Cost Behind the Crisis

For the past seven months the eyes of the world have been turned towards the Middle East. For 5 ½ months we hoped and prayed that war would be averted, that economic sanctions would be effective, that diplomatic negotiations would be successful. As we saw this less and less likely to happen, we became increasingly aware that the costs of a war would be extremely high. Stauros, USA, is an organization committed to challenging the problem of human suffering. We would be negligent in carrying out our mission if we did not focus now on the terrible suffering brought about by war. A statement made by Pax Christi, USA, states that "the use of force in the Persian Gulf runs the risk of escalating into a conflict that (could) result in untold and unimaginable suffering, death and destruction...we will be left holding in our hands the mutilated bodies of Arab women and children, of teen-aged boys and girls from the United States, of reservists who are fathers and mothers of young families. No amount of rhetoric and rationalizing will restore a single life, or compensate for the agony of those left maimed, those left widowed and orphaned, homeless and destitute." When we reflect on the suffering caused by war, we see an almost endless list of men, women, children, whose lives are changed, never to be the same again. No matter what our opinion may be regarding this war, we cannot ignore the suffering brought about by it. Amata Miller, IHM, in an article first printed in Network Today and reprinted in Pax Christi, USA, reminds us that, while the sufferings brought about by war are felt most keenly by the peoples immediately affected, they are also felt by many other very vulnerable groups of peoples. She presents us with insights supported by statistics, and reminds us again that our world is a global village, that what happens in one corner of the world affects millions of peoples, that we have a responsibility for the well-being of all people caught in this terrible tragedy.

Since the Persian Gulf crisis began in August, the news media have conveyed the human dimension of the crisis. TV vignettes show us families separated by deployment of reserves and evacuations of women and children from Kuwait. Our sympathies are aroused by stories of the physical discomforts and culture shock experienced by US troops in tents in the Arabian desert.

Even more moving are pictures of thousands of refugees languishing without shelter, food or water in the desert heat. According to some estimates, 60 percent of the population of Kuwait has fled the country since the Iraqi invasion.

With each passing week, the real costs of the crisis become more and more apparent. Uncaptured on TV film, however, are the less obvious but equally real costs of Hussein's action and the multifaceted response of the world's nations to it. Gone from our TV screens and newspapers are the stories chronicling struggles for freedom which generated so much hope last fall and spring for the coming of a new, more peaceable world order. Our national preoccupation is once again not with peace but on fighting an identified enemy to protect "our way of life."

Social analysis from a faith perspective leads us to ask who is losing as well ask who is gaining from this situation. Only thus can we meet our obligations as citizens and illuminate the moral dimensions of the US policy response.

Our focus here is on how the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the US-initiated military response to it has burdened the poor nations of Eastern Europe and the most vulnerable citizens in the United States.

Effects on Eastern Europe

Eastern European nations, previously insulated from world economic fluctuations by their special relationship with the USSR, face a "baptism by fire" into the world of market economics. The trade embargo, the higher oil prices, and the diversion of Western attention, as well as public and private funding from Eastern Europe, are making the transition from socialism to capitalism even more complex and frustrating for the new governments.

For example, Poland's loss of its main Middle Eastern trade partner, Iraq, is costing it $1 billion in arms sales and constructions contracts. Much of the payment was expected in the form of Iraqi oil, saving Poland scarce foreign exchange. Because of the crisis, Poland must now pay for the oil in hard currency and at higher prices.

The other oil importing economies of Eastern Europe also face the volatility and higher prices of world oil markets now, since they no longer have the assured supply of Soviet oil at regulated prices. Only Romania, which is one of the largest oil suppliers of the United States, stands to gain from the current crisis.

In addition, Eastern European leaders requesting grants and loans from Western democracies find that the United States has been there first, seeking help in paying for the costs of Desert Shield and for humanitarian aid to the victims of the Persian Gulf crisis.

Effects on Poor People in the United States

The present and future situation for poor and working class Americans is also being worsened by the Persian Gulf crisis. Uncertainty over oil prices and the future have contributed to the slowdown of the economy, boosting unemployment rates. Wholesale prices rose by more than one percent in August and in September, raising the spectre of double digit inflation.

The Pentagon says that the costs of Operation Desert Shield are $46 million per day, about $2.5 billion per month. No one is estimating what the cost will be if there is a war. According to the Wall Street Journal, the cost is expected to be $15 billion in fiscal year 1991, with other nations expected to pay about half of it.

The funding will be "off-budget"-that is, it will come through special legislation over and above the regular Pentagon budget-and it will not be counted toward the Gramm-Rudman budget deficit reduction targets. This technicality, however, does not prevent it from adding to the national debt, increasing the interest on that debt, and worsening the burden on future generations.

And it does not prevent it from contributing to our continued neglect of what 327 economists writing to the Joint Economic Committee called our "third deficit-the deficiency of public investment in our people and our economic infrastructure." The Center for Community Change, which has gathered information on the cost of this neglect, estimates that to overcome problems in education, health care, poverty, the environment and infrastructure such as roads and bridges, we would need an additional annual public investment of $130 billion.

Calls for this investment have consistently met "empty wallet" responses from the Reagan-Bush administrations and Congress. Yet no questions about costs were asked before Operation Desert Shield was mounted or the S&L bailout initiated. How much longer will our children, our homeless, our ill, our unemployed have to wait before the nation gives priority to their needs?

The postponement of arms spending reductions because of the Gulf crisis also victimizes the poor of our nation. Before August, the Pentagon budget was headed downward, slowly but still surely. A "peace dividend" at last seemed possible. Clearly the well-organized and powerful military industrial complex have seized upon the opportunity to argue against reductions in spending. This has left only the political anathema of new taxes as a way to make headway in reducing the budget deficit. It also leaves almost no room for any new initiatives to meet domestic human needs. Once again funding for the military takes almost unquestioned priority over the needs of the most vulnerable.

There are those in the United States for whom this Persian Gulf situation is bringing economic gain. On the "winners" side are military suppliers whose government contracts have been renewed or at least not canceled as soon as expected. Oil producers in states like Texas are finding $40-per-barrel oil prices a windfall. If oil prices stabilize at $25 per barrel, Texas will gain $8 billion per year in new revenue and 70,000 jobs. Yet no one is suggesting a windfall of profits tax on military suppliers and oil producers as a way of financing the military excursion in the Saudi desert. The burdens will fall, once more, most heavily on middle-class taxpayers who will foot the bill, and on those whose basic needs will go unmet because of underfunding of low income housing, child care, health care, and education in this nation. Amid all the complexities and ambiguities of the situation, the real human costs being borne by the most vulnerable of the world's people must be taken into account in judging the proper course of action in an increasingly interdependent world.

Editorial Comments

This article was written prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Stauros spoke with Sister Amata and she indicated that, although the statistics she quotes are changed because of the war, she feels that the costs have only accelerated. The exception is the price of oil which seems to have stabilized.

The article focused on the effects of the war on the peoples of Eastern Europe and on the poor of the United States, but Sister Amata also points out that it has a major effect on many other countries. Latin American countries, in particular, Brazil and Chile, depend heavily on imported oil as well as other goods dependent on oil. The world's poorest countries, those of sub-Saharan Africa, still struggling to recover from the droughts, now face interruption of trade patterns. Asian countries such as the Philippines, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh had thousands of workers in Kuwait. These workers, many of whom are now refugees, had to leave jobs and savings behind. The money they sent home was a major source of foreign exchange in their respective nations. These workers, along with their families, now join the growing ranks of unemployed in these nations. Middle Eastern nations such as Jordan, Egypt and Turkey lose trade and tourist income. In addition, Jordan has to handle the vast numbers of refugees.

Sr. Amata's article calls us to reflect on the terrible sufferings of war, sufferings endured not only by those directly involved, but by thousands of people far from the war zone. We need to ask ourselves if we have become inured to what war really means. Has war lost its contextual meaning, become almost familiar to us? We are in the Christian season of Lent, a time when we reflect on the Cross. Many feel that the Cross, too, has lost its contextual meaning, become too familiar. We use the Cross for decoration, for jewelry. Do we see the Cross as a symbol of power, of respectability? How do we really see the Cross? How do we really see war? As we meditate on the very real sufferings of Jesus, on his very real death, let us parallel those meditations with the very real suffering of war, the very real death it brings, not only bodily death, but death of ideals, of hopes, of dreams.

Dr. Amata Miller, IHM, is Education Coordinator for NETWORK (a national Catholic social justice lobby of lay and religious women and men) and one of the speakers at the 1991 Pax Christi National Assembly. This edited article is reprinted from NETWORK CONNECTION, 806 Rhode Island Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20018 (Nov/Dec 1990 issue) and is reprinted with permission.

Pax Christi, USA, 348 East Tenth Street, Erie, Pennsylvania 16503, (814)453-4955. Pax Christi, USA has as its primary objective "to work with all people for peace for all humankind, always witnessing to the peace of Christ." The movement springs from a gospel vision of peace. It asks its members to ground their peacemaking in prayer, study and action on the message of Jesus. Pax Christi keeps as its priorities the Christian vision of disarmament, a just world order, primacy of conscience, education for peace and alternatives to violence.