Poverty

Poverty
September 4, 2010
“World leaders call for a redirection of military funding to go towards health and education in poverty stricken countries” (Adelaide Now news). If much needed military funding was being cut in your country to supply aid to poverty stricken countries, would you consider this an ethical decision? A catastrophic decision would be made, if military funding was cut, as this could mean lack of defence for the countries that need protecting.
At a recent United Nations conference Dr Ban said that, “The UN was falling behind on some of its health goals due to lack of funds”. This is a clear indication that the UN needs consistent funds. The question is though, whether these funds should be taken from the military. “World military expenditure in 2009 is estimated to have reached $1.531 trillion in current dollars” says Paul Krugman (Professor of Economics and International Affairs) (2010). Krugman agrees that taking money from the military will force it to struggle and will pressure the countries where the military is currently at work. UN Security-General Kofi Annan has said, “The fastest and most efficient way for poverty devastated countries is to accept money from the military”. But the fastest option does not always turn out to be the safest option. Instead of money coming from the military, humanitarian organisations need to be publicised so that the need for money appeals to large profit organisations and companies that can help sponsor organisations such as the UN. This would help eliminate the need for military funding. Clearly the military needs a lot of money to keep countries safe. Almost half of the global military funds are used by the United States. The United States is also the biggest contributor to the UN giving over 22% of its funds to the UN organisation and 27% of the UN’s peace keeping missions funds. Although the fight against poverty must continue, to do this, funds need to be distributed somehow, however military funding...