The world is not getting less dependent on violence to 'solve' problems. Millions of people live under threat of attack. Hundreds of billions of dollars, needed for productive purposes is instead spent on items which at best can achieve nothing. Achieving a safer world has been discussed throughout history but remains an elusive goal. It can wait no longer.

A simple international accounting change could shift the balance between escalation of weapons spending and global disarmament. Spending on weapons research, manufacture, export, purchase and upgrades currently inflates Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and economic growth figures, making warring nations falsely appear more successful. Weapons spending should be excluded from GDP to define a new measure of Gross Peaceful Product (GPP). GPP would replace GDP for measuring economic growth. Comparisons of economic growth based upon GPP would more accurately show how well economies are contributing to the well-being of their people. Political enthusiasm for growth would minimise arms spending, allowing more to be spent on productive activities. Nations can start to compete by how little they rely on weapons rather than how much. This would start a cycle of disarmament as nations feel less threatened. Weapons would become more expensive and less available, reducing the incidence of conflict and demand for weapons.

By instituting GPP our political leaders can affirm that the future of this world cannot be built on arms, and that they refuse by inaction, to meekly give in to a self-fulfilling vision of an ever-more dangerous world. GPP does not stop politicians from buying weapons but it does provide a clear incentive to minimise spending towards whatever is absolutely necessary. GPP also offers politicians a path towards global disarmament, whereby arms races no longer offer an illusion of security.

This basic statistical correction would disrupt the societal habit of responding to problems violently. The knock-on effects may range from street-level hand-gun culture right through to terrorism and nuclear/biological weapons stockpiling. In a time when the world cannot afford wars, GPP offers an achievable way to build peace.
 

Arguments against GPP:
Worries about the morale of military people. GPP omits spending on weapons but not on personnel (unless engaged on weapons research or upgrades). Military morale should be higher, knowing that they reflect what is needed rather than what looks good on national accounts.

Worries about soldiers left unprotected without guns. GPP does not prescribe less weapons than needed. Soldiers often find themselves poorly equiped under current arrangements, which is partly due to political overenthusiasm for conflict and rising global tensions. GPP should help with both these factors.

Worries about unemployment in the weapons industry. Any nation producing more weapons than it needs is not contributing to global non-violence and under GPP may choose to improve their economic standing by gradually disinvesting in weapons and retraining employees. This would also be a sensible strategy to avoid forced redundancies as demand for weapons falls.

Worries that nations using GPP would still have armies and still fight wars. Yes, GPP does not prevent nations from making whatever investment they require for their own needs. Wars may still occur despite a global trend towards non-violent solutions to conflict.

Worries about the difficulty of getting international agreement. International agreements flounder according to their complexity and the degree of constraint imposed on their activities. The simple but far-reaching correction of GPP could be negotiated rapidly since it does not limit how much nations can spend on weapons. It should be anticipated that nations with low weapons spending and those wishing to make a statement about their peaceful intentions will adopt GPP first.

Worries about accounting for all problems and issues within a 'fully-corrected' GDP. Work on fully corrected national accounts has been underway for many years without any scheme approaching international adoption. This is due to the complexity of the corrections and a reluctance for governments to reveal the unsustainability of their economies. Full correction of market economics may be better achieved with an instrument that involves the price mechanism (see www.BlindSpot.org.uk) rather than through national accounts, which has limited possibilities for informing decisions throughout the economy.

Worries that direct disarmament agreements might be better. Direct disarmament through enlightened statesmanship and international treaty should be encouraged. However, by itself, this has not proven to be sufficient to create a global culture of non-violence. Peace lobbying is a politically weaker influence than economic one-upmanship, which can and should be engaged to achieve a safer world.
 

Links:
BlindSpot; precycling insurance is a new general-purpose economic instrument for sustainable development. Prevents future worsening of problems such as human-induced climate change, loss of nature and the disposable society. www.BlindSpot.org.uk

Simultaneous Policy; some solutions work best with more countries involved. Gross Peaceful Product and precycling insurance are listed as prospective international initiatives. www.simpol.org.uk/policy.php

Front of Pipe; sustainable waste strategy. By precycling we can eliminate dependence on all forms of disposal. www.frontofpipe.net

Contact:
James Greyson, BlindSpot, PO Box 140, Lewes BN7 9DS, East Sussex, UK
Telephone 01273 401 331, Email gppgrosspeacefulproduct.org.uk, Web www.grosspeacefulproduct.org.uk