Band 4+: A global international body proposes a binding agreement that restricts individual countries from spending more than a fixed percentage of their national budget on military expansion, redirecting those excess funds to climate resilience and humanitarian aid. Proponents argue this is essential for global stability. Opponents argue it violates national sovereignty and undermines national defense. Take a clear stand either in favor of or against this binding agreement.

This is a very complicated situation that touches upon national sovereignty and global issues. Redirecting funds to solving climate and humanitarian fields are highly proposed by pacific activists, but it breaks down because of national interests. I’m of the opinion that we should prioritize national goals and interests over global moods.

First and foremost, every country in the world is independent and it can make its own decision based on concerns. No one can take away this freedom and insist on doing something that violates national sovereignty. As a result, a contry can lost its identity if the global community exert more pressure.

On top of that, reducing military budget is dangerous in long-term. What if a country got attacked by someone, and it couldn’t defend itself because of lack of military power? It would definitely become a grave problem. Take Ukraine, for instance. It lost its nuclear and high military power due to agreements that guaranteed freedom and sovereignty; Nevertheless, Russia still attacked Ukraine and violated its independency.

At the end of the day, every country in the world has rights to control its own budget and implement national interests despite global unwarranted requirements.