There are maybe two instances where the “numbers” describing the situations they will even better than words: one is attrito issues of “money” when we want to highlight the “excess” and the “default”; the other one is attributable to situations of wars and armed conflicts, where the number of deaths becomes the strongest indicator. And, as irony of fate, wars’ business (i.e. money), number of deaths, and post-conflict operations (thus, money again, although this time accompanied by humanitarian operations) creates a loop. In fact, if it is true what declared in the Constitution of UNESCO “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed” it is also true that the business of war, or better, the thirst for money that it implies, plays a powerful role in shaping human minds.

Over the last decade, conflicts arisen from ethnic, religious, political and more purely “economic” reasons – for the possession of natural resources and territories – have shown an escalation of global dimension. Further, recent history clearly demonstrates that armed conflicts originated in a specific part of the world do not remain confined to it, but they tend to affect the rest of the world and tend to spread through ways typical of the ”globalization of the economy”. Indeed, studies show that “war spurs war” and, above all, the countries in which the conflict lasts long fall into what is called the “conflict trap “, a vicious circle creating conditions that lead to the perpetuation of war over that territory. We should consider that, at least 73% of the poorest billion people in the world live or have lived in countries and territories marked by the “conflict trap”.

Then we begin to give some numbers, bearing in mind that the “numbers” of wars are always “in fieri” and not precise; anyway we avail ourselves of what Keynes said: “It is better to give figures vaguely exact rather than provide estimates precise but completely wrong.” According to SIPRI Report 2010 (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), in 2009 the major armed conflicts under way, in the world, were 17: 3 in the Middle East, 7 in Asia, 4 in Africa and 2 in Central America and 1 in the U.S. (SIPRI includes in the list the war waged by the United States outside its territory: in Afghanistan). According to these data, despite the international financial crisis, the world’s military spending in 2009 reached 1.234 billion Euro, showing a growth in real terms of 6% compared to 2008 and 49% compared to 2000. Military spending accounts for 2.7% of world GDP: Italy ranks tenth with about 30 billion Euro per year and sixth as expenditure per capita. In the whole, the top ten countries reach 75% of the total military expenditure. At the top there is the United States with a military expenditure amounting to 43% of the total, then China (82 billion Euro), France (52.3), Britain (47.7), Russia (43.6) and Japan (41.7). Then Germany (37.3), Saudi Arabia (33.8) and India (29.7).

And the number of deaths? According to different sources, including PeaceReporter, from the beginning of the various conflicts to the year 2009, the numbers, we mention a few, are as follows: in Somalia, since 2001, there was half a million deaths, also accounting victims for famine and diseases caused by conflict; in Sudan, since 2003 the total of deaths is around 300,000. In Congo, where conflict lasted from 1997 to 2002, there were over 3.5 million deaths (about 500,000 killed in the fighting and about 3 million deaths from famine caused by war). Then there are the conflicts that not everyone recognizes as such: is the case for the war in Chechnya with about 250,000 Chechens killed since 1994, equal to one quarter of the original population of the Caucasian Republic.

The financial resources used to undertake wars and armed conflicts are, inter alia, not even comparable with the amount necessary to recovery when the wars ended. Just to give some more figures, in this case more precise, since verified, according to the “Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2006, the United Nations contribution – also through agencies – to economic, social and humanitarian development programs in the poorest countries in the world, amounted to 10.5 billion dollars, when in 2005, military spending worldwide has reached the figure of 1.1 billion dollars. Nevertheless, the UN role is essential and necessary although it is clear the need for a redefinition of the structure and working mechanism of this body, including the redefinition of relations with the other international institutions and in particular with Member States, for what concerns the financial contributions. The United Nations, following the failure of Member States contributions – a large number of countries has not kept the commitment to allocate 0.7% of GDP to the United Nations for international development and humanitarian aid – are forced to seek alternatives financial sources.

“The elephant in the room” is an English idiom to describe an evident truth that is ignored or that we pretend not to notice. In 2000, the UN decided to address the most pressing development challenges establishing a series of goals to be achieved by 2015 (the Millennium Development Goals), including halving extreme poverty, halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and other diseases and providing universal primary education. Although progress has been made, it is now clear that these goals are not met or at least not during the period which had been established, largely because of lack of economic resources. Efforts have been made, held conferences, established organizations and signed position paper and together with the dissemination of knowledge, there has been the aim of finding innovative sources for financing development. But there is an item in the budget, one that accounts for 2.7% of world GDP, that should perhaps be reconsidered and redirected, and that could be a huge financial resource: the elephant in the room that today is the “military spending”.

The Author is: Economist – Expert in International Strategy and E.U.