Jazz singer Tony Bennett served in the U.S. Army in Europe during World War II. He wrote of this experience in his memoir:

âeoeThe main thing I got out of my military experience was the realization that I am completely opposed to war. Every war is insane, no matter where it is or what it’s about. Fighting is the lowest form of human behavior. It’s amazing to me that with all the great teachers of literature and art, and all the contributions that have been made on this very precious planet, we still haven’t evolved a more humane approach to the way we work out our conflicts.âe

The majority of people in Canada would agree with this assessment. Nevertheless, Canadian military spending in 2008 will total over $18 billion. As Linda McQuaig has noted, âeoeIt’s hard to imagine that, if Canadians really understood the choices available, they’d favour spending an extra $3 billion a year on the military âe” rather than on their own children.âe

Incredibly, the Conservative government is proposing to increase military spending by almost half a trillion dollars over the next 20 years, in part “to enhance its ability to operate alongside U.S. forces.âe

The world as a whole wasted $1.2 trillion dollars on the military in 2007, a fraction of which could have ended global poverty and provided basic services to all âe” health, education, clean water, shelter, and so on.

Yet, the death and suffering of war pales compared to the daily economic violence of poverty and disease. For instance, 600 children die from hunger every hour; thatâe(TM)s one childâe(TM)s death every six seconds. And every six seconds, the world squanders $220,000 on the military.

Former U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower summed it up: âeoeEvery 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 not clothed.âe

A global system which wastes over a trillion dollars a year on weapons to kill people, while tens of millions of human beings die each year from preventable causes is dysfunctional and pathological âe” indeed, it is a âeoepathocracy.âe

Given our knowledge, technology, and unimaginable wealth, there is no material reason for todayâe(TM)s growing global inequalities, the destruction of nature, or for anyone doing without food, shelter, education, housing, and the free time to create a satisfying life.

Is war part of human nature?

We can end the pathology of war and we are a lot closer to a tipping point in public consciousness than may be apparent. What is needed is a more focused and inclusive strategy to mobilize people and demonstrate that such a significant change is indeed possible. The most promising approach is for environmental and social justice movements to work together with peace groups to demand a continuous reduction in military spending, and have those resources redirected to human needs and to protect the natural world.

The single most demonstrable fact about âeoehuman natureâe is how much it differs in different societies. Of course, it is not human nature that changes, but rather its manifestations. The ability to adapt to almost any circumstance is uniquely quality human.

After all, both patriarchy and slavery were once considered âeoenaturalâe and inevitable.

As political scientist Joshua Goldstein has pointed out: âeoeComplex behaviours such as aggression and war cannot be said to be biologically driven, or predetermined, because humanityâe(TM)s most striking biological capability is flexibility.âe

Global resistance to the pathology of war

Movements for peace and justice must remember that war and domination are, above all, psychological dysfunctions perpetuated by pathological systems. While many factors contribute to this pathology, it is ultimately rooted in selfishness, both in the minds of individuals and in the political and economic system that they perpetuate.

The key strategy for dissolving illegitimate power is to create social movements that encourage participatory democracy and an understanding that the rule of the few will crumble when enough people actively refuse to obey them.

Peace and justice movements should keep in mind that the most people are already on our side; even in the U.S., where, as Chomsky notes, the majority of the population âeoeis strongly in favor of cutting back military spending and directing the funds to social needs.âe If mobilized, global public opinion has the potential to become âeoethe other superpower.âe

Real cooperation amongst social movements needed

This strategy is hardly new: peace, justice, and environmental movements must combine their strengths and work together to reduce military spending, while ensuring that those resources are transferred directly to promoting human security and protecting the natural world. Each group would remain autonomous and pursue its own agenda, while speaking with a single, powerful voice for a more peaceful and equitable world.

Through cooperation, social movements can build bridges amongst themselves, emphasizing what they have in common (instead of their differences), supporting and inspiring each other.

A peaceful, democratic, and sustainable society will only come into being through social movements that encourage participatory democracy. As Chomsky puts it: âeoeDemocratization may be a prerequisite for transferring military spending to social needs âe” or at least they have to go hand in hand.âe

The primary demand of this âeoemovement of movementsâe should be that unnecessary military spending be redirected to fund human need and to protect the environment.

In addition, combat forces must be removed from the U.S. war in Afghanistan, and Canada must make a renewed commitment to UN peace-keeping (by 2006, we contributed only 55 out of a total of over 100,000 peacekeepers). Another goal would be to replace foreign military assistance with aid that promotes sustainable development and raises living standards.

At home, the savings could be redirected to: improving First Nations living conditions, health care, energy conservation and green technology, social housing, education, womenâe(TM)s shelters, child poverty, public transportation, the arts, foreign aid, refugees, special needs children, crumbling infrastructureâe¦the list of social deficits is long.

We need to remember that it was Canadian anti-war efforts and public opinion that made it impossible for Chretien to support the U.S. attack on Iraq, or for Martin to participate in the âeoeStar Warsâe program.

The Olympic challenge of coalition building

Today, Canada could set an example with an inclusive coalition against militarism and for human security and environmental stewardship. This vision would appeal to a great majority of Canadians, and should be made a central issue in the next federal election.

Social movements, NGOs, and individual citizens should also begin to plan for a âeoeCanadian Peace Forumâe in Vancouver immediately preceding the 2010 Winter Olympics to work out a common platform and strategy to oppose Harperâe(TM)s pro-U.S. militarism.

The Forum could promote the call for a global, month-long Olympic truce, as was practiced during the ancient games. Activists from around the world would be invited to observe the Forum and share their insights and experiences. The discussions should not just be theoretical, but should focus on concrete and effective actions.

Successes here in Canada would inspire movements in other countries and weaken the argument for âeoedefenceâe spending based on fear. For instance, one target could be for matching five percent cuts in national military budgets, which then could lead to momentum for another five percent reduction, and so on âe” a âeoepeace raceâe to redirect resources to social and environmental needs.

As governments reduce their militaries, international tension would also decrease, along with the risks of a new nuclear arms race. Moreover, by deconstructing the ideological âeoelegitimacyâe of war, such a movement of movements would also make it more difficult for states to drag their people into violent conflicts in the future.

Itâe(TM)s happened before. Centuries of war between European countries became unthinkable within less than two decades after the Second World War, replaced by the European Union.

Eisenhower understood that citizens have the ultimate power âe” if they chose to use it: âeoeI think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.âe

Just maybe, âeoeone of these daysâe is now.