Consider this: More people died of AIDS on Sept. 11 (and every day since) than died during the terrorist attacks in New York, and over 8,000 people die from diseases every day that are easily preventable by vaccinations.

AIDS has claimed 25 million lives to date, yet assistance from the developed countries has gotten only a few AIDS sufferers in developing countries on antiretroviral therapy. And poorer countries have had to cut their budgets for vaccinations and immunization in the past decade due to lack of funds.

Does the world become a safer place through military might or does it become safer through the building of social and economic institutions, and improvements in education, health care, economic safety nets, microcredit loans, land reform and women's freedom and rights?

This is a question we need to ask now that so many resources will be diverted to military budgets and defense spending will rapidly increase as a consequence of terrorism. It's regrettable that only a decade after the end of the Cold War we are again debating the existence of an "axis of evil." Wouldn't we benefit more by focusing instead on an "axis of empowerment"?

We hear that the rich nations are already doing enough for the poor, and should not be bothered any more. If that is the case, then consider this:

The Marshall Plan cost the United States about 2 percent of its GNP for several years. That was a worthy investment that paid back dividends to the U.S. in terms of trade and a stable partnership. Now, according to Jeffrey Sachs of the Center for International Development at Harvard, the U.S. does not even provide one-twentieth of 1 percent of its GNP for foreign assistance.

If the U.S. simply raised its foreign assistance to just two-tenths of 1 percent, that would raise about $10 billion a year. Imagine what that could do for disease control, primary education, clean water, and vaccinations in impoverished places around the world. It has been estimated that $6 billion can provide universal elementary education. The $10 billion from the U.S. could probably be leveraged for another $20 billion from Europe and Japan.

If foreign assistance cannot be given, let us at least reduce the sale of arms to developing countries. According to Amartya Sen, the 1998 Nobel Prize winning economist from India, presently 81 percent of total global arms exports come from the five permanent members of the Security Council. The U.S. accounts for over 50 percent of this. And ironically, the developing countries, which can least afford it, are importing 68 percent of this arms trade.

Can security for both rich and poor nations be defined in terms of military might or should it be defined in terms of the gift of life?

We all know that poverty by itself does not directly lead to terrorism, but exclusion, hopelessness and lack of opportunity breeds conflicts. That has become very clear from the discussion and debate that has taken place since the events of last September.

So what are some answers? Here are a few possible solutions:

First, make education a matter of global urgency that unites us in its mission and purpose. Let us learn from the Meiji Code of Education back in 1869, which mandated (under the Charter Oath) that "there would be no community with an illiterate family." From 1872-1911, 40 percent of Japan's municipal budget was spent on education. By 1913, Japan had become the largest producer of books in the world. It is clear that education is the foundation of hope, inclusion and opportunity, and needs our primary attention over all else.

Second, let us revisit the global commitment to financial assistance as discussed above. The rich have never been so rich, and the poor have never been so poor. According to Sachs, a few added tenths of 1 percent of GNP can do what has never been possible before in history. Let this assistance be directed toward the most basic areas, such as health care, education, vaccinations and microcredit loans to women. The latter will directly impact the population issues that the world is facing today. Studies have shown that anything that increases the voice of women in family decisions reduces the fertility rate. And providing women with a livelihood is a big part of that goal. The security of the West will be much better protected as a result of such financial assistance.

Third, reduce tariffs on developing nations and enable full trade liberalization. The rich nations impose their highest import taxes on precisely those industries in which most of the poor work -- farming and low-tech manufacturing. According to the World Bank, the average worker in the poorer countries faces tariffs roughly twice as high as the average worker in the rich countries. Overproduction by American and European farmers, for example, who receive a substantial amount of government subsidies, cripple the export prospects of rivals such as Argentina and India. It is believed that full trade liberalization could boost the annual income of developing countries by anything from $200 to $500 billion annually. That is a more dignified way for them to recover their economies than to receive assistance, and is more sustaining in the long term.

Fourth, enable more partnerships between industry, governments and international institutions to fight specific global challenges. A perfect example is the River Blindness Partnership, which has in about 25 years virtually eliminated river blindness from all the countries in West Africa. This program brought together 19 African countries and their communities; international institutions like the World Bank, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Development Program; and the private sector represented by the pharmaceutical company Merck and Co. A big part of this success was the donation by Merck of 250 million tablets of the drug Ivermectin to treat river blindness. Since the program started, 18 million children have been born who face no risk of this disease and 40 million people are currently protected from it due to the widespread availability of the medicine.

Not only U.S. security but global security as well requires that the world's impoverished be provided the dignity of health care, education and food. With over 2.8 billion living on less than $2 a day, do we really need more military might to crush evil? Or do we need to create an axis of empowerment that is more basic, more fundamental in its approach? With education, financial assistance, reduction of tariffs, trade liberalization and strategic partnerships the world can be a much safer place for all. Otherwise, the harsh realities of today can only continue. And what could be more empowering than giving somebody hope, self-respect and, in some cases, the gift of life itself?