F.A.Q.

In 2024, the global military spending budget was 2.718 trillion USD¹. That is the equivalent of the entire budget of Nigeria, Canada, Brazil and India combined². 2024 saw the highest expenditure ever documented since SIPRI started tracking in 1949 and an increase of 9.4% compared to 2023, exceeding the levels of military expenditure at the height of the Cold War³. As a comparison, according to UN studies, a mere 39-50 billion USD would be needed to eradicate hunger once and for all.⁴ This would be only 2% of the world’s military spending.  

The troubling picture of ever-growing military spending has many drivers, including the global arms race, and the military-industrial complex. While this is a global issue, global militarization is not distributed equally. South America, for example, has seen a 7.2 percent reduction of their military spending over the past 10 years.⁵ All countries in South America combined spent 53.6 billion USD in 2024 on the military, while North American countries spent almost 20 times that amount.⁶

There are two main reasons for us:  

1. to reduce the harm done by militaries and militarisation at a planetary scale;  

2. to increase the good that could be done with the same level of public investment in other forms of security;  

Our call is for a re-evaluation of our social and political priorities, asking for a global commitment to reduce social investment in harmful practices, including war and militarisation, and increase social investment in human wellbeing and human security, through welfare, healthcare, climate action and much more.   

Within the existing militarized security paradigm, countries divert huge amounts of resources to develop and buy more, larger, and better weapons, so they can compete with the more, larger, and better weapons of other countries. This upward spiral is never-ending and primarily benefits the military industry, further expanding militaries political power. This paradigm has proved to be incapable of making the world a safer place – more arms meant more insecurity. What we suggest, is through a global treaty, but also through regional and multi-lateral treaties between countries in conflict, to reverse this trend.  

It’s important to remember that our common security cannot be guaranteed by weapons and soldiers. The climate crisis, pandemics, hunger, poverty and inequality are existential threats to our futures which require collective actions beyond national borders. In 2021, nine million people died around the world due to hunger.⁷ In the same year, approximately 311,000 people died as a result of armed conflict.⁸ The 2.4 trillion USD spent globally on militaries didn’t prevent any of these deaths – on the contrary, they are a direct consequence of the money spent on weapons. When it comes to our security, we cannot only think about militarized security, but must also consider food, shelter, healthcare, and all the conditions that keep us safe.  

Our campaign does not only aim for the reduction of military spending, but also for an investment in alternative forms of security. People’s concerns with their personal and group insecurity are real and must be addressed. There are many forms of armed violence threatening people’s safety, community and environment that can, and should, be addressed more effectively in non-militarized tools, that have proven to be more effective in increasing long term security.  

Inter-state wars: State claim to arm themselves to deter other countries from attacking them, as well as to protect themselves from such attacks. Yet diplomacy has time and time again proved itself as a more effective tool to prevent war that increased militarism. Diplomacy, cooperation treaties on common interests, and of course peace accords, are a far more effective way to achieve security.⁹ There has been a lot of research and theory developed around alternatives to militarism in creating security writ-large, including the framework of Common Security, Shared Security, and much more.  

Civil wars: While it is commonly believed that military victory is a better indicator for prevention of the recurrence of civil war, studies show that that is not the case, and peace agreements are just as effective, if not more.¹⁰ If you add to this the high recurrence of civil wars not reaching a clear military victory, the picture is even clearer.¹¹ Peace agreements are the best way not only to end, but also to prevent, civil wars. Increased militarism, and more guns, actually increases the chances for a civil war.¹²  

Non-state armed groups: In many places around the world, insecurity is driven by organized non-state armed groups. This can include terrorist organizations, organized crime, and resistance movements. There are many alternatives to militarized responses that have proved themselves in the past, and a cut in military spending, can be an opportunity to invest in these forms of security. This includes the strengthening of traditional and transitional justice mechanisms decreasing the hold of these groups in different localities, education initiatives, and properly addressing employment, poverty, and other root causes for people to join organized crime. It is also important to note that, for the most part, arms are not manufactured for criminal and terrorist organizations, but rather arms manufacturers for military, police, and the regulated arms trade globally, eventually make their way to these groups as well.¹³ In this way, the proliferation of regulated weapons, and especially small arms, also affects non-state actors dramatically.  

Think of this cut as a global workplan to re-evaluate our priorities. For this to work, the cut needs to be significant enough to reverse the arms race logic we are trapped in, and to free up substantial sums of money to promote other forms of security such as food and sanitation security, housing security, and energy security according to local needs. At the same time, the cut should be such that the military institutions can adjust, allowing for a gradual conversion towards other forms of industrial production.  

A 10% cut is suggested also based on past campaigns, including the Peace Dividend campaign, that suggested a 10% cut spread over five years (2% per year), saving 1.3 trillion USD over a five-year period which was – at the time – equivalent to the global planned investment in renewable energy. Spreading the decrease over a period of five years normalizes the idea of a yearly defense budget reduction (and in many democratic countries across election cycles) making it more difficult to start increasing the budget afterwards. This could create a momentum where countries go further when they see other countries doing the same, and that this principle does not compromise their military security.   

A 10% cut in military budgets worldwide frees up 244 billion USD every year. This would for example be enough to: 1. End world hunger (39-50 b$)¹⁴; 2. Cover half the annual gap in climate financing required in the Global South (165.5 b$)¹⁵; and 3. Still leave billions of dollars for domestic medical care, infrastructure, and other social welfare programs.

Setting our goals high is important, but it is equally important to set them realistically. 10% is a realistic goal if we consider what a cut like this may look like: If we use the F35 fighter jet as an example, between 2022 and 2024, Germany announced it would purchase 35 F35 jets at approximately 286 million Euro each.¹⁶ The estimated cost of maintenance of each of these planes is just over 6.6 million Euros a year each.¹⁷ Cutting the cost of these planes and their maintenance alone, even if this cost was carried over 10 years, would by itself allow a 7.4% cut in Germany’s military spending for a decade.  

Like any governmental body facing cuts, the military will have to prioritise differently, but all militaries will. This re-prioritisation might better reflect the needs of the country and its people.

Studies show that many workers in the arms industries themselves are supportive of descaling arms production and are aware that their skills are transferable to other fields – including renewable energy.¹⁸ In addition, militaries and the military industry are of the least efficient in ratio of governmental funding to jobs created. For example, in the US, any dollar transferred from the arms industry to green energy would create 40% more jobs, transferred to health care would create almost twice the jobs, and to education over three times more jobs.¹⁹  

In Germany, the military industry employs around 98 000 people.²⁰ For comparison of scale: the German healthcare sector employs 1,7 million caregivers and is today lacking 220 000 caregivers already.²¹ Historically, pressure to divest from harm and achieve conversion into socially beneficial industry has also emanated from within German trade unions in the military industry, such as the Honeywell-Project during the Vietnam war.  

In early 2024, the UK government pushed for a 2.5% increase in military budget, at the expense of other ministries, that was estimated to cost 70,000 civil service jobs.²² In Brazil, the estimated cost of a military job, is three times higher than the cost of a teaching job.²³

This question would have to be negotiated on an international level, with the UN playing an important role in these multi-lateral negotiations. The UN already has mechanisms in place to track military spending and transfers, and independent institutes such as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute can add independent verification. Like in many other negotiations on this level, a UN Treaty that spells out the mechanism of reporting and accountability can be drawn, countries would be able not only to sign on, but also to ratify and legislate these agreements into their own legal system, and as in other treaties, civil society is likely to play a key role in monitoring. Such agreements would also have to clearly define what counts as military spending, what sanctions would apply to those in breach of the agreements, and the role not only of state, but also of corporate actors in this.  

Military spending is a global issue, and the impacts of militarisation are global. Due to this, we also think it is just that a cut in military spending will also include a diversion of these funds for global causes. One of the most urgent issues globally today is the climate crisis, and existing climate financing needs far exceed what is currently allocated. Due to this, we suggest 50% of the savings from the cut in military spending to be diverted into global climate financing. The management of these funds must be just and fair, working on principals of equity rather than equality, and using existing global mechanisms as much as possible. There are some models of global funds, with specific goals, that have proven to be successful models, such as the Global Fund to defeat HIV, tuberculosis (TB), and malaria.  

The additional 50% can be allocated according to domestic priorities in each country, diverting more funding to healthcare, education, infrastructure, or local green transition just to name a few options.   

Reducing military spending can particularly benefit women and girls in multiple ways. By reallocating these funds, governments can invest in programs that directly benefit women and girls, such as maternal healthcare, gender-sensitive education, and support for survivors of violence. Investments in social infrastructure, such as clean water, childcare, and public transportation, ease the burden of unpaid care work, which disproportionately falls on women and girls. This allows women to participate more fully in the labour force and access economic opportunities. 

Militarization often exacerbates violence against women and girls, including sexual violence in conflict zones and within militarized societies. Redirecting funds to prevention and response programs for gender-based violence, such as legal support, safe housing, and counselling, ensures greater safety and justice for women. 

The goal is eventually for everyone to agree, but many of the most important international treaties today are not signed by all countries. Yet even without all countries signing them, these create an international standard and culture that countries are measured against, and that often countries who don’t sign on to them, still follow their guidelines.  

In addition to this, and before global consensus can be found, agreements can also be made on a regional level, much like the Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaties, a series or regional treaties to ban Nuclear Weapons, that while they have still not been adopted by all, include Latin America and the Caribbean, Oceania and the South Pacific, Southeast Asia, the Philippines and the Indonesian Islands, Africa and Central Asia.  

We know the global arena is not equal, and when it comes to militarism, there are some countries that take a far greater role in global militarism than others. As an example, in 2023, NATO members alone were responsible for 55% of global military spending, and NATO sets a target for its members to spend at least 2% of their GDP on military spending.²⁴ Major conflicts, wars and aggression around the world also contribute to increase in military spending. As an example, following its invasion of the Ukraine, Russia has increased its military spending to reach 4.5% of global military spending.²⁵ In 2024, with Israel’s massive offensive in Gaza, and the Hizballah-Israel war, Israel’s military spending increased in almost 10 billion USD.  

Our call for a percentage of each country’s spending, as opposed to a fixed number, addresses this inherent inequality between the countries contributing more to global militarism, and those contributing less. The contribution from those contributing more to the global fund will be significant higher, than that of the least militarised countries.  

The arms race is human-made and so, if we decide, it can also be reversed. We have seen major arms reductions in the past, including through treaties, such as in the case of the USA and USSR during the cold war. We have seen international treaties putting strict controls on certain types of weapons and their use. The ban on landmines, the Arms Trade Treaty and the Nuclear Weapons Ban all started in a climate where many powerful countries opposed the concept, and few believed it possible. But through a global, and strategic, civil society movement we were able to both pressure governments and show them their own interests in this, which eventually made it happen. Disarmament from below has proven possible in the past, and we will be able to do it again.  

In addition, the idea of a general reduction in military spending has already made it once to the UN General Assembly when in 1973 the Soviet Union suggested a 10% reduction of military spending for the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. So yes, it is possible, yet it is only possible if people act to make it a reality.  

A cut in military spendings is likely to make a significant contribution to attempts to address the climate crisis both on the mitigation and adaptation fronts. Militaries around the world are responsible for approximately 5.5% of global carbon emissions (without counting the additional emissions associated with the impact of war itself).²⁶ Cutting military spending is likely to come hand in hand with cutting military emissions, a necessity that ministries of defence around the world are well aware of.  

Alongside the reduction in military emissions, cutting military spendings will free up resources required to address the climate crisis. What the exact cost of adequacy responding to the climate crisis is still debated, but what is clear is that the world will have to spend enormous amounts of money to both mitigate, and respond to the effects of the climate crisis. The strongest economies, recognising their disproportionate responsibility for the climate crisis have agreed that they must divert funds for the climate needs of developing economies to properly and fairly address the crisis, but there is still a gap of approximately 337 billion USD annually between what is required, and what they have pledged. 10% of the military spendings of developing countries would be able to cover that entire gap. This is a classic example of re-examining what offers security and safety to people, and how we can divert public funds towards that rather than militarized security.  

Having a long history and strong commitment to disarmament, The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation decided to initiate this campaign as a collaborative process, inviting various civil society actors to think and develop it jointly. The ‘who we are’ of this campaign, depends on you.  

It is important that the common language developed for the campaign is one that is inclusive, and allows as many people as possible to engage with it, while preserving the integrity and differences between us. The ‘10% for all’ campaign is a platform, and different groups who choose to take part will mold the campaign locally to fit their priorities and ideology.  

There are so many amazing minds working on this issue globally, and shared spaces allow us to learn from each other’s experience, exchange information and tactics, and promote cooperation. A global campaign makes sure our asks and strategies are just, resonate globally, and helps us see our own blind spots. In addition, the global campaign presents a joint vision and unified call, that can help local and regional campaigners in their advocacy to show the potential of multilateralism on this issue, and defuse opposition based on the potential of other countries cutting their military spending as well. The global campaign can allow for coordination between different local and regional campaigns, as well as providing useful global data and language. Lastly, for the advocates themselves, it creates a community, that can energise and offer solidarity.  

The hope is that the ‘10% for All’ call will be taken up and advanced in different ways by different actors, contributing to existing work on the issue, developing new ways of engagement, and coordinating efforts. One of the main questions in such campaigns, is what are we asking people to do? How are we asking actors on different levels to engage?  

Grassroots groups and civil society actors: Local and international campaigns can contribute to shifting public opinion around the issue, and pressuring decision makers. Local campaigns can call upon their own government to cut military spending, or to join a global or regional treaty to do so. 

Politicians: Politicians can push for legislation decreasing military spending; They can present these cuts as solutions for the local issues facing their contingency that require funding; and they can push for their country to support a regional or global treaty for a reduction in military spendings. 

International institutions and prominent figures: While UN mechanism cannot force states to cut their military spendings, UN spaces can, and should, influence the conversation on issues of world peace – a global cut to military spending needs to be part of this conversation. Beyond the UN, other international institutions can contribute to this conversation through research, and highlighting the impact on people’s lives both in conflict prevention, and increasing social spending, such a cut can have. Not only institutions, but also prominent faith leaders, scientists, cultural icons, and many more, can contribute to lifting the global conversation on this, demanding a global treaty to cut military spending.  

States: As the 10% cut ultimately depends on states reducing their military spendings, that is the main ask of states, but states can do much more. States can decide to be an advocate of the issue, bring it up in international forums, push for plans and treaties advancing this goal. States can engage in negotiating regional or multilateral agreements; They can offer bi-lateral agreements to states they are in conflict or tensions with, suggesting mutual decrease in military expenditure, de-facto choosing diplomacy over more arms. States can bring resolutions on the subject to the UN General Assembly, creating a new global norm on the matter, and use other UN spaces, including the UN Security Councill to further advance the goal.