Excellent article, Mike!

But one practical issue. I'd like to hear more on how we get some of that 'trillion US dollars' per year... It's hard to spend on important things like poverty reduction, universal education and renewable energies if the money is already spent!

So, I think to myself: what conditions are necessary for military and arms spending to be reduced -- especially from the legal, business and policy perspectives?

As an Australian, here's what I think...

We often hear of the West's 'addiction to oil', but rarely of our 'addiction to war'. After the Cold War ended there should have been a significant and sustained reduction in global arms spending.

But analysis, dating back to the 'Iron Mountain Report' in the 1970s, suggests the West is in the Middle East today -- in part -- because we actually need an enemy to justify our own military spending. The argument is that our economies would collapse without these large military supply corporations.

And, of course, arms manufacturers don't close their businesses simply because a few academics or politicians want them to. In the real world, such companies argue pressure and reward politicians, journalists and thinktanks for supporting foreign policies that are good for their shareholders. And so a 'groupthink' develops, perhaps because no one can see a way out of the addiction.

So, in addition to the excellent recommendations of the 'Bridging the Divides' report, to reduce and/or re-direct global military spending in order to fund proposals that will make an Alliance of Civilisations tangible, we need three more things:

1) Mainstream public awareness in the West of our own addiction to war. Just think of how Al Gore's film 'An Inconvenient Truth' has tipped the balance on mainstream concern about climate change. (N.B. Since the 5 biggest arms trading countries in the world are permanent, veto-holding members of the UN Security Council, it's unlikely any UN Report could include such a recommendation.).

2) To develop alternative, large-scale and safer business opportunities for the arms industry corporations, so they aren't cornered into blocking and countering efforts to inform the public about our collective war addiction.

3) Behind-the-scenes dialogue and negotiation with arms industry executives to create a viable business transition strategy and roadmap for the above. This can only work without pointing fingers of blame, and being focused on 'what is right, not who is right'. Technological globalization can't sustain this level of military spending. The longer it continues, the greater the chance of an overdose.

Interested in any comments on the above.

Erik

You are right, Erik, that we have to find ways of spending less on weapons. I think that this needs two approaches:

One is to reduce the justification for military expenditure - which means reducing the levels of fear in the general population. This is where the Alliance of Civilisations comes in, and all our efforts to build understanding and trust between Muslims and the West.

The other approach is to penetrate the fogs of lies and corruption which surround the arms industry. Organisations such as Oxfam which have tried to bring the obscene levels of militar expenditure under public scrutiny have long known that the arms trade and corruption are so tightly linked as to be almost inseparable. A recent article by George Monbiot www.monbiot.com gives an article relating to BAE's activities.

Again, raising public awareness will create the necessary political pressure.

Thanks Mike, I've just read the Monbiot stuff. Sobering, and well-researched. Makes me think Mr Blair has been blackmailed (life of children threatened, etc) more than incentivised. Or the amount of money involved is so large that political advisors deem it strategically essential for political leaders to assist their own country's arms manufacturers.

Whilst the arms industry may indeed be extremely corrupt, as Monbiot suggests, I strongly doubt an 'old school' partisan leftist anti-corporate confrontational approach can get results. It's too easy to dismiss as 'radical'...in the same way green issues have been sidelined for 40 years!!!!!

And if we point the finger of blame and start attacking these companies en masse, or writing-off the individual people involved, it'd also be counter-productive. Why? They are under market pressures that are beyond any single individual's interests. All it would do is get their backs up, and become a left-wing partisan effort doomed to failure... an un-winnable campaign battle because these companies have the big money to defend their interests: money buys marketing which shapes public opinion.

But it will be important to initiate and invite open public debate about 'what is a sustainable future for companies that manufacturer arms'? Afterall, if we blow ourselves up there are no more profits for arms manufacturers, either. And as weapons technology advances, gets cheaper and 'trickles down', the danger for us all increases.

Comedy can be one useful angle, because one can't help but laugh at how stupid we humans can be!

Celebrities can speak, too. For instance, U2 displayed arms industry facts in their live shows.

However, I suspect genuine behind-the-scenes diplomacy with arms executives hasn't been attempted (along the lines of 'our shared humanity'). The Caux conferences (www.caux.ch) may have an important role in all this, especially given their track record of bringing together senior representatives of World Economic Forum and World Social Forum.

And we may need to write or promote reports that suggest redirecting funds from arms to renewables. Or reports that show exactly how much money is spent on different industries.

Though I suspect any visible commentator on this issue may be risking their own life. Like Lady Diana, for instance, who campaigned against land mines.

I'm glad that Mike Lowe mentions the Millennium Development Goals in this thoughtful article about the ways to build an alliance of civilisations. Business and enterprise of course also have a key part in meeting the MDG of halving global poverty by 2015. It is businesses and enterprises that create jobs, skills and wealth. I've just been in Jamaica where a home grown food business, Walkerswood Caribbean Foods, has created 160 jobs in a rural community, plus giving the added value of a market for an estimated 3,000 farmers and crop pickers throughout Jamaica to supply the company. And while unemployment is running officially at 12 per cent nationally, in Walkerswood village (pop. 3,000) there is no 'compulsory unemployment'. All who want to work can do so. But what most impresses about Walkerswood is the emphasis on creating jobs rather than maximising profits. The company is run by 12 partners and any of the employees can also become share holders through a share ownership scheme. All this is good news for the Jamaican economy. Such homegrown enterprises, including social enterprises, play a keep part in helping to meet the millennium development goals.

I've just read Eva Joly's book ' Is it in this kind of world we want to live? (title freely translated from French) and according to that book irrespect for law in the arms industry is worse ( worse in the sens of hiring killers to get rid of uninvited questions) than in the petrol industry. So I don't know if that is a good point to start.

But what about the increasing vacuums of order because some members of society don't feel concerned by the law or because there is no way to enforce justice? And that doesn't happen only at the level of the powerful- the path to Europe for many immigrants is lined with thiefs and murderers of their own continent, who will try to get their part, and in the developped societies the idea of quick money as means to power and social recognition is gaining ground in the ghettos- also because any honest access to society seems to be blocked.
Any way I turn it I always come back to the old IofC motto- start with yourself. For me that means for example not to detain any stocks from companies whose profit is made from arms trade.
It means trying to understand both sides- a recent travel to Israel really helped me to look into some cultural differences and to understand their implications.
And it means working on intercultural issues and mediating where necessary.