most destruc- tive, and they have the longest effective power. Human beings first experi- enced nuclear weapons in 1945 in Japan’s two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With very small atomic bombs (compared with those later devel- oped) 200,000 people were killed in Hiroshima; 62,000 out of the city’s 90,000 buildings were completely destroyed, and 6,000 other buildings were damaged beyond repair.56 The explosive power of the bomb on Hiroshima was just about 12.5 kilotons.57 Today most modem nuclear weapons are 3 to 50 times as powerful as the bombs of 1945:* The num- ber of bombs in the world is beyond human imagination. At its peak in 1982, the global stockpile was almost 25,000 strategic and more than 30,000 tactical warheads (those that travel 3,000 miles or less),59 with the power of over 50,000 megatons.60 This is the equivalent of 16 thousand million tons of TNT, or three tons of TNT for every man, woman, and child on earth - enough to erase the human race several times over?’ Although the strategic arms reduction treaties (START I and II) reduced the number of nuclear warheads by 6 percent in 1993 (from 52,875 to 49,910), by 3 percent in 1994 (from 49,910 to 45,100), and by 9 percent in 1995 (from 45,100 to 40,640), there still remains the equivalent of 9,700,000,000 tons of TNT destructive power?2 Even if the two START treaties were fully implemented by 2003, the United States and Russia together would retain 6,500 warheads containing enough firepower to anni- hilate all life on earth. Michael J. Sheehan points out that “the essential objective of arms is to make the world safe for nuclear deterrence. It assumes that ‘nuclear weapons cannot be eliminated and that the world must therefore learn to live with them.”’63 As a result, human beings, according to George Kim, are now confront- ed with a dilemma “either to find ways to ease international tensions through the joint efforts of nations or to let the world slide down at an increasing speed toward the abyss of a nuclear conflict. A third alternative simply does not exist.”@ 76 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 16:4 Two Contemporary Wars: The Iran-Iraq and the Gulf Wars So far I have talked about the global economic cost of militarization; its effects on economy, development, and social welfare, and the features of the new weapons; particularly nuclear weapons, and wars. However, I have not talked about a real war and its consequences. In order to understand bet- ter the consequences of war, I would like to give two examples: the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War. Both occurred in the last decade and directly concerned not only the countries in which the wars were fought but all Muslim nations. I will not attempt to judge here who was right or wrong; rather, will indicate their economic costs and social consequences. The Iran-Iraq War One of the most dramatic and costly wars since World War 11 was the Iran-Iraq War. About one million people were killed and perhaps twice as many were wounded. In addition, the war turned more than five million Iranians and Iraqis into refugees in their own country and imposed severe economic dislocation and environmental During the war, in order to keep its military staying power, Iraq spent far more money on imported weapons than it received from oil sales. According to Michael Renner, approximately 40 percent of its GNP went to military expenditures.@ The ultimate cost of that war was staggering. Abbas Alnasravi, professor of economics at the University of Vermont, estimated that the total cost came to $416 billion in the years from 1980 to 198567 - an amount that surpasses the two countries’ combined earnings of $364 billion from oil sales since Iraq and Iran first started exporting “black gold” in 1919 and 1931, respectively.68 Some economists estimate the damage to oil fields, refineries, pipelines, and export terminals at $28 billion for Iran and $8 billion for Iraq. Both countries may well have lost an additional $100 billion in potential oil reserves because of the damage. Besides human tragedy and monetary loss, half of the population in both nations remains illiterate, and over one-third lacks access to safe drinking water. In Iran, the infant mortality rate remained 42 percent higher than the world average, and life expectancy in both countries runs several years below the world average of 62 ~ears .6~ The Persian Gulf War Despite the ravaging effects of its war with Iran, Iraq was making con- siderable economic p r o b s s before the Gulf crisis. In 1991, Adeeb Abed Kaylii: War Industry and Unjust Distribution as a Global Problem 77 and Gavrielle Gemma traveled widely in Iraq and reported on pre-Gulf War conditions: Although it varied in different parts of the country, again and again people described to us the following: the entire country was electrified ... Since 1982, eighteen major hospitals had been built. Some were renewed in the Middle East. Medical care was basically free with a token payment of half a dinar upon admission and one dinar each day regardless of care. Illiteracy had been substantially reduced; education was universal and free through college. Water was supplied to all parts of the country. Prenatal and postnatal care and vaccinations for chil- dren were available throughout the country, including rural areas. The social position of women was advancing. Food was abundant and inexpensive ... Low interest loans were provided by the government, which had also started a program to give land to people who promised to produce within five years. Doctors had not seen cases of malnutri- tion in Baghdad for over a decade.70 What followed this period of growth, prosperity, and development was a war that brought misery, distress, and poverty. Concerning the war’s dev- astation, Abed and Gemma reported In every city we visited, we documented severe damage to homes, electrical plants, fuel storage facilities, civilian factories, hospitals, churches, civilian airports, vehicles, transportation facilities, food storage and food testing laboratories, grain silos, animal vaccination centers, schools, communication towers, civilian government office buildings, and stores. Almost all facilities we saw had been bombed two or three times, ensuring that they could not be repaired. Most of the bridges we saw were bombed from both sides.’l In fact, not only were the infrastructure of the city and life support sys- tems bombed several times, but also thousands of Iraqis were buried alive during the Gulf War. Pentagon spokesman Pete Wilson did not dispute published estimates of 8,000 Iraqis buried alive; rather, agreeing that a hor- rible situation existed he stated, “There is no nice way to kill people.”72 While 300,000 Iraqi soldiers, most of them “essentially defenseless sol- diers, soldiers withdrawing without weapons, and soldiers seeking surren- der,” were killed by the use of technologically superior weapons, just 150 American soldiers were killed?3 In fact, not only were soldiers killed, but also, according to a Red Crescent estimate, 112,000 civilians were killed, 60 percent of whom were ~hildren.7~ Even worse, the deaths of both sol- 78 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 16:4 diers and civilian people did not end with the war, but have continued, espe- cially among the children. As a result of economic crises, child mortality tripled through 1991 and in some areas quadrupled. The Harvard International Study Group which visited Iraq in August and September 1991 concluded that one million Iraqi children were malnourished, with 120,000 suffering severe and acute malnutrition. Hyperinflation caused food prices to rise as high as 2,000 per~ent.7~ In early 1992, it was widely reported that 5,000 to 6,000 civilians were dying every month as a direct result of the bombing, compounded by shortages of food, medicine, and medical services caused by the sanctions.76 Iraq, of course, not only lost her people but also sustained a big econom- ic loss. According to the Arab Monetary Fund, compared with America’s cost of $5 the cost to the states of the Persian Gulf region was $676 billion, not including the devastation to the Kuwaiti and Iraqi envi- ronments and lost economic growth in these and other Persian Gulf states.78 In addition to this immediate cost, economy experts estimate that the cost of rebuilding Iraq to prewar levels would be at least $300 billi0n.7~ Besides the economic consequences of the war, according to Naji Abi- Hashem, the Gulf War strongly fed the anti-West and anti-Christian move- ment in the region. He asserts that “one of the most significant outcomes of the Gulf War is the rise of strong waves of anti-Western feelings and fun- damentalist movements throughout the Arabic world and Moslem nations.”80 To him the Western military confrontation brought to the mind of most Muslims the vivid memories of crusaders and European armadas. Therefore, while for the Western mind the efforts, effects, and worriers in the Gulf War ended with “Operation Desert Storm,” from the Muslim per- spective the agony, ordeals, and uncertainties had just begun. Abi-Hashem cites the dismay of Christian workers in the Middle East over the conse- quences of the war. One predicted that “this could hurt Christian-Muslim relationships for 100 years.” Another feared that “the Christian ministry would be so limited, and is in some places reduced, as to be virtually non- existent.”81 In addition to the social, cultural, and economic consequences of war, there are sigtllficant psychological and emotional consequences. Research studies show that some of the victims exposed to the stress of war will never completely recover. Experiencing violence, severe stress, and per- sonal and communal loss and tragedy and being subject to constant threats K6ylil: War Industry and Unjusi Distribution as a Global Problem 79 and fear of death can have long-lasting and damaging effects on individu- als of all agesx2 People in the developed or underdeveloped countries have been affected adversely not just from these wars, conflicts, and arms races, but also from unjust economic distribution, the second problem threatening the poor in the world today that I discuss in this article. Socioeconomic justice around the World History, by its very nature, includes periods of both relative stability and instability, change and crisis. However, as Mexican social scientist Velaquez has said, “Today’s crisis is different from any [in] previous his- tory because it is global, progressive and could possibly be terminal.”83 Our world has never seen such economic oppression, unjust economic distribu- tion, and poverty as we have today. The following estimations show how the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. Femand Braudel has given the following figures: In 1700, on the basis of the 1960 exchange rate of the dollar, the gross national product per inhabitant ranged from 150 to 190 in England and from 250 to 290 in the British colonies in America (the future U.S.A.). In 1750, it was 170 to 200 in France, 160 to 210 in India (140-180 by 1900!), and 228 in China (but 170 by 1950!). Globally speaking by about 1800, the GNP per person in Western Europe was about $213; in North America, $266; in what is known as the Third World, about $200. In 1976, however, on the basis of the same 1960 exchange rate, the Western European GNF’ had reached $2,325, but the Third World’s only $355.84 In short, less than two centuries ago “before the Industrial Revolution, the life standard was almost the same everywhere in the world, approximately $200 a year, on the basis of the 1960 exchange rate, with a slight advantage in favor of the ancient Asiatic civilizations.”85 So while two centuries ago the average per capita income of the richest countries was perhaps just a few times greater than that of the poorest, today’s average, for some rich countries, is almost one hundred times more than that of its counterparts in Bangladesh, for example. In fact, there has been great economic growth worldwide. According to Lester R. Brown, the world economy has expanded from $4 trillion in out- put in 1950 to more than $20 trillion in 1995. In just ten years, from 1985 to 1995 it grew by $4 trillion, which is more than from the beginning of civ- 80 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 16:4 ilization until 1950. Again, since 1900 the value of goods and services pro- duced each year worldwide has grown twentyfold, the use of energy thir- tyfold, the products of industry fiftyfold, and the average distance traveled perhaps a thousandfold.86 However, the benefits of this rapid global growth have not been evenly distributed. Living conditions for roughly 20 percent of the world’s population have remained at subsistence level, essentially unchanged As a result of this uneven distribution of wealth and income, “The ratio between income in the richest one fifth of countries and the poor- est one fifth has widened from 30 to 1 in 1960 to 61 to 1 in 1991.”87 Because of this uneven economic distribution, over one billion people, one in five of the world‘s population, still live in absolute poverty.88 In other words, while the Third World nations contain 76 percent of the world’s population, they earn only 27 percent of the world’s income.89 Worse, this economic gap is not only between the rich and the poor countries, but also within countries. According to Alan T. Durning, between 60 and 70 percent of the people in most countries earn less than their nation’s average income. Almost nowhere does the poorest fifth of households earn above 10 percent of national income, while the richest fifth mostly receive more than half.% Uneven economic distribution within countries is found in both devel- oped and developing nations. For example, with 6 percent of.the world’s population, the U.S. consumes as much as 40 percent of the world’s resources, including 33 percent of the world’s oil and 63 percent of its nat- ural gas?l The average American consumes as much resources in one year as it would take to sustain ninety Indians for one year.= But that does not mean that every American is rich or that wealth and income are equally dis- tributed. While the top 1 percent of the people own about 23 percent of all wealth, and the richest .5 percent own fully 81 percent of the national wealth, the lowest 20 percent of U.S. families get only 4.6 percent of the total inc0me.9~ If homes and other real estate are excluded, the concentra- tion of ownership of “financial wealth” is even more glaring. More than 35 million Americans, about one in seven, are poor by the government’s offi- cial definition, and tens of millions are without adequate medical care.94 However, the most acute result of poverty and malnutrition globally is seen among infants and young children of underdeveloped countries. Sivard notes that between 1700 and 1987 there have been 471 wars in which 101,550,000 people were killed?5 whereas just between 1977 and 1987, at least 136,000,000 children died from preventable poverty condi- tions - more children died in ten years than people killed in all the wars , Kaylii: War Industry and Unjust Distribution as a Global Problem 81 that occurred over a 287-year period between 1700 and 1987.% As a whole, 70 percent of the deaths recorded each year in the Third World are due to hunger or to problems arising from h~nger.9~ In addition to child mortality, each year 250,000 children, including 150,000 in Bangladesh alone, become permanently blind due to the lack of vitamin A.% The number of people who die every two days of hunger and starvation is equivalent to the number who were killed instantly by the Hiroshima bomb.w As Reardon points out, “Indeed, the children of the world are already living in the rub- ble of World War III.”loo Although the remaining people in Third World countries do not die because of hunger or starvation, their social welfare is very low when com- pared with that in developed countries. For example, in 1990, the entire world spent about $1,700 billion or 8 percent of its output on health. However, while developed nations spent almost 90 percent of this amount, for an average of $1,500 per person, developing nations spent about $170 billion, or 4 percent of their GNP, for an average of $41 per person. The U.S. alone consumed 41 percent of the global total.lol Again, while in 1985 Third World countries spent an average of $150 on the education of each school-age child, the industrialized countries spent an average of $2,250. lO2 As a result of this big gap in spending for education, the literacy rates are 37 percent in the least developed countries, 63 percent in the less developed countries, and 97 percent in the developed countries.lm It can be said that the problems of poverty, starvation, health, and illiter- acy prevailing widely in the world today are not due to lack of resources, but rather to the misuse and abuse of resources and unjust distribution of wealth. For instance, some specialists estimate that current world food pro- duction is enough to provide every human being in the world with 3,600 calories a day.lO4 The World Bank also agrees that world grain production alone could provide 3,000 calories and 65 grams of protein for every per- son per day, more than the highest estimates of minimum nutritional requirements. In fact, the world’s wealth is enough to meet people’s basic needs. The world’s average GNP in 1995 was not less than $675 per per- son, but was $3,629.’05 As Renner points out, “If governments pursued the building of a peace system with the same seriousness as they built military muscle, in all like- lihood many violent conflicts could be avoided and the problem of health, education, housing, poverty, and environmental sustainability could be solved.”lM He maintains, “A comparatively small investment - perhaps 82 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 16:4 $20 to $30 billion per year - could make a tremendous difference in the global war and peace balance.”lW However, although some reduction in the number of nuclear weapons worldwide has taken place, as well as peace- keeping negotiations among nations, expenditures for the United Nations’ peacekeeping operations reached an estimated $3.36 billion in 1995 only, which was “equivalent to less than half of one percent of global military spending.”lm Conclusions Overall, we can say that today both war and conflicts are more expensive, more destructive, more ruthless, and more immoral than in the past. Wars and conflicts between and within nations destroy countries’ economies, environment, and the social welfare of people. But peace (the absence of armed conflict) has not brought relief. Excessive military expenditures con- tinue to destroy the economies of nations and deprive millions of people of basic human needs in both developed and underdeveloped nations. While developed nations may still consider such expenditures to be advantages, underdeveloped countries and their people are placed economically at an absolute disadvantage due to excessive militarization. Today many people in both developed and underdeveloped countries suf- fer not only from the cost of excessive militarization with its related wars and conflicts, but also from unjust economic systems. As a result of eco- nomic injustices in the world, very few people live with a humane standard of life, and the majority are far from meeting their basic human needs. Excessive militarization and unjust economic systems affect many other nations including Muslim countries and their peoples. The Iran-Iraq and the Gulf wars are the most striking example of this. They not only caused the deaths of millions of Muslims and left another million widowed and orphaned, but also devastated their countries’ past, present, and future economies, thereby affecting the welfare of both present and future gener- ations. I believe that the prosperity and welfare of the world’s nations depend on true peace and socioeconomic justice. Then every country, every nation, and every person should strive for peace and try to share the goods of the world with others. They should remember that the available food is enough for every creature in the world as long as it is used appropriately. Notes 1. The Bible: Exodus, 24; Numbers, 3; Deuteronomy, 2,7, 30; Joshua, 6,8; Matthew, 1034. The Qur’an: 22:40; 2216. Koylu: War Industry and Unjust Distribution as a Global Problem 83 2. Quincy Wright, A Study of War, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965). 3. 3. lohn Huddleston, Achieving Peace by the Year 2000: A Twelve Point Proposal (Oxford, England, Chatham, N.Y.: Oneworld, 1992), 1045. See also Betty A. Reardon, Comprehensive Peace Education: Educating for Global Responsibility (New York Teachers College Press, 1988), 16; Henry A. Atkinson, “Religion as a Cause of War,” in The Causes of War, ed. Arthur Porritt (New York Books for Libraries Press, 1969), 118. 4. Betty A. Reardon, Militarization, Security and Peace Education (Valley Forge, Pa.: United Ministries in Education, 1982), 39. 5. Wright, War, 626, Table 22; see also David P. Barash, Introduction to Peace Studies (Belmont, Calif Wadsworth, 1991), 33. 6. R.C. Johnson says, “With the single exception of Islam the other great world reli- gions are all irreconcilably opposed to war and the things war involves.” See his “The Influence of Religious Teaching, as a Factor in Maintaining Peace,” in Paths to Peace: A Study of War -Its Causes and Prevention, ed. Victor H. Wallace (New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1970), 347. According to Quincy Wright’s, however, the important par- ticipants of these wars between 1480 to 1940, were: Great Britain, 74; France, 63; Spain, 59; Russia, 57; Austria, 51; Turkey, 43; Poland, 28; Sweden, 25; Italy, 25; Netherlands, 22; Germany, 22; Denmark, 20; United States, 12; China, 9; and Japan, 9. See Wright, War, 641447; Tables 3 1 4 1 . 7. Ruth Leger Sivard, World Military and Social Expenditures I993 (Washington, D.C.: World Priorities, 1993), 20. 8. Michael Renner, “Budgeting for Disarmament,” in State of the World 1995: The Trends That Are Shaping Our Future, ed. Linda Starke (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1995). 151. 9. David Krieger and Frank K. Kelly, “Introduction,” in Waging Peace 11: Vision and Hope for the 21st Centrury, ed. David Krieger and Frank K. Kelly (Chicago: Noble Press, 1992), xv. 10. William Eckhardt, “War-Related Deaths Since 3000 BC,” Peace Research 23, no. 1 (February 1991): 83. 11. Hal Kane, “Wars Reach a Plateau,” in Vital Signs 1995: The Trends Thar Are Shaping Our Future, ed..Linda Starke (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1995), 95, 110. 12. Sivard, Expenditures 1993,20. 13. Bruce Russet, “Politics and Alternative Security: Toward a More Democratic, Therefore More Peaceful World,” in Alternative Security, Living Without Nuclear Deterrence, ed. Bums H. Weston (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1990), 108. 14. Barash, Introduction, 265. All the costs that follow are calculated in U.S. dollars. 15. Sivard, Expendimres 1993,5. 16. Ibid., 152. 17. Huddleston, Peace, 27; Sivard, Exppnditwes, 1993,43-50. 18. Annabel Rodda, Women and the Environment, Women and World Development Series (London and N.J.: Zed Books, 1991). 38. 19. For the effects of excessive militarization on these countries’ social welfare, see George Kim, “The Arms Race and Its Consequences for Developing Countries,” in A Peace Reader: Essential Readings on War, Justice. Non-Violence and WorM Order, ed. Joseph Fahey and Richard Armstrong (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), 148 ff. 20. Shimon Peres and Arye Naor, The New Middle East (New York Henry Holt, 1993), 87. 21. Ishac Diwan and Nick Papandreou, “The Peace Process and Economic Reforms in the Middle East,” in The Economics of the Middle East, ed. Stanley Fischer and others (Cambridge, Mass.: MlT Press, 1993). 1%20. 22. William D. Hartung, And Weapons for AN (New York Harper Collins, 1994). 205. 23. bid., 203. 84 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 16:4 24. Charies A. Kimball, Religion, Politics and Oil: The Volatile Mix in the Middle East 25. bid See also Peres and Naor, Middle East, 89. 26. Hartung, Weapons, 213. 27. Ruth Leger Sivard. World Military and Social Expenditures I986 (Washington, D.C.: World Priorities, 1986), 20. 28. Kane, ‘Wars,” 74. 29. Gary Gardner, “Third World Debt Still Growing,” in Vital Sings 1995: The TrendF That Are Shaping Our Future, ed. Linda Starke (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1995). 72. 30. Rkkallah Hilan, “The Effects on Economic Development in Syria of a Just and Long-Lasting Peace,’’ in The Economics of the Middle East, ed. Stanley Fischer and others (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993). 59. 31. Kane, “Wars,” 74. 32. Linw Pauling, “Reflections on the Persian Gulf War,” in Waging Peace: Vision and Hope for the 21st Century, ed. David Krieger and Frank Kelly (Chicago: Noble Press, 1992). 31. 33. Thomas H. Etzold, Defense or Delusion? American Military in the 1980s (New Yo& Harper and Row, 1982), 17. 34. bid, 18. 35. Kim, “ A r m s Race,” 148. 36. Naji Abi-Hashem, “llE Impact of the Gulf War on the Churches in the Middle East: 37. Hamurg, Weapons, 213. 38. Kimball, Religion Politics, 71. 39. Birgit B. Utne, Educating for Peace: A Feminist Perspective (New York Pergamon Press, 1985). 11. 40. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (New York Modem Library, 1937), 315. 41. Michael J. Sheehan, A m Control: Theory and Practice (Oxford, U.K.: Basil Blackwell, 1988), 68. 42. Lourdes Beneria and Rebecca Blank, “Women and the Economics of Military Spending,” in Rocking the Ship of State: Toward a Feminist Peace Politics, ed. Adrienne Harris and Ynestra King (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1989), 195. 43. Peter S. Henriot, “Disarmament and Development: The Lasting Challenge to Peace,” in Peace in a NuclearAge: The Bishops’ Letter in Perspective, ed. Charles J. Reid, Jr. (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1986), 231. 44. World Development Report 1994 (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 1. 45. Anne E. matt, “Infectious Diseases Return,” in Vital Signs 1996: The Trendr That Are Shaping Our Future, ed Linda Starke (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1996), 130-31. 46. World Development Report 1993 (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 1. 47. Sivard, Expenditures 1993.3 1. 48. Michael Renner, “hparing for Peace,” in State of the World 1993: A Worfd Watch Institufe Report on Progress Toward a Sust&able Society, ed. Linda Starke (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1993). 139. 49. John Kiang, One World: The Approaches to Permanent Peace on Earth and the General Happiness of Mankind (Notre Dame, Ind,: One World, 1984), 353. 50. M. L. Oliphant, ‘me Threat to Civilization from Atomic Warfare,” in Paths to Peace: A Study of War: Its Causes and Prevention, ed. Victor H. Wallace (New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1970), 220. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992), 82. A Socio-culhxal and Spiritual Analysis,” Pastoral Psychology 41 (Spring 1992): 14. 5 I. 52. Kane, “Wars,” 110. Krieger and Kelly, ‘“ Introducti q” XV, KBylu: War Industry and Unjust Distribution as a Global Problem 85 53. Robert McAfee Brown, Making Peace in the Global Village (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981). 48-49. 54. The Harvard Nuclear Study Group, Living With Nuclear Weapons (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983), 32. 55. Williard J. Jacobson, “The Last Day of Civilization,” in Education for Peace and Disarmament: Toward a Living World, ed. Douglas Sloan (New York Teachers College Press, 1983). 245. \56. Kiang, One World, 359-360, n. 19. 57. Dietrich Fischer, Preventing War in the Nuclear Age (London and Canberra: Rowman and Allanheld, 1984), 12. 58. Harvard Nuclear Study Group, Nuclear Weapons, 4. 59. Michael Renner, “Military Expenditures Falling,” in Vital Signs 1992: The Trends That Are Shaping Our Future, ed. Linda Starke (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1992), 86. 60. Kiang, One World, 380. 61. Freda Rajotte, “Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation,” Religious Education 85, no. 1 (Winter 1990): 8; see also different estimations in Fischer, Preventing War, 12; Sivard, Expenditures 1993, 10; and Michael Renner, “Cleaning Up After the A r m s Race,” in Sute of the World 1994: A World Watch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Socieg, ed. Linda Starke (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1994), 138. 62. Michael Renner, “Nuclear Arsenals Decline Again,” in Vital Signs 1995: The Trends That Are Shaping Our Future, ed. Linda Starke (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1995), 106; Michael Renner, “Nuclear Arsenals Continue to Decline,” in Vital Signs 1996: The Trends That Are Shaping Our Future, ed. Linda Starke (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1996), 100-101. 63. Sheehan, Arms Control, 10. 64. Kim, “ A r m s Race,” 153-54. 65. Michael Renner, “Iran-Iraq War Produces Only Losers,” WorM Watch (November- December, 1988), 9; Geoff Simons, Iraq: From Sumer to Saddam (New York St. Martin’s Press, 1994), 283; Samir al-Khalil, Republic of Fear: The Inside Story of Saddam’s Iraq (New York Pantheon Books, 1990). 259. 66. Renner, “Iran-Iraq War,” 9. 67. Ibid., 44. 68. Renner, “Budgeting,” 153. 69. Renner, “Iran-Iraq War,” 9,45. 70. Adeeb Abed and Gavrielle Gemma, “Impact of the War on Iraqi’s Society,” Report on Commission Trip to Iraq from April 3,1991 to April 14,1991; quoted in Ramsey Clark, The Fire This Time: U.S. War Crime in the Gulf(New York Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1992), 60. 71. Ibid.,64. 72. Kimball, Religion Politics, 22-23. 73. Clark, Fire, 178; Pauling, “Reflections,” 32, 37. 74. William Eckhardt, “Deaths and Destruction in the Gulf War,” Peace Research 23, nos. 2-3 (1991): 35. 75. Clark, Fire, 80. 76. Ibid., 177-78. 77. James F. Dunnigan and Raymond M. Macedonia, Getting It Right: American Military Reform Afier Vietnam to the Gulf and Beyond (New York William Morrow, 1993), 247. 78. Youssef M. Ibrahim, “War is Said to Cost the Persian Gulf $676 Billion in 1990 and ‘91,” New York Times, 25 April 1993; Peres and Naor, Middle East, 89-90. 79. Hartung, Weapons, 205. 80. Ibid., 17. 81. bid., 19. 86 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 16:4 82. Abi-Hashem, “Impact of the Gulf War,” 1 0 John Kelsay, Islam and War: A Study in Comparative Ethics (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 11. 83. Jerry Folk, Doing Theology Doing Justice (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 7. 84. Femand Braudel, Capitalism and Material Life, 1400-1800, trans. Miriam Kochan (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), 92. 85. bid., 93. 86. Alan T. Duming, “Income Distribution Worsening,’’ in Vital Signs 1992: The Trends That Are Shaping Our Future, ed. Linda Starke (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1992), 110. 87. Lester Brown, “The Acceleration of History,” in State of the World 1996:A World Watch Instime Report on Progress toward a Sustainable Society, ed. Linda Starke (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1996). 3-4. 88. bid,8. 89. Folk, Doing Theology, 31. 90. Duming, “Income Distribution,” !lO-111. 91. A. Frazer Evans, Robert A. Evans, and William B. Kennedy, Pedagogies for the Non- Poor (Marvknoll. N.Y.: Orbis Books. 1987). 260-261; Folk. Doing Theolo~y. 33. - -_ 92. ’FOG. Doing Theology, 33. 93. Paul A. Samuelson and William D. Nordhaus, Economics, 13th ed. (New York Mdhw-Hil l Book. 1989). 644-651. 94. National Cokerence of Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice for All: Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1986),83. 95. Ruth Leger Sivard, World Military and Social Expenditures 1987-88 (Washington, D.C.: World Priorities, 1988), 28. %. James P. Grant, The State of the WorMs Children I987 (New Yo&. Oxford University Press, 1987), 109. 97. Folk, Doing Theology, 32. 98. John Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle, The Poor Have Faces: bving Your Neighbor in the 21st Century (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1992), 36; Barash, Introduction, 542. 99. The Hunger Project, Ending Hunger: An Idea Whose Time Has Come (New York Praeger, 1985), 7. 100. Reardon, Women, 96-97. 101. World Development Report 1993,4. 102. David, Introduction, 528. 103. Folk, Doing Theology, 33. 104. Frances M. L a p p and Joseph Collins, World Hunger: Twelve Myths (New York: Grove Press, 1986). 9; Barash, Introduction. 542. 105. See Lester R. Brown, “World Economy Expanding Steadily,” in Vital Signs 1996: The Trends That Are Shaping Our Future, ed. Linda Starke (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 1996), 74-75. 106. Renner, “Budgeting,” 153. 107. Michael Renner, “Peacekeeping Expenditures Level Off,” in Vifd Signs 1996: The Trends That Are Shaping Our Future, ed. Linda Starke (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 19%), 101-103. 108. Renner, “Peacekeeping,” 102-103.