Created: 14.11.97 Updated: 03.12.1997
The vast profits that the armament companies make which come entirely from the taxpayers pockets either at home or abroad do virtually nothing to generate jobs but are often invested in luxury homes abroad in America, Bermuda etc etc. In
This letter was sent to H.Kohl on Jan 28/1997 three days before the record (European record for 1 month, approx 1/2 million increase) increase in unemployment was announced and the arguments have taken on added urgency.
The capital wasting EFA needs to end quickly. Dear Helmut Kohl: (presented to German consulate Feb 26/1997)
I am writing to ask you to reconsider any decision that has been taken to push ahead with the Eurofighter. I understand that the German parliament will vote on this in March unless your government decides to withdraw such a motion. I would ask you to consider doing just that and to cancel the EFA once and for all rather than dragging out the slow death of this costly and unnecessary project.
There are sound military and economic reasons for cancelling the Eurofighter project. On the economic side a cost-benefit analysis supports the argument that the cost of the project is too high and the benefit too low. For example the current spending plans for the Eurofighter in Britain are at least 15,000 million Pfund which at an exchange rate of approx 2.60 D.Mark/pound is 39,000 million DM. However in Britain it is claimed this vast sum of money spent over 10 years will create a mere 15,000 jobs for the 10 year period. This works out at a cost/job of 1 million pound or 2.6 million DM. I suggest the benefit of directly creating one job for 2.6 million DM is much too little. A canparison with other employment possibilities would make this clear. For example the Labour party in Britain has (recently) claimed that the average British worker has approx. 4000 pounds worth of capital investment to aid them in their jobs on average compared with 8000 pounds in Germany. They were making the point about low capital investment in Britain/job campared with Germany. Thus if they were to invest the 1 million pounds in other ways far more jobs could be created. Thus there is a very powerful economic argument against the EFA. Given that Germany was burdened with a very large military from the old East Germany and given that this has played a part in burdening and weakening the German economy it would seem sensible to reduce future burdens. This is especially the case when from the military point of view, NATO is already being rightly accused of possessing far more capability than Russia which is leading to demands for the CFE treaty to be rewritten. By adding to the military strength of NATO the EFA could have a destabilizing effect on the disarmament process. Answer one simple question what is the EFA for apart fran as a state aided job creation scheme which provides too few jobs and costs far too much? Is not the whole of the military industrial complex a state aided parasite that has an insatiable appetite for capital but provides remarkably few jobs. It could be argued that jobs are created with the subcontractors and tertiary suppliers, but this argument would also apply for any other capital project, such as building hospitals, schools, universities, etc, the difference being that society would have some added value, with treated or educated people. In the case of the military industrial complex we just get scrap metal as our added value or if a war results we get death destruction and scrap metal.
Surely with growing unemployment in Germany a much more creative way of spending the vast sums of DM involved would be to fund jobs in either the housing, education, environmental cleanup and civilian research sectors. It is politically destabalizing to keep increasing unemployment and could lead to an upsurge of support for neo-naz groups. Given that the western countries already have vastly greater armed forces than Russia, surely we should be cutting back on defence spending, which will enhance trust, enhance the disarmament process and enhance the resources available to tackle real social problems, not defending against imaginary threats. The threat to Germany comes from within, from the political instability that could result from rising mass unemployment. As I have argued above the EFA project adds to these problems by taking away resources from better job creation sectors. I call for the project to be scrapped once and for all. The effect of the EFA project could be to push the German deficit above 3% of GDP, the first casualty of EFA could be the present form of EMU. Military spending is also public spending. The question is do the public want vast military spending projects when the cold war is over, when there is pressure on welfare spending which provides real security and keeps people from becoming homeless, when other budgets are under pressure. My clear opinion is NO, we don't want it, the only people in favour seriously are those who are part of the parasite or have a close connection to it.
Malcolm Sutcliffe.
1. 1 - 155 SHUTTLE STREET
TYIDESLEY,
MANCHESTER,
M29 8BS.
England,Jan 28,1996.