Tendencies in militarisation 1990 - 2009
The Global Militarisation Index (GMI) of the Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC) defines militarisation in the quantitative sense as those means and capacities available to the armed forces of a state. It shows the relative weight and importance of the military apparatus of a state compared to its society as a whole. For this, data, such as ‘military expenditures as share of the gross domestic product (GDP)’ or ‘military expenditures in comparison to health expenditure’ are taken into account. The degree of militarisation is then determined by points, ranging from 0 to 1000. The countries are then ordered according to their degree of militarisation, 0 being the lowest, 1000 being the highest, and a ranking can be established (Top 10, Bottom 10).The analysis of the degrees in militarisation allows the user to observe tendencies of (dis)armament and can serve to ask specific questions on development or social-politics.
In 2009, Israel (865 points), Singapore (843 points), Syria (796), Jordan (779 points), Russia (777 points), South-Korea (748 points), Cyprus (738 points), Greece (736 points), Kuwait (736 points) and Belarus (731 points) are the Top 10 of the highest ranked countries of the GMI.
Middle East
Four countries in the Middle East rank highest among the Top 10 of the GMI, which points to the high level of militarisation and further destabilisation of this region already plagued by armed conflict. In 2009, nine of the 15 countries in the region were amongst the 20 countries with the highest levels of militarisation.
This tendency towards militarisation in the Middle East can be witnessed since 1990. Back then, Israel, Kuwait and Syria were amongst the 10 most militarized countries in the world; by 2009, Jordan had joined them in the Top 10. Increased revenues from oil exports over the past years, among other things, contributed to Jordan’s increase in military expenditures by 83 percent, from US $51.4 to 91.4 billion between the year 2000 and 2009.
The continuously high level of militarisation of Israel and other countries in the region can be traced back to mutual threat perceptions. Israel’s fears are fuelled by the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian territories, terrorist attacks, the threatening conflict in the Lebanon, and finally by Iranian regional and nuclear politics.
An increase in militarisation can also be observed in Saudi Arabia. While in 1990, it was in position 21, it fell to position 34 in 1996 but rose steadily to arrive at position 15 in 2009. Extensive weapons purchases from the United States in the coming ten years, amounting to US $60 billion, could increase its level of militarisation even further.
Russia, the United States, and NATO
Shortly after the end of the Cold War, in 1992, Russia became the legal successor of the former Soviet Union and, according to the GMI, became the most highly militarised country in the world. In comparison, the United States showed a much lower level of militarisation (position 30). By the year 2000, the Russian Federation had fallen to position seven. Even 20 years after the end of the confrontation between the two blocs it is clear that Russia (position 5 in 2009) spends more money on resources for the military sector (than the United States: position 35 in 2009) even though in absolute terms, the defense budget of the United States is markedly higher than that of Russia for the year 2009 (?). Undoubtedly, the United States is the country with the world’s highest military spending, with a share of 43 percent of global military expenditures amounting to US $663 billion.
Russia possesses a number of conventional large weapons systems. Despite the cuts in personnel foreseen in its military strategy of 2008, it still has a large army. By contrast, the United States has already markedly decreased its military personnel as part of a modernisation and re-structuring of its armed forces over the past decades. But the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the war against terror, have cost a large amount of money. While the level of militarisation in the United States fell continuously between 1992 and 2000 from position 30 to position 57, this changed in 2001, after which the United States reached position 35 again in 2009.
A comparison between the former Eastern and Western blocs shows that while in the early 1990s moderate to low levels of militarisation could be observed in most NATO Member States, the former Warsaw Pact Member States could be found at the top of the GMI. This supports the thesis that the Warsaw Pact had spent so much money on its defence expenditures to keep up with NATO, that it had effectively spent all its resources. Its high military spending, above all for conventional weapons, was in stark contrast to the low economic development of Eastern bloc states’ societies that could not keep up with the technological progress of NATO.
Since the mid-1990s, levels of militarisation in former Warsaw Pact Member States, such as Poland (2000: position 41, 2009: position 84), Romania (2000: position 18, 2009: position 48), and Hungary (2000: position 37, 2009: position 68) have decreased markedly.
The two exceptions are Bulgaria and Belarus. While in the year 2000, Bulgaria was in position 8; it was in position 19 in 2009. Possible reasons for this are its wide-scale participation in international military operations, such as in Iraq, and its strategically important position as a Black Sea country. In 2009, Belarus reached the Top 10 while in 1992, it was in position 15. After a short phase of lower militarisation between 1996 and 1998, it was ranked 19th in the year 2000. The consistently rather high level of militarisation of this former Soviet republic can be attributed to the stabilising function of the military within the authoritarian regime of President Alexander Lukashenko who has been governing the country since 1994.
A tendency towards disarmament can also be observed in most of the new NATO Member Countries in eastern Europe. Exceptions are Estonia (2000: position 65, 2009: position 37), Latvia (2000: position 90, 2009: position 78), and Lithuania (2000: position 78, 2009: position 52). Possible reasons for this may be the perception of Russia threatening the Baltic states as well as a necessary modernisation of their armed forces in the framework of their accession to NATO. NATO asks all of its Member States to spend at least two percent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on their defence budget and has declared this to be the critical threshold for maintaining the tasks within the alliance with regard to defence.
Amongst the western NATO partners, Greece has a special position as regards its level of militarisation which has, since 1990, remained among the Top 10 (1990: 10, 2000: 10, 2009: 8). Measured against its GDP, the country has been spending the most on its military for years compared to other European and EU countries. Factors that may influence this could be the issue around Cyprus and the generally ongoing conflict with neighbouring country and NATO partner Turkey, which triggers certain threat perceptions in Greece. These high levels of military spending that in the past had also been used for extensive arms deals could be one of the causes that contributed to Greece’s current economic and financial crisis.
The unsolved conflict in Cyprus is mirrored in its constantly high level of militarisation (1990: position 3, 2000: position 5, 2009: position 7).
Since reunification in 1991, militarisation in Germany has decreased quite steadily from position 36 to position 86 in 2007. In 2009, Germany remained in an average position
Sub-Saharan Africa
In Sub-Saharan Africa, consistently low levels of militarisation can be observed over the years. Exceptions are Angola (2009: position 31), Mauretania (2009: position 36), Djibouti (2009: position 40), Chad (2009: position 57), and Namibia (2009: position 59).
For a longer period of time, Eritrea was in one of the top positions. Since 1997, in preparation for war with Ethiopia, there has been a marked increase in the level of militarisation. After the war (2000 2002) it became clear that the military had been and still is allocated a disproportionately high amount of resources which are lacking for other sectors and which have adversely affected the development of the country. In the years for which reliable data is available (1988 to 2006), Eritrea showed the highest level of militarisation worldwide. No country in Africa has spent so much on the military (measured against its GDP). A successful demobilisation and demilitarisation process did not take place. Long after the war, the military exerts a great deal of influence on the population, for instance by having special recruitment rights, and by controlling state resources.
At a glance it seems paradoxical that many African countries, such as Madagascar (start of armed conflict in 2002, position 126), DR Congo (start of war in East Congo in 2005, position 133), Central African Republic (start of war 2006, position 126), Nigeria (start armed conflict 2004, position 133), and Mali (end of war 1996, position 111) have been experiencing armed conflict but still show low levels of militarisation. In other words, the state security apparatus there is too weak to guarantee security both inside and outside the state. In such cases, it seems that the government does indeed only provide limited resources to the military.
Asia
In 2009, two of the ten most militarised countries worldwide could be found in East Asia: Singapore and South Korea. Certainly one reason for the high level of militarisation in South Korea is continuing tensions with North Korea, which time and again manifest themselves through military incidences. The case of Singapore is less obvious. The country possesses modern weapons systems and a well-trained army. Measured against the small size of the city state and the relatively small number of inhabitants and the mostly peaceful development, one could consider its armed forces to be inordinately large. The background for such a high level of militarisation might be the political situation of the region where a number of countries are experiencing internal, at times highly violent, conflict —such as Burma, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Since 11 September 2001 and the bombings in Bali on 12 October 2002, Islamist terrorism represents a great threat to many, particularly Western-oriented, countries.
Central and South America
Most countries in Central America show low levels of militarisation. A marked slump in militarisation, for instance, occurred in Nicaragua between 1990 (position 9) and 2009 (position 115), where after the armed conflict that was actively supported by the United States, funds for the military were cut drastically. A similar development can be observed in Guatemala and El Salvador in the same time frame as there, too, a number of armed conflicts had been resolved. The reason why drug wars in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mexico are not mirrored in a high level of militarisation and extensive public defence expenditure may be that the police and security services and not the military are in the frontline. In South America, nearly all countries show a constant, quite high level of militarisation. This is likely due to prolonged threat perceptions connected with contested border lines, for instance between Chile and Peru, Argentina and Chile, or Peru and Ecuador. In Argentina, one can see a different trend as a slight but steady decrease in militarisation can be observed since 1990 (position 69). It fell to position 120 in 2009 (2000: position 125). Against the backdrop of the war and the connected battle against rebel groups and drug cartels, militarisation in Columbia, supported by financial aid from the United States, has risen again since the early 21st century (1990: position 49, 2000: position 72, 2009: position 43).
