Research for the NATO Science Programme by blindspotter proposes a simple change to international accounting conventions so that economic competition becomes a powerful ‘weapon’ for greater security and lower weapons costs. This is the fourth of a set of Seven Policy Switches for Global Security. Global security (all facets of security everywhere) may be achievable by making all the switches soon enough.

Your comments are very welcome below!

1. Security Means Global Security

1.1. SECURITY INCLUDES NON-MILITARY THREATS

Security in the modern world means far more than military security and radical new non-combative solutions are needed to cope with new security challenges. This was highlighted by Professor Sir Brian Heap (2009), former UK Representative on the NATO Science Committee on the occasion of NATO’s 60th anniversary: “security includes non-military threats arising from incompetent governance, corruption, organised crime, insecure borders, ethnic and religious conflict, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, shortage of natural resources and, of course, terrorism.” Traditional narrow concepts of security are obsolete. The future security of individuals, regions and nations requires a broad ‘global security’ vision that encompasses rapid effective solutions to all major economic, social and ecological challenges.

5. Fourth Policy Switch: Reversing an Unintended Incentive for Conflict

5.1. MILITARY SECURITY CAN’T BE BOUGHT

Global military spending in 2008 is estimated at $1464 billion (SIPRI, 2009), an increase of 45 per cent since 1999. Yet the acquisition of military security primarily by military spending is an unobtainable illusion. “One only need consider the enormous expenditures the United States has made to counter the threat posed by improvised explosive devices (IED). The United States has spent literally billions to counter these crude, inexpensive, and extraordinarily effective devices. If one were to multiply this ratio against a global enemy, it becomes unexecutable.” (US Joint Forces Command, 2008). Military personnel and nations can be protected not with expanded budgets for more weapons but with an expanded vision.

5.2. SECURITY MEANS GLOBAL SECURITY

A 2007 speech by the NATO Secretary General (de Hoop Scheffer, 2007) set out a new preventive strategy for global security, “…our prevailing security paradigm has shifted. And the new paradigm can be summed up in just one word: engagement. We need to address the issues where they emerge, before they end up on your and my doorstep… NATO must be prepared to address security challenges at their source, whenever and wherever they arise.” The old paradigm of high dependence on armed engagement with problems that were previously not prevented is a strategy for bankruptcy in a world of unwinnable conflicts. Effective engagement with the sources of conflict requires a new set of policies that works beyond traditional ‘us vs them’ security analysis. It requires unprecedented investment of intellect, compassion and money in every facet of security for all people. The new security paradigm must be global security.

5.3. ESCAPING CYCLES OF CONFLICT

If circular economics (see policy switch 3) is implemented before planet crunch issues become irreversible then many of the current threats to international security would fade. However investment in a secure future would still be starved by the massive global spending on weapons. Rising weapons spending feeds a cycle of ever-stronger cultural dependence upon force and ever more suspicion between communities. Funds spent on threat and counter-threat are lost to the new security paradigm. The level of weapons spending reveals the degree of dependence on the old security paradigm and the use of weapons reveals the extent of failure to engage preventively with today’s problems. All the campaigns on arms control, and all the diplomatic attention to the proliferation of conflicts have been unable to break the global cycle of conflict. However a simple macro-economic correction is available to directly switch security paradigms and to implement a replacement cycle of self-reinforcing peace and security.

5.4. SHOULD GROWTH INVITE GROWING CONFLICT?

The national income statistics used to measure economic growth include a perverse incentive in favour of greater economic and military dependence on weapons. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) currently includes weapons-related transactions so nations with high dependence on weapons gain higher GDP and higher political status despite accumulating armaments indicating poorer prospects. Politicians aspiring to boost economic growth cannot ask the wider economy to earn more but they

can choose to spend more on weapons and indulge in military adventures. Spending on weapons feeds a cycle of conflict as other nations feel obliged to respond to defend themselves. Individual security efforts add up to a collective absence of security. The vast investments in preparing for the worst are unavailable for global security, thus ensuring worst-case outcomes.

5.5. GROWTH AS A ‘WEAPON’ FOR PEACE AND SECURITY

A replacement cycle of global disarmament and global security can be invited by switching from Gross Domestic Product to ‘Gross Peaceful Product’ (Greyson, 2008) that simply omits weapons-related transactions. Nations can implement GPP as a diplomatic statement of intent to build a more secure world, and as a badge of peace. GPP provides a replacement benchmark for the economic growth of all nations in which higher GPP and higher growth more accurately indicates improved

future prospects. Nations adopting Gross Peaceful Product would be rewarded for lower reliance on weapons with comparatively higher economic growth. The new security paradigm of global security would become real by being funded. A self-reinforcing cycle of less weapons spending, less armed threat and more co-operation would be instituted internationally.

5.6. GPP BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT

GPP is the simplest of all proposals for GDP adjustment and requires no estimates or predictions of the costs of damage, yet it provides decision-makers with a powerful incentive. GPP can be presented on the world stage by any nation or any international body desiring peaceful international relations. It provides the means to implement the long-awaited commitment in Chapter 26 of the United Nations Charter (UN, 1945) where member nations agreed “to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources”. In a time of recession, the savings from a shrinking global dependence upon weapons spending would release scarce public funds to boost growth by lowering the tax burden and stimulating spending on productive approaches to security.

5.7. SPREADING A CULTURE OF NON-COMBATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING

GPP does not inhibit any nation’s military defence choices; in fact it makes national security more achievable and affordable by actively spreading a non-combative problem-solving culture worldwide. Problems that are prevented or resolved co-operatively never reach the stage of requiring armed threat and bloodshed. Nations would see other nations switching investments from the old security paradigm to the new. Those who have felt abandoned and alienated would gain hope from tangible opportunities for collaborative engagement. Agitated young men in every country, prone to carrying knives or worse, would see governments practising what they preach about non-violence and collaborative values. Terrorist recruiters and street gangs would progressively lose their recruiting power. Peace would be given a chance.