OSCAR ARIAS: We have lived in the bloodiest century ever known in humanity's history and certainly the new generations don't deserve a 21st Century just like the 20th Century. So, we must do something.

CALEB ROSSITER: Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been an absolute disaster for the spread of democracy because we arm dictators.

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK: I'm for encouraging everybody else to reduce their military spending, but I'd just as soon we increase ours.

NARRATOR: In a world that sometimes seems filled with chaos and violence, strong military forces offer one kind of security. But addressing the roots of conflict requires more.

Some innovators advocate shifting resources from military spending to human development. This may be the route to curbing militarism worldwide.

NARRATOR: What kind of world do we live in? Is it filled with danger and threats?

How should the United States cope with insecurity? Through increased military spending or by other means?

Americans are clearly uncertain about their country and its place in the world. Our media bombards us with troubling images and reports of conflict and violence. It often does seem that we live in a dangerous world. Sometimes it's hard to remember that the era of the Cold War posed much more severe threats.

Joshua Muravchik is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and the author of the recently published book, The Imperative of American Leadership.

Mr. MURAVCHIK: Well, it is a dangerous world and it's a violent world, but it's a lot less dangerous than it was during the Cold War when we had two superpowers, each very mightily armed and each very much afraid of the other and eager to get the better of the other. That was really dangerous and this is a lot less.

NARRATOR: Nicole Ball is a long-time analyst of the Third World and a fellow at the Overseas Development Council. She co-authored the study, Making Peace Work: The Role of the International Development Community.

NICOLE BALL: Between the end of World War II and the end of the Cold War, 45 years or so, something like 45 million people died, 40, 45 million people. This was not exactly a calm and nonviolent period. I think that what we saw was the East-West conflict masking what really were a lot of internal conflicts.

NARRATOR: Joshua Muravchik believes that the end of the Cold War has helped to ease violence in at least some developing countries.

Mr. MURAVCHIK: There are more cases where there are local conflicts that have been solved or are just simmering without getting really bad, which were in the old dispensation exploited by the superpowers and made much worse than they otherwise need to have been.

The prime example is South Africa, which still is a country with a lot of problems, but has come such a long way and may have a relatively happy ending to the story. And drawing the poison of the superpower investment out of that made a very big difference. And the same is true for Nicaragua and El Salvador and I think several others.

NARRATOR: One response to the insecurities of today's world is to promote increased military spending. Government officials portray a wide array of dangers and threats.

WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense (before Senate Armed Services Committee, 5 March '96): "The problems we face today are much more complex. And to deal with these problems, which I described as the post-Cold War dangers -- which are the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, instability, particularly in Eastern and Central Europe -- that could lead to new threats, and the local and regional conflicts. These are the dangers we face everyday."

JOHN DEUTSCH, CIA Director (before Senate Intelligence Committee, 22 February '96): "There are serious threats to our interests and great uncertainty beyond our borders. In many regions of the world, stability is threatened.

"There's ethnic turmoil and humanitarian crisis, for example, in Bosnia and Rwanda.

"Two great powers, Russia and China, are in the process of change and we must watch their evolutions closely.

"Free nations of the world are threatened by rogue states -- Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Libya -- that have built up significant military forces and seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, chemical and biological.

"There is a growing threat to our nation from international terrorism, from drug trafficking and crime."

NARRATOR: Some members of Congress look to the American military to play the major role in coping with today's insecurities and uncertainties. They push hard to increase military spending. While nearly all other functions of our government are subject to cuts, the military function is praised and money is added even beyond official requests.

Rep. FLOYD SPENCE (R-SC), Chairman, House National Security Committee (6 March '96): "As was the case last year, we will also increase the defense spending top line in the budget resolution."

NARRATOR: But there are other ideas about how best to cope with violence and risk in today's changing world. This alternative emphasizes trying to get at the root of conflict and hostility and seeks to prevent the emergence of war. Defense Secretary William Perry shows some interest in this in emphasizing the importance of what he calls "preventive defense."

Secretary PERRY (5 March '96 hearing): "The first line of defense, not well-understood, but very important, is preventive defense. That is, we want to prevent these dangers from becoming military threats to the United States."

NARRATOR: Despite the importance of preventing threats, nearly all of the U.S. military budget is directed as buying the weapons and forces for the last line of defense, fighting and winning wars. And government funding for the State Department, aid to developing countries and the United Nations is being cut.

Much of the initiative for genuine preventive defense comes from outside official government institutions because innovative ideas often flourish better outside of bureaucracies.

The work of former President Jimmy Carter around the world in seeking to mediate conflicts and address the roots of violence is well known.

Another former president, and now private citizen, has taken the initiative to work for a better world. Oscar Arias is the highly respected former president of Costa Rica. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his efforts at building peace in the troubled Central American region. He is the founding director of the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress, which seeks to combat poverty and violence in the Third World.

In December 1995, President Arias, members of the U.S. Congress and representatives of a number of public interest organizations launched the Year 2000 Campaign to Redirect World Military Spending to Human Development. The Year 2000 Campaign is essentially a set of conventional arms control measures to promote demilitarization and United Nations-administered regional security talks.

Dr. ARIAS: What we need to do is to cut military expenditures, to understand that what we need is human development. That is, to be more concerned about security of employment, security of education, security of health, environmental security, and not necessarily the traditional concept of territorial security, of sovereignty, of the security of borders, etc. The new enemies of humanity are poverty and increasing inequality.

NARRATOR: Nicole Ball identifies some of the consequences of excessive military spending in developing countries.

Ms. BALL: Excessive expenditure on the military -- in addition to strengthening the military politically, which is a very serious problem -- if you're spending money on the military, you are not spending money on something else. And many developing countries -- and certainly even in this country, we see the same problem. We have many domestic requirements that are competing for scarce resources.

So, this may mean that you're not fully funding -- you're not giving enough money to social sectors, which are very important, health and education, for example, but important infrastructures, such as clean water or access to electricity and so on for everyone. All these things may become more difficult when you're spending a lot on the military.

NARRATOR: It is estimated that developing countries spend about $220 billion a year on their militaries. This is more than four times what those countries received in all forms of foreign aid.

And while total world military spending, as a result of the end of the Cold War, has declined from about one trillion in 1987 to about $800 billion today, this decline has been primarily in the developed countries belonging to NATO and the former Warsaw Pact. In developing countries, military spending has declined much less and is actually increasing in some areas.

According to Oscar Arias, these are some examples of what could be potentially achieved if we redirected a portion of the developing world's military budgets to human development.

Four percent of the developing world's annual military budgets would support programs to increase literacy levels by 50 percent, educate women to the same level as men and provide universal primary education.

Eight percent would finance voluntary family planning that could stabilize the world population by the year 2015. Twelve percent would pay the cost of basic health care for the world's entire population.

Dr. ARIAS: I think that for poor countries, it is criminal to spend more on defense, on their security, on the military than on education and health together.

NARRATOR: Although there has been a trend toward democracy in recent years, there are still many military-dominated regimes in the Third World. Joshua Muravchik notes that the military can dominate even when they do not formally exercise government power.

Mr. MURAVCHIK: The excessive size of the military is often a problem. It's a problem in many countries where the military prevents elected civilian governments from really taking hold. Even though there have been free elections, sometimes a lot of the power remains outside of the hands of the elected government. And certainly, these military forces by definition absorb resources and do nothing useful with them.

Clearly, if we had some way of counting it, the size of militaries, the resources that go into militaries around the world cumulatively is much larger than the actual threats that are being faced.

NARRATOR: Oscar Arias comes from a country, Costa Rica, that has prospered and has no military. He is bluntly critical of the role of the military in many Third World countries.

Dr. ARIAS: The armed forces in Latin America, as well as in Asia, as well as in Africa have been the main source of corruption, the main source of political instability, the main source of oppression to the people. They're not there to defend territory, they are there to defend their own interests. They are there to defend the interests or the privileges of the oligarchy. They have been involved in many countries recently in drug trafficking. So, it's perhaps the worst enemy of the people.

NARRATOR: Caleb Rossiter for many years worked as a congressional staff expert on foreign affairs issues. He is now the director of the Washington-based, non-profit organization, Demilitarization for Democracy. Dr. Rossiter is one of the initiators of the Year 2000 Campaign.

He sees an important difference between the role of the US military and the domestic role of the military in many developing countries.

Dr. ROSSITER: The armed forces in the developing world have nothing to do with the role of the armed forces in the United States. And it's important for Americans to understand that when we strengthen an armed force in Africa or in Asia, you're not strengthening that armed force to defend their territory against aggressors or to take part in international peacekeeping, as our forces are doing. You are strengthening that armed force usually to keep in power an unelected government.

NARRATOR: Self-aggrandizing military institutions can stand in the way of human development.

Ms. BALL: Simply spending having the money available to spend on something is not enough. In other words, you can cut military expenditure, but then you have to have a government in place that decides to use the money in other ways. So, it's important that the government wants to spend the money on more schools, perhaps, or better health care, or whatever it may be.

NARRATOR: Caleb Rossiter sees a very close connection between the spread of democracy and the spread of peace in the world.

Dr. ROSSITER: The main cause of conflict is lack of democracy. When citizens are irritated with their government, they, as part of human nature, want to replace that government.

Of the roughly 50 conflicts around the world, some major, some minor, 48 have nothing to do with an international border or a disputed border. They have to do with armed forces within a country keeping citizens from changing that government peacefully. If there were democratic elections, people would have the ability every few years to try again to change. Now there's only one way, and that's to pick up a gun.

NARRATOR: Joshua Muravchik, author of the book, Exporting Democracy, sees the growth of democracy as being in the security interests of the United States.

Mr. MURAVCHIK: I really know of no case where a democratic government has been a serious threat to or enemy of the United States or where democratization of a country, including of a friendly dictator, would be bad for us in any major way. Generally, democracies are more friendly to the United States than dictatorships, either left or right, and generally, democracies are more peaceful than dictatorships. So, it's really in our interests to have democracies.

NARRATOR: The process of democratization can be long and volatile. But the dangers are enormously aggravated by the proliferation of arms in the Third World. One of the main objectives of the Year 2000 Campaign is to cut back substantially on arms sales around the world.

The campaign calls upon all arms-exporting nations to agree to a code of conduct on arms transfers, to bar arms exports to non-democratic governments, countries engaged in armed aggression in violation of international law, countries that do not fully participate in the UN Register of Conventional Arms, and governments permitting gross violations of human rights. The United States today is by far the world's biggest arms merchant.

Dr. ARIAS: As a Costa Rican who admires this country, I want the US not only to be an economic superpower or a military superpower, but also a moral superpower. And as long as you keep selling arms to the developing countries -- you've been exporting on average in the last three, four years about $15 billion per year. Instead of doing that, what you should do is try to fight poverty and inequality in the developing world. That's what the whole world expects from the United States.

Dr. ROSSITER: Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been an absolute disaster for the spread of democracy because we arm dictators. Eighty-five percent of our weapons went to countries that were non-democratic. How can President Clinton talk about democracy as the core of US foreign policy when he's arming non-democratic governments?

He's not doing it because he's against democracy, he's doing it because he wants to win votes and keep jobs and profits up in the states that used to make more weapons for our armed forces. But the effect is holding back democracy.

NARRATOR: In addition to proposals to control the international arms trade, Oscar Arias seeks to encourage economic progress and reduce violence in developing countries by directly linking international aid programs with reducing levels of military spending.

Dr. ARIAS: I think the industrialized world should use both carrots as well as the sticks. And certainly the linking of foreign aid to demilitarization is a very good carrot for the developing world to cut military expenditures.

NARRATOR: In particular, the important international lending institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, can pay more attention to military spending in making their lending decisions.

Ms. BALL: Around 1990, it became possible for these institutions to start talking with governments about the extent of their military expenditure. That's the first step, and a very critical step, to get the issues on the table.

Secondly, what they should do is to work with the governments to institute good budgeting practices in the military sector. Because all too often there are just a handful of people in governments in the developing world who really know what money is being spent on in the military sector and who have any control over the way in which it is spent.

NARRATOR: One of the main recipients for years of support from World Bank and the IMF is Indonesia, the world's fourth largest country in population. Although most Americans pay little attention to Indonesia, it has received extensive military and economic support from the United States. Indonesia has been ruled for 30 years by General -- now President -- Suharto and the Indonesian military.

Dr. ROSSITER: Indonesia is run by what I've referred to as a "military mafia," and I didn't use that phrase lightly. Americans think of armed forces as defending borders and defending our principles. In Indonesia, the armed forces are a business. That's the most important way to understand them. Indonesia has tremendous oil wealth, tremendous natural resources, and most of it gets siphoned into businesses where the military actually has a controlling interest. To protect its moneymaking proposition, the armed forces really rule down to the village level and get their piece of every single pie that there is.

NARRATOR: Indonesia has undergone considerable economic growth, but corruption is endemic and its political growth has lagged far behind.

Mr. MURAVCHIK: I recently had a chance to visit Indonesia. There is no really effective political opposition allowed in Indonesia, but there are NGOs, and they're quite numerous. And there are groups that work for human rights. There are groups that work for legal aid and for rule of law.

NARRATOR: Another initiative to increase world security proposed by Oscar Arias and the Year 2000 Campaign is regional conflict prevention. The strategy calls on the UN to sponsor talks in every region of the world to seek the reduction of threats and the prevention of conflict through dialogue, mutual disarmament and other confidence-building measures.

Dr. ROSSITER: If you're serious about addressing the causes of military spending in developing countries and developed countries, you have to have a mechanism that can bring pressure to bear on these governments to sit down and settle their differences.

Ms. BALL: I think, for example, in Southern Africa, I think Central America, perhaps, southern South America -- to a lesser extent, in parts of Asia, we do see the governments beginning to realize that their future is linked and that they have to learn to live with each other and they have to put aside some of their disagreements.

NARRATOR: Whether the United Nations can shoulder new initiatives for regional conflict resolution is uncertain, in part for financial reasons. The UN does not have enough money to pay for its current expanded peacekeeping activities. American support for all kinds of non-military instruments of foreign policy is declining. Levels of foreign aid are at a post-World War II low.

Mr. MURAVCHIK: There's some very interesting polls that show that people blame a lot on foreign aid and some surveys show that the average American thinks that we spend 15 percent of our budget on foreign aid. And when he or she is asked how much should we spend, the answer is five percent. And, of course, the truth is that we spend less than one percent. So that the average American who thinks we spend too much on foreign aid is still willing to spend a good amount on it.

Dr. ROSSITER: So, when there's cuts in foreign aid, development aid to help stabilize Africa, or Latin America, or Asia -- pro-democracy programs, pro-union programs, human rights programs, these have been cut up to 40 to 50 percent in the past five years, a very sort of silent death of the foreign aid program when people think of foreign aid, meaning development, poor people, helping farmers. Again, we're favoring the military tool over the economic tool when the military tool is really inappropriate for a long-term peace.

NARRATOR: Joshua Muravchik believes the United States still has a very important military role in the world and that American leadership is indispensible.

Mr. MURAVCHIK: In a sense, we have to be something more than the policeman. Maybe in the lawless West, we have to be the guy who's got the best shot, the fastest draw, who leads the posse, who says, 'Come on, there's outlaws around. Fellas, we got to go out and hunt them down.'

NARRATOR: A strong military is not enough to ensure American prosperity and wellbeing. Caleb Rossiter argues that Americans have a big security and economic stake in demilitarization and development around the world.

Dr. ROSSITER: In our own self-interest, it's our troops who end up going to peacekeeping missions and to clean up messes where non-democratic governments have prevailed with our assistance in the past. This is the boomerang effect, where our troops face our weapons in Panama, in Iraq, in Somalia, in Haiti. And finally, the developing world is the next great market for US exports. It's tremendously important to us that there be growth in the Third World.

Dr. ARIAS: You need to exercise your leadership. I mean, you should increase foreign aid because this is good for the world, this is good for peace. Because in the last 24 hours, 380,000 children were born. Ninety percent of them were born in the developing world. Perhaps half of those children won't be able to go to school. So, what kind of world do we want for thefuture?

ADM SHANAHAN: We have just heard that the United States continues to be the number one arms purveyor in the world today. But what we did not hear is that it would be naive to believe that if the United States stopped selling weapons, that our main competitors would follow suit.

The five permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations, who happen also to be the principal arms sellers in the wider world, need to take the lead and introduce in the United Nations an international code of conduct for conventional arms sales. The Oscar Arias Campaign 2000 is a commendable point of departure and one which needs our support and leadership.

For "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR," I am Jack Shanahan.

[End of broadcast.]