Defense Spending: It Should Be Reduced Wherever Possible
It has been reported in the press that Prime Minister of Pakistan Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani told the National Assembly on Monday his government would freeze and practically reduce defense spending in the next budget as a show of its desire for peace with neighbors, and voiced a belated hope of reciprocity from nuclear rival India, which hiked is defense budget three months ago.And, in a move to let parliament know more about defense expenditures, he said estimates for the armed forces and other defense organizations would be presented in parliament under separate "major heads" rather than "one-line" allocation, in the budget for fiscal 2008-09 due to be unveiled on Wednesday. He made his first policy statement on defense matters, which was later greeted by several members from both sides of the political divide mainly for the slight opening of the defense budget for the first time in the country's history. Gilani said Pakistan could not remain oblivious of its defense needs in a volatile environment due to its location in a "geo-strategically important but a turbulent region" but added that his government would continue to strive for "peace with honor" without compromising on national interests. We feel that in the sub-continent we should avoid an arms race which is so futile and useless. This is particularly true of India and Pakistan. Both being nuclear power they can try to negotiate a reduction of armed forces of both countries consistent with their genuine defence needs. U S, Russia and China also increasing their defense capability. US in particular is generating a new arms race which will be followed by Russia. We can not interpret it except as an attempt to serve the corporate capitalist interest of defense firms .The need is reduction and then elimination of nuclear arms and also reduction of conventional arms and forces on a multilateral and bilateral basis. The saving can be used for elimination of poverty and disease and hunger. The politicians may not listen but it is time for moral philosophers to continue to raise their voice.
