How U.S. Militarisation Undermines Development in the Global South

By Minna A. / GICJ

Summary 

As human rights and development crises such as humanitarian emergencies, climate change, broadening inequality, and violent conflict exponentially increase worldwide, with global military expenditure reaching an unprecedented high. Global defence spending has surpassed the $2.4 trillion mark, with the United States accounting for approximately 40% of the total in 2023. These figures may often be justified under the cape of “National Security” and “Global Stability”, however, the uncovered consequences for the Global South may prove far more severe with states battling chronic underdevelopment, heightening economic dependency, environmental degradation, as well as widespread human rights violations. 

This article seeks to explore how the global military structure of the United States, which includes arms transfer, overseas military bases, as well as defence aid, could potentially undermine achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and targets and thus violate the core principles of international human rights law. It argues that the militarisation of foreign policy could directly contribute to impeding peacebuilding, sustainable development, and the support for human dignity in the global south. 

Arms Transfer and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions)

Goal 16 of the SDGs promotes the building and development of peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice for all, as well as creating and maintaining accountable institutions. Nevertheless, this goal can be actively undermined through the vast and unregulated flow of arms, especially those originating from the US, to conflict-torn or vulnerable regions of the global south. 

As mentioned in the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) 2023 Yearbook, overproliferation of conventional weapons could contribute to prolonging armed conflict, increase in civilian casualties, and weakening of state institutions. US arms exports, with potentially ineffective end-use monitoring and enforcement, have empowered conflicts where the utilisation of such weapons have reportedly been in ways that violate international law. 

In the Human Rights Council’s Fifty Eight Session, a report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the impact of arms transfers on human rights supported and emphasized the suggestion that exporting states have a credible responsibility to prevent arms from being utilized in ways that can potentially contribute to human rights abuses and violations, or obstruct peace processes (A/HRC/58/41). The continued supply of arms to states and parties possibly engaged in violating international law contradicts that duty and directly lends a hand to the erosion of peace and justice in countries at the receiving end of those policies. 

Military Bases and Erosion of Sovereignty: Implications with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

The growing network of U.S military bases worldwide (estimated to be over 750 across more than 80 countries) showcases a structural challenge to national sovereignty, especially in the global south. The bases may often operate under unequal bilateral agreements enabling extensive privileges and immunity to the U.S, while host nations potentially face restricted agency and autonomy over their own territories. 

This imbalance in power could fuel domestic and international inequalities, conflicting with SDG 10, which targets reducing inequality within and among states. Instead of military presence affecting substantial investment within local communities, it could potentially bring about environmental degradation, displacement, and economic systems staged around military dependency rather than sustainable development and growth. 

The UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights noted that foreign military activities within the Global South or vulnerable states may contribute to long-term environmental harm as well as local health crises, which could disproportionately impact marginalised communities and deepen pre-existing inequalities. There has been a call for input for the Special Rapporteur’s 2025 thematic report to the United Nations General Assembly in October. 

Additionally, General Assembly Resolution A/RES/79/164  on the negative impact of foreign military intervention and occupation emphasises that militarisation undermines the rights to self-determination and sustainable development. Presence of foreign military power is not only a growing human rights concern but a structural challenge to equitable development as well. 

Militarisation and Diverted Resources: Undermining Progress on SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

Military expenditure by powerful states can consistently hold large defence budgets globally, curating ripple effects, particularly in the global south. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, U.S military spending in 2022 reached over $877 billion. Broad attraction to investment in militarisation only encourages a global arms race, which could potentially incentivise governments in lower-income states to divert scarce needed resources away from essential public services in areas like health, education, and poverty mitigation. 

Thus, in consideration, this may directly hamper progress on SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). In the Sustainable Development Goals Report 2024, setbacks and obstacles in poverty reduction and alleviation, as well as health infrastructures, have regressed and worsened in fragile and vulnerable conflict-affected regions where militarisation may tend to be highest. Instead of focusing on addressing only root causes of insecurity in poverty and inequality as well as weak institutions, confronting military prioritisation and strategies which exacerbate instability is vital. 

Furthermore, the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs stresses that disarmament and sustainable development initiatives could be undermined through excessive military spending, as seen in their 2020 Occasional Paper No. 35 ‘Rethinking Unconstrained Military Spending’. Human security can be seriously compromised when development budgets are overshadowed by a focus and prioritisation of defence spending. Marginalised communities and the youth, particularly in post-colonial contexts, bear the heavy burden of lack of investment, support, and prioritisation in their social infrastructures. Redirecting global focus and financing from militarisation to sustainable development is thus essential.

From Militarisation to Human-Centred Development:

The current paradigm of militarisation must be challenged, and a human-centred model which prioritises sustainable development, equity, and peace, needs to be empowered. The UN Development Programme Report 2022 underscored that true security can actually stem from maintaining dignity, opportunity and rights rather than increased arms or surveillance. Militarisation driven and empowered by dominant actors and parties does not exist in isolation, it rather connects to the global narrative of strategic interest, where security is weaponised, and peace is merely sidelined. 

Reinvestments in SDG 16 and SDG 10 initiatives and programs are needed to empower such shifts toward human security. Nations of the Global South whose development have been hindered by foreign interventions, conditional aid, as well as unequal trade, need to reclaim more space in international decision-making, resisting normalised militarised development models and programs, as well as strengthen and engage with grassroots accountability mechanisms. 

Unchecked and unregulated unilateral coercive measures, which may often be accompanied by military intervention, can undermine and disengage democratic governance, civic spaces, as well as betray the public trust as seen in the 2021 report presented by the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights at the 48th Human Rights Council Session (A/HRC/48/59). 

International cooperation needs to focus and explore demilitarisation and the democratisation of global finance to genuinely strengthen and empower communities

Geneva International Centre for Justice (GICJ) emphasises the necessity of accountability in regards to the violation of human rights and development regression due to militarisation in the Global South. GICJ supports global disarmament and demilitarisation initiatives as essential foundations towards sustainable development and ensuring the prevention of human rights abuses, particularly in vulnerable states. States have a duty to enforce international arms embargoes, integrate arms control into development strategies, and redirect favoured military expenditure to build inclusive, sustainable infrastructure, especially in conflict-affected fragile communities. 

Sources:

1. SIPRI Military Expenditure Database: https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex
2. UN Charter: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
3. UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/41/128 (Declaration on the Right to Development): https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-right-development
4. UN Office of Disarmament 2023 Yearbook, Vol.48: https://yearbook.unoda.org/en-us/2023/
5. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report 2021-2022: https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2021-22
6. Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Impact of arms transfers on human rights: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/arms-transfers-are-not-human-rights-free-zone-un-report
7. Military Empires: A Visual Guide to Foreign Bases: https://worldbeyondwar.org/military-empires
8. UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights, Call for Input 2025: https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2025/call-input-military-activities-and-toxics
9. UN General Assembly, Resolution (A/RES/79/164): https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/79/164
10. Sustainable Development Goals Report, 2024: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2024/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2024.pdf
11. UN Development Programme 2022: https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2023-04/Annual-Report-2022.pdf
12. UN General Assembly, 2021, A/76/174 :https://docs.un.org/en/A/76/174
13. UN Human Rights Council,Unilateral coercive measures: notion, types and qualification (A/HRC/48/59): https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/48/59
14. UNODA, Rethinking Unconstrained Military Spending (2020): https://disarmament.unoda.org/publications/occasionalpapers/unoda-occasional-papers-no-35-april-2020/