What happened to the peace dividend?

Clyde Wilson

1993

Published in:

Social Trends Newsletter Oct 1993, No. 118

When the wall came down and the Cold War ritual became unfashionable, it brought about a euphoria that had not been experienced since the end of World War II. From this breakthrough it was thought that the nation could direct its attention and priorities toward putting its own house in order after more than four decades of neglect and deterioration.

Just to get some idea of what the Cold War entailed in cost alone defies the imagination. During over four decades of pursuing a policy of containment and encirclement of the Soviet Union, the government spent about $10.5 trillion of American taxpayers' money on "defense", an amount equal to replacing the entire infrastructure of the country or two and a half times the present national debt. But with no enemy of the stature of the previous superpower, there became no reason or need for the nation to continue huge military expenditures.

With the Cold War over, there were reports that government expenditures for defense and the military could be cut as much as a half, and that the savings, called the Peace Dividend, could be applied to more useful and beneficial purposes. But for reasons to be enumerated, the Peace Dividend was scuttled, nipped in the bud before it started.

There seems to be no end to the obfuscation that goes on when military expenditures come under close scrutiny. A report issued by the Employment Research Associates out of Lansing, Michigan goes into considerable detail concerning an alternative security policy, making a number of recommendations and proposals that would result in vast savings in military and defense outlays. Its report with the heading of "Converting the American Economy" emphasizes that "the ending of the Cold War has given us unparalleled opportunity to rebuild our nation." But there must be some doubt or reservations even by ERA that anything will be done to phase out the extravagant and useless military and defense expenditures. Its report includes the following footnote:

So far the nation and the American people are still waiting for the law to be changed where there will be a sizable reduction in military expenditures and the savings will be used for much needed civilian purposes.

In an article that appeared in the May 1992 issue of The Nation by Robert L. Borosage under the heading, "Mugged Again", he reveals what really goes on behind the scenes by those in Congress who are supposed to represent the people and the general welfare of the nation. To quote Borosage: "On March 31, 1992, the House of Representatives voted 238 to 187 against transferring even a nickel from the military to domestic programs." He went on to say: "On April 9, 1992, the Senate voted to support the President's military budget,limiting any chances for reasonable defense savings this year. The results of the votes will be cuts in domestic programs in the midst of a recession." One might conclude from Borosage's remarks that when it comes to maintaining huge military expenditures, there is no gridlock at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Borosage's disclosures elaborate on why the Peace Dividend never became a reality. He mentions that the President and Congress were adamant to limit any new military cuts to 3 percent. And he makes known that the White House budget--essentially endorsed by the Senate--would include military and defense expenditures to Europe amounting to $120 billion. This took place at a time when the President and members of Congress had publicly stated and admittedthat there was no military threat, exaggerated or manufactured, to the United States.

It must be evident that the collusion (an inherent characteristic of the present economic system) that takes place between the politicos and the inner circle or "power elite" has one purpose: to maintain and perpetuate the financial structure for their own advantage or personal aggrandizement regardless of the consequences to the nation and the American people.

If the United States can mobilize its resources and industry for war and superfluous purposes, there is no reason why it cannot make the transition or conversion from a war economy to a stable and viable economy. A harmonious and functional operation of this nation's highly interdependent social and technological infrastructure must take precedence over everything else. Whatever is essential and necessary for this nation's physical requirements and well being must be given the highest possible priority and consideration even if it means the implementation of an alternative or new method of operating the economy.

At a time when the nation needs a new direction, the attempt to maintain the present economic system through vast military expenditures and massive debt creation can only accelerate the process of disintegration. It should be understood that a strong and viable domestic economy is the best policy for the security of the country. The implementation of a national conversion program where all of the resources of the nation are mobilized for essential and meaningful purposes would be thebest remedy for the nation's present crisis.