Despite the increasing presence and recognition of social movements in all parts of the world, they have not yet been able to make any decisive impact on resolution of most urgent issues. While respecting their many-sided creative and constructive contributions, the need for improvements and greater effectiveness should be re-emphasised, so that these movements can actually contribute ro resolving urgent issues like climate change and disarmament before it is too late.

These movements lack strong linkages with each other, often functioning in isolation. This can lead to a tendency to take more extreme views without recognising the need to adjust with other desirable objectives. Also this means these movements cannot combine their strengths to have a higher impact on policy making.

This is unfortunate because in reality the most important movements for socio-economic justice, equality, environment protection and peace are closely related to each other. All three movements need similar changes in value systems for their success – a change away from dominance and greed and towards sharing and cooperation.

The perpetuation of economic inequalities is a constant source of tension which can at any time lead to conflict. Whenever a large number of people are deprived of basic needs, they can easily be led towards violence. So reduction of economic inequalities and fulfillment of basic needs of all people will certainly lead to more conducive conditions for peace. On the other hand establishment of peace will lead to more avourable conditions for meeting basic needs of all. The annual military expenditure of the world is estimated to be many times the additional annual expense of meeting some of the most pressing needs of poorer countries. Hence a significant reduction in military expenditure can provide most of the resources needed to meet basic needs of all people.

The Human Development Report (HDR) reported, “The Gulf war is estimated to have cost $1billion a day. The cost of just ten days of war was enough to immunise all the children of Third World against vaccine-preventable diseases over the next ten years”. If we count the long term costs of treating injuries and illnesses caused by war, then the costs increase further. This is particularly true when weapons causing long term damage are used, as in the well-established massive use of depleted uranium in Iraq and deadly chemical weapons in Vietnam. The actual costs of the military build-up are pushed up due to yet another factor – the bias towards military research can distort the entire pattern of scientific research.

Heavy military spending has acquired a momentum of its own and shows no signs of diminishing even if security threats diminish. According to the HDR, “The huge commercial and military organisations are fairly inflexible, and cutting arms production and procurement can bring serious problems.” The arms industry is known to pay scant regard to welfare aspects of its functioning and is full of murky, clandestine deals which ultimately lead to the avoidable loss of thousands of lives, mostly in developing countries.

The HDR adds, “Arms dealers continue to ship weapons to potential trouble spots, showing little concern about fanning the flames of conflict. Much of the pressure for international sales comes from producers promoting overseas sales to recoup overheads and maximize profits…Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the heads of some industrial countries take a keen interest in promoting international arms sales.”

Similarly there are close linkages with the environment protection movement. Environmental destruction can increasingly lead to or contribute to conflict situations. Ecological ruin destroys livelihoods and this in turn leads to conflict. Even more significantly it deprives people of the most basic of all needs, water, leading to water-conflicts among regions or nations. A senior UN official has raised the possibility of major wars being fought in future over the distribution of water. On the other hand war and conflict – as also the build-up of arsenals of destructive weapons – lead to large scale environmental destruction. Matthias Finger writes in an article ‘The Military, the Nation State and the Environment’ (The Ecologist): “It has been estimated that the operations of the armed forces may account for at least 6-10 per cent of global air pollution and that military-related activities may be responsible for 10-30 per cent of all global environmental degradation. Furthermore, the armed forces of the world are the largest producers of hazardous chemicals and nuclear wastes.”

Bernard Lowen has written about the Gulf war&’s oil fires: “These fires spew noxious gases, soot and oil, mercilessly degrading the frail global eco-system. The burning wells and oil lakes released 50,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide daily – a prime cause of acid rain – and 1,00,000 tonnes of sooty smoke. Meteorological satellites have detected smoke at a height of 6-7 kms and as far away as 2,000 kms from the source. Sunlight-absobing plumes of smoke have been measured over an area of 42,000 square kms. The most dangerous aftermath relates to the release of greenhouse gases and sub-blocking soot prodution. The damage caused by the unhealthy smog and acid rain to trees, lakes, streams and rivers is incalculable and will continue long into the future.”

Hence at a basic level the concerns of these three leading movements are in conformity with each other. The conformity extends further to the movement for gender equality. The movement for equality cannot be complete without incorporating equal socio-economic rights of women. As grassroots environmental movements have revealed time and again, rural women respond very well to the challenge of saving forests and water sources as their own lives are linked more closely with these and other natural resources. On the other hand, the protection of environment contributes greatly to the welfare of village women.

In modern war the proportion of civilian victims is increasing steadily, and women increasingly bear the most burden. War refugees now have a very high percentage of women and children. In many wars, thousands of women become victims of rape and sexual violence. On the other hand the compassion and emotive appeal which only women can bring can contribute greatly to the success of the peace movement.

The compassion that is inherent in all these movements will certainly also help the animal rights movement. The environment movement and peace movement will obviously make the habitats of innumerable species safer. On the other hand, protection of many animals will improve the productivity of farms and improve the livelihood of farmers and fisherfolk. Vegetarian diets will not only protect animals but in addition will help to reduce hunger by making more productive use of scarce food. Reducing the use of dangerous pesticides will improve the quality of food while also protecting several species which are not harmful.

While emphasising the harmony of these various movements and components of relevant social change, we are of course aware that temporary, short-term conflicts can also appear, but as long as the basic objective of genuine well-being of all is respected, these smaller conflicts can be resolved without disturbing the basic harmony. 

The writer is a free-lance journalist who has been involved with several social initiatives and movements.