It is time for a change of approach, says Tom Sauer. Instead of increasing our defense budgets, we should focus on the ultimate goal: peace and security.
27.5 billion euros. That is how much money the new government, any government, will have to get from somewhere. Everyone will feel that, writes Tom Sauer, Professor of International Politics at the University of Antwerp, in The Standard. Every layer of society.
There is one government institution that does not have to give up anything, and even receives extra budget: defense. Although the army has already received more than 20 billion euros extra in recent years, De Wever’s memo plans an increase in the current budget, writes Sauer. Now that is 1.24 percent of the GNP, in 2029 that will be increased to 1.8 percent.
This increase will mean that we will spend almost 11 billion euros on defence in 2029, assuming annual GDP growth of 1.4 percent.
Disproportionate spending
Sauer calls the additional spending on defense disproportionate, especially compared to the urgent social and economic challenges that need to be solved. He points to the structural poverty rate in Belgium, which has been stuck at around 15 percent for years, and to the significant problems that schools and children face. He also notes that the war in Ukraine will probably be over by 2029.
Belgium is in the middle
Defence representatives have never been seen and heard as often as in recent years and are only too happy to claim that Belgium is at the back of the NATO rankings in terms of military capabilities or investments.
Sauer writes that Belgium is actually in the middle. This is not true if you only look at the percentage of the gross national product (GNP) that is spent on defense, but it is true if you consider the absolute amounts.
If we look at the average expenditure per capita in the NATO tables, we see that Belgium is easily in the middle. We also score above average when it comes to NATO operations.
“Finally, we are still one of the few NATO member states that houses American weapons of mass destruction in North Limburg. Unfortunately, that also earns points,” says Sauer.
A standard without much substantiation or depth
Sauer argues that we must fundamentally question whether NATO’s criteria for defense spending are the best benchmarks to follow. He argues that, although NATO once set a standard of 2 percent of GDP as a guideline, this standard is not necessarily the right goal to strive for. It is a standard that was set without much substantiation.
The European NATO member states (plus Canada) are already spending $430 billion on defense this year, Sauer argues. That is more than China (300 billion) and Russia (120 billion) combined. And that does not even include the immense American defense budget of more than $850 billion per year.
Alliances must be broken in times of peace
Sauer says he understands that in times of war or major threats, small countries tend to seek allies, to form alliances. But he says that people forget that in times of peace, these alliances must be replaced by a “more inclusive collective security system that is not directed against an external enemy.” Because there is no enemy in times of peace.
When we look back in history we see that both alliances of the world wars have been dissolved. Also the Warsaw Pact, a military alliance of communist countries led by the Soviet Union, fell apart after the end of the Cold War and the decline of the Soviet Union.
But NATO continued to exist after the Cold War
But NATO continued to exist after the Cold War. Sauer sees this as a remarkable departure from history.
Moscow has always had a hard time with this, especially when NATO expanded and moved closer to Russia.
When we look at the war in Ukraine, we must see that Putin bears the greatest responsibility, but we must also see that NATO has also made mistakes, Sauer believes.
What would be the impact of NATO’s actions and expansion into Ukraine in provoking or aggravating the war between Russia and Ukraine?
Sauer then says he is silent about failed military interventions that the US has carried out
The United States naturally wants to remain at the top, especially if its defense industry benefits from it. But according to Sauer, we in Europe should take a look at whether we have handled everything wisely in recent decades.
Sauer says he is not even talking about failed military interventions that the US has done. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, look at Libya. NATO was persuaded to participate in this.
It is also the same proponents of these interventions who are now also the proponents of higher defense budgets.
It’s time for a shift
Sauer argues that the ultimate goal must be peace and security. But the current way of achieving this now leads to a race to develop more and more powerful weapons, failed military interventions and the risk of nuclear escalation.
What is missing, according to Sauer, is a diplomatic initiative to end the current wars and a peace discourse that goes with it. This also applies to the media.
In addition, he says, there is a need for a security structure based on inclusion and cooperation, rather than alliances aimed at external enemies. Sauer also mentions nuclear disarmament.
Finally, Sauer suggests that we now need more development aid, not less, to prevent conflicts in the South and manage the associated migration flows.
It’s time for a shift.
Rethinking Defense Spending: Prioritizing Peace and Security over Arms Race
As governments around the world struggle to allocate budgetary resources, a crucial question arises: should we prioritize increasing defense spending or focus on achieving the ultimate goal of peace and security? According to Tom Sauer, Professor of International Politics at the University of Antwerp, it’s high time for a change of approach.
The Cost of Defense
In Belgium, the government is set to allocate 27.5 billion euros to defense, a staggering figure that will be felt across every layer of society. This sum is expected to increase to 1.8% of the country’s Gross National Product (GNP) by 2029, amounting to almost 11 billion euros in defense spending alone. While the army has already received over 20 billion euros in extra funding in recent years, Sauer argues that this disproportionate spending is unjustified, particularly when compared to the urgent social and economic challenges facing Belgium.
A Disproportionate Focus on Defense
Belgium’s poverty rate has remained stagnant at around 15% for years, while schools and children struggle with significant problems. Moreover, with the war in Ukraine likely to be resolved by 2029, the logic behind increasing defense spending is questionable. Sauer points out that NATO’s criteria for defense spending are based on a flawed standard, set without much substantiation or depth.
A Middle-of-the-Pack Performer
Contrary to the claims of defense representatives, Belgium is actually in the middle of NATO’s rankings in terms of military capabilities and investments. When considering absolute amounts, Belgium fares well, and its participation in NATO operations is above average. Furthermore, the country is one of the few NATO member states to house American weapons of mass destruction in North Limburg.
Challenging the Status Quo
Sauer argues that it’s essential to question the validity of NATO’s defense spending standards. With European NATO member states and Canada already spending $430 billion on defense, surpassing China’s and Russia’s combined expenditure, the narrative that we need to spend more to ensure security is dubious. Moreover, the immense American defense budget of over $850 billion per year further skews the global picture.
Breaking Alliances in Times of Peace
Historically, alliances have been dissolved during times of peace, as seen in the post-World War I and II eras, as well as the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact after the Cold War. However, NATO has continued to exist and expand, often provoking tensions with Russia. Sauer believes that in times of peace, we must transition from a system of alliances to a more inclusive collective security system that doesn’t rely on an external enemy.
Rethinking NATO’s Role
When examining the war in Ukraine, it’s essential to acknowledge both Putin’s responsibility and NATO’s mistakes. The expansion of NATO into Ukraine has contributed to the current conflict, and Sauer questions the wisdom of NATO’s actions in this regard.
A Shift in Focus
The ultimate goal of peace and security can no longer be achieved through a simplistic arms race. Instead, we must prioritize a more nuanced approach, focusing on conflict prevention, diplomacy, and cooperation
