According to a New York Times report, the US Defense Department plans to raise the 2003 defense budget to US$20 billion while the conflict in Afghanistan is underway. The Pentagon has said that the budget is expected to pass amid the anti-terrorism atmosphere.
When the Pentagon requires a huge budget to speed the procurement of weapons, the US economy suffers a much deeper dent. US President George W. Bush said a federal budget deficit is a price that may have to be paid to counter terrorism and ensure national security. In other words, Americans now have to pay a heavier price for retaliation for the terrorist attacks on their soil.
In fact Operation Enduring Freedom has inflicted great losses on Americans. Setting aside the fact that they have suffered the loss of their personal freedom, sources show that expenses in the first three months of the conflict totaled US$3.8 billion. At this rate, the US$40 billion budgeted shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks by the Congress, will be largely consumed by the end of next month.
Robert Reich, a labor secretary in the Clinton administration, has been a vocal critic, saying that a majority of the anti-terrorist outlay came from the tax revenues of the working class. When the global economy is in the doldrums and major enterprises are laying off employees, is it worth spending so much money on such a conflict?
In addition to the losses sustained by Americans, the expensive war has also sped famine and death, as well as highlighting a bizarre logic. The US president Dwight Eisenhower once said the world spends not only money in manufacturing weapons but also "the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." He also bluntly pointed out that "every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
By waging war, the US has driven its domestic economy to rock bottom due to immense military expenses. Places outside the US are also pushed to the fringe of famine and destruction as a result of useless waste of resources. In fact, every penny spent in war could be used in a better way.
Estimates show that the price of a missile purchased during the Gulf War could provide student lunches in a school for five years. The US$33 billion budgeted by the US for this year could provide clean drinking water for developing countries for more than 10 years. If all countries could spare their military expenses for 18 days, approximately 4 million sick children could get medical treatment. This is definitely not a game of numbers, but a choice human beings have to make between devastation and survival.
According to the statistics from the World Bank in 1996, an average of more than 800 million people have to endure hunger every day and 4 million people die of starvation annually. Since the conflict in Afghanistan began, the UN Children's Fund has repeatedly warned that more than 100,000 Afghan children will die of poverty and starvation.
While technology has developed at a tremendous pace, humanity still cannot resolve the basic problem of survival. The Bread for the World Institute, which promotes anti-poverty programs, made a cruel complaint that the collapse of humanitarianism is the main cause leading to famine.
For wars, Americans have to face a more woeful economic predicament. For wars, humanity has to suffer more famine and poverty. If peace could be obtained in return for such exorbitant prices, why has human civilization repeatedly been struck by wars and devastation?
Chien Hsi-chieh is a legislator and the director of the Peacetime Peace Foundation.
Translated by Jackie Lin
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS