WITHOUT ANY
ARMED FORCES?
In an age of austerity and troubled government spending, one of the great opportunities for
cost savings is on military expenditure. Britain has already trimmed its forces budgets and
signed some new defense treaties to share resources. Five of our warships are to
be decommissioned, and our aircraft carriers will fly US jets or French helicopters. But how
far can we cut? Could we go the whole way, and scrap our armed forces altogether? What
would happen to a country that did such a thing?
Whats interesting is that the amount we spend on defense doesnt really have a whole lot
to do with how dangerous the world actually is.
Throughout that decade, military spending rose by 50%, but the number of armed conflicts
fell. Much of that spend increase was on the war on terror, but more US citizens are killed
by lightning strikes than by terrorists.
Military spending is political, guided by economic priorities as well as security risks, and
often responding to fear in an uncertain world. When you stop to think about it, an all-out
conventional war against terrorists is impossible, but it made people feel much better to see
something being done, and presumably there were plenty of secondary goals that made the
war on terror worthwhile.
So thats the first reason to think that we could cut our military budgets considerably: were
already spending far too much for the risks we face. In fact, the very existence of big
military budgets may well make the world less safe. The Cold War and its arms race is the
obvious example, but its a general principle. There are of course rogue states, but
generally speaking peace-making begets peace-making, and aggression pisses people off.
Global armament or disarmament runs on an I-will-if-you-will basis. Nine times out of ten,
diplomacy and reconciliation are better approaches than ramping up the rhetoric, or worse,
striking out in vengeance.
Fortunately, there are the forums for this kind of thing where there werent before. The UN,
the international criminal courts, regional intermediaries such as the Arab League, the EU
or the African Union, all of these can be places where differences can be settled and
solutions found. In the past, if you had a beef with your neighbour you would have to deal
with it between the two of you. There are many other options now: UN resolutions,
economic sanctions, inspections, the granting or withholding of aid or trade. In such a
interconnected and interdependent world, you can count the number of genuinely rogue
states on the fingers of one hand.
With those mechanisms in place,
there is scope for more alternative military arrangements, and plenty of other countries are
demonstrating every day that you can get by without a massive army. As a percentage of
GDP, Germany spends half as much as Britain does, and is still the major power in Europe.
The UK spends 2.7% of its GDP on defense, despite being an island nation with no obvious
enemies. We have less than 1% of the worlds population, but 3.7% of its military spending,
enough to give us the fourth largest military budget after the US, China and France.
Presumably thats a historic inheritance, from the days of empire and the Second World
War. (Its notable that the winners of WWII, the members of the UN Security Council, are
still the top five biggest military spenders today.)
But could we do without armed forces altogether? Maybe theres precedent for it. There
are 14 countries with no armed forces at all, most of them small island states. Most of these
have a patron of some kind for emergencies. Samoa, for example, has a treaty with New
Zealand if they get into trouble.
The most progressive country on the list is Costa Rica, who permanently dissolved their
armed forces in 1949 to protect the countrys democracy. The constitution forbids the
forming of a standing army, making them pretty much unique. Their role as international
peacemakers has been well recognised: they host the UNs University for Peace, and
former President Oscar Ariaswon the Nobel Prize. Without a doubt, Arias said in 1999,
military spending represents the single most significant perversion of worldwide priorities
known today.
Other countries have paramilitaries or a home guard of some kind, but no armed forces as
conventionally defined. Panama has survived with no armed forces for 20 years, and its
been 140 years since Iceland had an army. Haiti has a police force with limited military
capabilities instead of an army, as does Mauritius.
Japan is also an interesting case, and is certainly the largest country with alternative
military arrangements. Under the peace terms of the Second World War, the US banned
Japan from military operations outside their own borders. That defense-only policy has
continued ever since (with a couple of notable exceptions, see North Korea). To this day
Japan refuses to invest in offensive weaponry, although the rise of China is prompting a re-
think in some political circles.
Japans defense-oriented policy was apparently partly inspired by Switzerland, who are
famouslypolitically neutral and refuse to get involved in other countries wars. The Swiss
havent been to war for 500 years, but they still take defense seriously: every male citizen
has to do military service and they contribute to UN peace-keeping missions.
So could a country exist without armed forces? Absolutely. Its not for everyone I wouldnt
recommend it to Israel or Taiwan. And it goes without saying that it depends entirely on
context. Raise this question and within seconds someone will have said what about the
Nazis?. And theyre right that it would have been daft to disband the army in the 1930s,
after a long legacy of European wars and a rising tide of aggressive nationalism. But thats
a very different context to today. Who are Britains enemies today? And how many of them
are a genuine threat?
ATIONS THAT
SURVIVE WITHOUT
MILITARIES
By Laura Secorun Palet
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
2KSHARES
EMAIL ARTICLE
Copy link
http://w w w .ozy.c
YouTube
Costa Rica doesn't have an army, officially, but the nation does have a
special commando unit "trained to intercept narco-traffickers, in
addition to rescuing hostages and acting as a high-intensity counter-
terrorist unit," according to journalist Robert Beckhusen. He points out
the unit is "a military force in all but name," according to the Atlantic.
But in looking over the nations on the CIA's list, even though the
countries may not have what we would consider a military force, they
do have some kind of security, well-armed police force or disaster
response force. No, it is not military, and often it is voluntary. Iceland is
a good example of a nation on the list without a standing army.
Interestingly, Iceland participates in NATO peace-keeping missions,
but its force, according to the CIA, is "a civilian-led Crisis Response
Unit."
As Peter Stearns pointed out, some countries, when they were first
established, or gained independence. For many nations, not having a
military is a source of national pride. But being without an army is not
all about being a peace-keeper, and certainly not about being a pacifist.
Russian military expenditures were slightly higher than U.S. military spending in 2014.
YouTube
While the U.S. Defense Department has been making cuts to the
military budget, there is still a lot of money being spent. But with a new
kind of war going on, priorities have shifted, The war on terror is being
fueled by fear, politics and uncertainty globally. A nation can't "go to
war" with terrorists, some people say, and there is truth in that. A war
on terror isn't the same as the Vietnam Conflict or WWII.
But it still begs the question of how some countries are able to get along
in this world today without a military. There are no big corporations
funneling money to politicians to get war-machine contracts, no worry
about sending sons and daughters off to be cannon fodder, no worries
at all. Life just isn't simple anymore.
inShare
Its hard enough to make drastic decisions for yourself, but its even harder
when you have to make choices on behalf of a collective.
Thats the struggle of entrepreneurs each day, especially when their business is
just starting out. What if you had to change your marketing strategy? What if
you had to suddenly cut costs? What if, after a year of hard work, you realize
that youre building the wrong product?
These are hard questions to wrestle with, especially if you have employees and
contractors depending on you to succeed.
World leaders face this struggle on a much grander scale. In their hands are the
lives of millions of people. One drastic decision can make or break those lives
which is why its so hard for them to make sweeping changes.
But there are a few leaders who spearhead those drastic changes anyway. For
example, abolishing the entire countrys armed forces.
Believe it or not, there are a few countries that seem to survive and even
thrive without a standing army. All because they made a drastic decision to do
this, and committed to it.
Lets take a look at two of these countries, Costa Rica and Liechtenstein, to see
why they made these choices, and what happened to them as a result.
Costa Rica
Sixty-five years ago, the Costa Rican president struck a mallet to the wall. This
symbolic act commemorated the abolishment of the Costa Rican military.
Image credit
Earlier that year, the country had experienced one of its bloodiest civil wars.
Figueres, who was acting president at the end of the war, decided that
abolishing the military was a drastic but necessary step for rebuilding Costa
Rica.
While their police force and border guards handle internal law enforcement and
border patrol, less than 1% of their GDP goes to funding these programs a
sign that the country is still disinterested in re-militarization.
After all these decades without a military, how has Costa Rica fared?
Costa Ricans are arguably the happiest people on earth, rating their average
happiness at 8.5 out of 10. They also report having the most number of happy
years per lifetime.
Since the military funds were redirected partly to education, its also no surprise
that Costa Rica hasan above average literacy rate in Latin America, plus theres
almost no visible gender gap when it comes to educational attainment. Most
Costa Ricans finish secondary education, regardless of whether they are male
or female.
More importantly, Costa Rica is best known for their environmental protection
programs. Half of the countrys land is considered forested area, even if these
areas couldve easily gone to agriculture and industrial use long ago.
Ecotourism is also a booming industry, and their natural parks are well
preserved.
Their results arent perfect, of course. But its hard to imagine how they
wouldve achieved the above things in a 65-year window if most of their funds
were still being directed to a standing military force.
Liechtenstein
It was almost 150 years ago when Liechtenstein last had an army. This was
during the Austro-Prussian War, which was the setting of this apocryphal
anecdote:
In its last military engagement in 1866, none of its 80 soldiers were killed.
In fact 81 returned, including a new Italian friend.
Soon after this war, Liechtenstein disbanded their army because they found it
too costly.
They also have a very low crime rate, with most of the crimes being non-violent
crimes. A small team of internal police less than 150 employees handle law
enforcement.
So what happens when Liechtenstein is invaded? We dont have to look too far
back in history to find out. The Swiss army accidentally invaded them in 2007.
Image credit
One thing we can take away from their stories is that if we really want to make
drastic changes in our lives or in our businesses, we must be very selective
about where our time, energies, and resources go.
want to pull back from the world and those who think that would be
a big mistake.
Some have pointed to the safety and security offered by Canadas geo-strategic
Thomas Juneau took up that thread last week, suggesting that the Canadian
it, wed ignore not only the military requirements of non-discretionary missions
at home and in North America, but also the hard power assets needed to
Both sides make valid points. They also tend to overstate their positions.
Its true that Canadians enjoy an island of safety in todays global security
environment, insulated from whats happening in Ukraine, Syria and the South
North America; its also because we enjoy such a friendly relationship with our
guarantee from the superpower to the south. This guarantee may not be quite
gap in it. But in broad terms, Americas commitment to our defence does
Even during the darkest days of the Cold War, the only direct Soviet threat
Canada faced was from strategic nuclear bomber and ballistic missile forces.
And aside from some early continental efforts to establish a perimeter air
Yet few would argue today that Canada should have used its relative security in
the Cold War to justify either a reduction in its military capabilities or a sole
focus on air defence. Instead, Canada found itself supporting the NATO shield
with air and ground force deployments. We had two good reasons for doing that.
interests abroad from continental relations with the United States to trans-
Atlantic ties with Europe. The fact that Canada enjoys safety from threats
abroad could provide a foundation for Canadian defence policy, maybe even
might pose a more direct threat in the future. Which is why weve long preferred
These are the considerations that have shaped Canadas defence policy since
the Cold War, preventing a return to the isolationist impulses of the interwar
period. Without them, it would have been all too easy for us to settle for a
observation that dates back at least to Raoul Dandurands 1924 claim that we
live in a fireproof house, far from inflammable material doesnt really explain
past Canadian defence policy. And using our isolation to chart our future
But its also a bad idea to stretch this argument too far. Basic conditions need to
But no one is really arguing that Canada should settle for a reduced CAF unable
to fulfil its domestic defence role. The real question is whether such domestic
than expeditionary operations. Naval ships that patrol coastal and Arctic waters,
or aircraft that intercept foreign intruders, may not require the expensive higher-
And its not so easy to determine clearly where the needs of North American
defence begin and end. There may be significant consequences to policy issues
in which Canada has a serious interest such as trade if were seen by the
Americans as a freeloader.
Our problem is that the perception is out there already: Canada has long taken
ride on defence spending. We tended to allow the United States to absorb most
of the cost of our air defence during the Cold War, we were initially reluctant to
deploy forces to Europe (and sought to reduce that commitment in a hurry), and
we were quick to embrace the so-called peace dividend of the post-Cold War
period; in fact, it can be argued we sought that dividend in the early 1970s
serious consequences for our free-riding, making it a very hard habit to break.
instead ask if we might be more efficient with what we have. One area that
should be explored is the size of our armed forces, and how much we spend on
In a time of fiscal restraint, a fixation on military size can come at the expense of
the CAF. One need only look at regular force size versus spending levels
between our key allies: Canada, with its relatively large force size and small
One possible solution, of course, is to increase our defence spending. Given our
relatively safe location, however, any arguments for a budget boost are likely to
fall on deaf ears. The alternative is to right-size our forces to better ensure that
of the CAF (navy, air force, special forces) might benefit disproportionately from
such a recalibration.
abroad. And making our military more efficient by recalibrating the force
structure even if that means a smaller regular force would make the CAF
more sustainable.
If Canada is really back, it has to be back with substance and that includes
our ability to meet our security and defence commitments in a credible way.
12 de fevereiro de 2014
2515 0
Facebook Twitter
Os avanos da pacificao
E esse era o grande trunfo das UPPs, era a cereja do bolo: romper
com a lgica do controle armado do territrio, lembra Julita. Durante
um perodo pequeno eles conseguiram isso. Isso j no realidade. E
eles sabem disso.
Ele foi morto sob tortura, num sol de 50C, com queimaduras de
primeiro e segundo graus. De fato, o inqurito que investiga sua
morte aponta para o crime de tortura seguida de morte. Isso
aconteceu agora. E era um policial formado para UPP.
O deputado afirma receber denncias dirias dos alunos do Cfap,
reclamando das condies de preparo. A formao muito precria.
Um aluno me ligou e disse: eu estou na praia h doze horas, com um
cassetete. E eu nunca tive nenhuma aula para me dizer como que
se usa isso. Se tiver de usar, vou usar como porrete. E no tem
ningum me ensinando a fazer nada, aqui. Que instruo essa?.
Pode-se bem resumir todo este nosso primeiro ponto com a fala de
Andr Constantine. A UPP vem cumprindo o mesmo papel que a
polcia sempre cumpriu: represso, opresso, policiais completamente
despreparados. O que ocorre que eles aumentaram o efetivo e
esto permanentemente aqui. S. Mais nada.
evidente que voc no vai ter uma UPP em cada favela do Rio de
Janeiro. Essa uma propaganda feita pelo Cabral que
absolutamente irresponsvel, rebate Marcelo Freixo.
Converso com uma me cujo filho foi morto por uma milcia. O
cadver foi encontrado dias depois, no mar, em avanado estado de
putrefao. E ela quem , agora, cotidianamente intimidada e
ameaada por policiais.
Milcia est muito pelo lado da zona Oeste, no est aqui nessa
regio que a gente entrou, explica-me o vice-governador Pezo
que, por sinal, tambm aparece no vdeo, ao lado dos milicianos.
Mas ns vamos chegar l, promete.