The previous analysis has shown the alarming trends of poverty, environmental degradation and militarization in LDCs. What has become clear from the analysis, is not only these alarming trends, but also the close interlinkages of the three previous trends and their reinforcement on each other. Deteriorating economic conditions can lead to social conflicts and higher militarization in LDCs. High levels of militarization contribute significantly to environmental degradation, both in war and peace times. Degraded environments constraint LDCs to have rapid economic growth, and consequently increase the levels of poverty.
The direction of causation between the economy, the environment and militarization, however, can go the other way round. High militarization of the society (particularly high military spending) has substantial economic cost, and restricts the economic growth of most LDCs. This increases the degree of poverty in these societies. However, poverty is one of the main factors that leads to environmental stress and degradation. Nevertheless, the environment has been a major source of conflict (and consequently high militarization). The mechanisms of such causation have been explained in the previous analysis (see Figure 4).
LDCs have suffered greatly from the three phenomena for a long time. This causation between the phenomena enforces what we called the "development trap". The effects and impact of underdevelopment on the well-being and welfare of LDCs' population are well known and documented.
All developing countries seek to achieve rapid economic growth and development, preserve their natural environments, and secure political stability, national unity and territories. The achievement of these goals, however, is not an easy task. The last three decades have witnessed the failure of most LDCs to achieve sustainable development; development that ensures rapid economic growth, equal distribution of income, without degrading the environment or jeopardizing future generations from their right to achieve development and prosperity.
It is also evident that economic development in LDCs cannot be achieved in isolation from international developments. Therefore, some national and international policies are recommended here for the realization of sustainable development:
Figure 4
(i) It is important to restructure global economic relations in such a way that LDCs obtain the required resources, advanced technology and access to markets, enabling them to pursue a development process that is environmentally sound and also leads to rapid growth to meet the aspirations of their growing population. This requires the developed countries to play an effective role in breaking the development trap by debt relief, increasing economic assistance, technology transfers, new approaches to trade, etc.
(ii) The "peace dividend" resulting from the end of the cold war should be used to finance development-cooperation and international programmes to respond to global environmental threats.1
(i) LDCs should put human rights, democratization of political institutions, and confidence-building measure at the regional level, as their first priority. This will reduce both national and regional conflicts which had significant negative impact on economic growth and environmental conservation.
(ii) Poverty-elimination should receive a very high priority in governments' policies and development plans. This is, however, easily said than achieved, but there are various strategies or combinations of strategies.1
(iii) Environmental conservation should be incorporated in all the development plans of developing countries. National governments are also responsible to provide adequate environmental education for the general public.
(iv) It is important to formulate population policies in all LDCs to curb rapid population growth. Raising income levels, improving health care and services, introducing family planning methods and contraceptives, increasing the age for marriage, and compulsory education are helpful tools to reduce high fertility rates.
(v) There is a growing need for the conversion of military capabilities, personnel, production and technologies as an effective response to national and international strategy of security and development in harmony with the natural carrying capacity of the planet.
Most of the above policies are long-term policies, and their execution requires huge resources and a great deal of international cooperation. However, the end of the cold war, and changes in the balance of power between the eastern and western blocs, and the changes in eastern Europe, have provided LDCs with an enormous potential to escape from the vicious development trap. This is to be carried out by the conversion of military resources and capabilities and resources for civilian uses in fields of economic development and environmental conservation projects. This conversion process has big potentials if incorporated into the national plans of LDCs.
The changing strategic and political international environment, with the end of the cold war and the break-up of the former Soviet Union, has attracted attention to the new threats facing the world: poverty, environmental degradation, and the growing internal conflicts in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe. The end of the superpowers' rivalry, however, has changed the nature of conflict in the rest of the world, and provided many LDCs with opportunities for reducing levels of military spending.
Military spending has become an economic burden on societies, the post cold war situation allows most nations to realize a substantial peace dividend. This peace dividend should be used to fund structural adjustment and conversion programmes and investments in critical human, environmental and infrastructural needs. The questions of reducing military spending and conversion (the use of military resources for civilian purposes) has been the subject of considerable research over the years, and attracted considerable concern and interest, both in the developed and developing countries.1
Conversion, despite being a rather vague concept, is commonly understood as "the transformation of military resources into civil activities and production" (Dunne and Willett,
1992). It means more than simply the reduction of military production. It involves a structural reconstruction of the national economy, and its productive sectors.1 Thus, conversion is a simultaneous and integral part of the arms reduction efforts, because the employment creation potentials of conversion can outweigh the anxieties of unemployment due to arms reduction.
Batchelor & Mohammed (1992) distinguish three broad approaches to conversion: macroeconomic, microeconomic, and political conversion approaches. The macroeconomic approach focuses on the negative relationship between arms spending and economic growth, and emphasises the macroeconomic benefits that will result from the conversion of the defence industrial base to civilian production. Writers such as Melman (1985), and Smith (1977 & 1980) have argued that reducing defence expenditure will help to facilitate the transfer of resources to other government current and capital expenditures; and that equivalent levels of investment in the civil sector create more employment than in the military sector. Therefore, cuts in military spending will result in a tangible `peace dividend'. A recent macroeconomic study by Barker, Dunne and Smith (1991), for example, suggests that cuts in UK defence spending, if accompanied by compensation policies and the transfer of resources to the civil sector, could result in a net gain in employment opportunities.1
The microeconomic approach focuses on company or plant-based conversion, which involves the re-use or transformation of existing military resources for civilian purposes. Related to microeconomic conversion is the strategy of diversification, in which defence industries attempt to minimize their vulnerability to fluctuations in the defence market by engaging in non-military production in addition to their existing military production activities. This microeconomic approach has not been particularly successful, partly because of the differences between commercial and military production criteria and cultures. Companies or plants seek technical solutions using existing defence industry ownership patterns, social relationships, culture and management styles, and capital/labour endowments; and partly because these companies or plants tend to rely upon government or local government markets to guarantee survival.1
The political conversion approach emphasises the transformation of resources tied up in defence production within a broader socio-economic and political context. It is thus not as narrow as the above `economic approaches', and encompasses the demilitarisation of society (e.g., demobilisation, reduced defence expenditure and arms cuts). In this sense conversion is seen as an opportunity, or a lever, to effect changes in the structure of society; and to challenge existing industrial and technological priorities and the social relations of production inherent in military activities. Therefore, this approach recognized the need for a plan to meet basic human and environmental needs, and the urgent requirement to shift national resources away from military-defined objectives and instead to target `national needs' such as industrial renewal, environmental restoration, sustainable economic development, social investment, and renewable energies. Such a national needs policy, although initiated by the government, should operate in partnership with industry, finance and local and regional authorities, workers and consumers.1
Most of the policies suggested in the above section take longer time and require considerable resources. Conversion can, however, help LDCs to escape the development trap, by its immediate impact on the economy, the environment, and its reduction of high militarization levels. Gleditsch (1992; 37) shows that conversion can achieve its goals in a short time and at modest costs. Converting conscripted labour is almost without cost because conscripts can go back to their regular professions. Most conventional weapons can be disarmed fairly simply, and can be stored at very low cost. Many military land areas can be reclaimed for civilian use after minimal cleaning up. The extreme cases only need to be tackled.1
First, conversion provides huge potentials for environmental conservation, both from the point of view of better use of resources for development of sustainable environment, as well as for the clean-up of the environment already ruined by military activities.1 Moreover, conversion can assist environmental conservation in the following areas: environmental monitoring, chemical analysis, cartography, medicine, microbiology, and radiology, besides the deployment of members of the armed forces for disaster relief and other emergencies.1 However, this does not mean that transfer of resources from military to civilian purposes will automatically serve environmental purposes, unless such considerations can be built into the conversion process.1
Deger and Sen (1992: 165-194) show the potentials of military R&D conversion for environmental projects. Their analysis suggests that, if a 10% reduction in government funded R&D for the military is transferred to pollution control R&D - a major input into environmental protection. Pollution control research activity rises by 13 times (over 1300%) in the United States, over 5 times in France, about three and half times in the U.K. and more than double in Japan, as a result of such transfer of resources following even modest conversion. They conclude that
Huge amounts of resources trapped in the military sector, with special reference to R&D, can be released towards protecting the environment, the ecological system and increasing the chances of sustainable development. The world is not resource-proof if only current disarmament can be translated into permanently halting the arms race and converting military facilities for civilian use.
Second, conversion provides an opportunity for economic development plans which address the need to counter poverty. The reallocation of resources from military to civilian sectors should take place both domestically (within developing countries: switching from military to civilian budgets and priorities) and internationally (by channelling resources devoted to military programmes in industrialized countries to development assistance). Furthermore, a number of empirical studies have confirmed the negative impact of military spending on economic growth and development in LDCs, therefore, reducing military expenditure and reallocation the funds thus released for socio-economic development projects will help in the eradication of poverty and the achievement of sustainable development.
There are, however, a number of political, institutional, economic, and technological problems associated with disarmament and adjusting to lower levels of military spending, but not all of them apply to LDCs, and particularly Africa.1 One of the main contemporary problems associated with conversion of defence industries, irrespective of the country involved, relates to the nature of the military industrial production process - producing a product for one monopsonistic customer (usually the ministry of defence) which is based on `a performance at any cost' principle, and a product development culture which is determined by the inherently closed nature of military secrecy.1 These significant barriers of entry to, and exit from, the defence market; together with the obvious adjustment costs at industry, company, regional and local community levels associated with restructuring or converting defence industries provide some of the reasons why very few countries in the world have fully succeeded in converting defence industries to civil production.
Unemployment is usually cited as the real obstacle to reducing military spending and conversion. However, this problem can be solved if the released resources have been directed to civilian productive projects which create jobs, or other areas of public expenditure. Cronberg (1992; 139-64) explains more problems and barriers facing conversion: managerial reluctance to convert, the specific nature of the military product concept, and the closed organizational culture surrounding military production. Moreover, the vested interest of the `military industrial complex' acts as another obstacle in the face of the conversion process.
Nevertheless, despite the numerous obstacles and problems of adjustment, the evidence suggests that it is possible for LDCs to achieve reductions in military spending and to implement conversion policies; and that this process of demilitarization has significant long-term economic benefits, without compromising State's security. This is particularly relevant for most LDCs, and especially the African countries, for the absence of military industries, which means that there are fewer economic and technological obstacles to conversion, despite the existence of some political obstacles. What is needed is proper planning for conversion, and a clear grasp of the importance of formulating strategies for the use of military personnel during peace time in civilian projects. The use of military facilities (such as airports) for civilian use should also be planned as a dual-use strategy.1
The promotion of models for regional confidence building and cooperation in LDCs is needed if military reduction and conversion policies are to become a reality. The developed countries also can play an important role by drastic reductions in arms trade, especially for LDCs; international register of arms exports and production are also crucial.
Finally, there is now a growing body of literature which is concerned with the problems and issues of conversion. Some of the recent studies, while acknowledging the short-term adjustment costs of conversion, have also presented evidence to suggest that reductions in military spending and the conversion of defence industries represent an economic opportunity rather than a problem.1
