Mary Kaldor says enhancing human security and democracy is critical in any defence spending calculus
There is no question that the advent of Trump has triggered a long overdue rethinking of European Security. It represents an opportunity to move away from traditional defence thinking, anchored in the legacy of the Cold War. If we are serious about ensuring the safety of people on the European continent and beyond, then this requires more than a knee-jerk reaction to increase defence spending from 2.3% of GDP to 2.5% and to cut foreign aid from 0.5% to 0.3%. We need to analyse what is required and then consider what this involves in terms of expenditure.
What we are facing is a political assault on democracy that also includes a military dimension. That assault comes from both Trump and Putin and consists of support for the far right in Europe as well as efforts at destabilisation. It is part of a growing transactional oligarchic geopolitics that undermines the role of the UN and other multilateral institutions and exacerbates insecurity in large parts of the world. In some cases, as in Ukraine, Syria, Georgia or Gaza, this assault on democracy as well as on international institutions that are supposed to uphold peace and international law involves violence and military means.
So what does this mean for rethinking our security? First, it means that the aim is to strengthen democracy, multilateralism and the rights-based international rule of law. We are only as safe as the rest of the world we live in. Our security capabilities can only contribute to the safety of people living in the British Isles if they also contribute to global security. We need to be able to defend Britain but also contribute to multilateral security capabilities capable of responding to a range of global emergencies such as aggression, genocide, famine or climate-induced disasters. This is what I term human security.
Second, it means that we do need military force to contribute to those states threatened by aggression as well as protecting civilians from genocide or massive violations of human rights. That includes support for Ukraine as well as the defence of vulnerable states such as Moldova, Georgia, and other frontline states that border Russia. That defence needs to be conventional, not nuclear, and defensive rather than offensive, aimed at preventing aggression while not threatening to attack. We also need to retain the capability to contribute to UN missions in conflicts worldwide.
Any conventional defence effort needs to take into account the way technology is changing the nature of military force. NATO typically relies on expensive platforms like aircraft, tanks and ships, which have become increasingly vulnerable as a consequence of advances in lethality and accuracy. What matters nowadays for defence, and this is something learned from the war in Ukraine, is people, missiles and drones.
Third, our contribution needs to be integrated into a wider European effort to avoid duplication and waste, whether this is a result of closer ties to the European Union or within the framework of NATO or something similar that is less dependent on the US. Whether this approach is more or less expensive than our current posture is something that needs to be calculated not assumed.
Fourth, given that the threat is primarily political, we need to take into account the trade-offs between spending on defence and preserving welfare, reducing inequality and tackling climate change not only in Britain but worldwide. Unless the government is prepared to relax the fiscal rules and/or tax the wealthy, popular frustration will grow, and increased defence spending could lead to more insecurity. NATO’s focus tends to be on critical infrastructure and the provision of public services, both of which are important. But resilience also means addressing widespread dissatisfaction in our society, not just because this is being manipulated by the far right.
Fifth, and relatedly, it is mad to cut foreign aid. This is part of our security policy. It contributes to humanitarian assistance and reconstruction during and after conflict as well as addressing the causes of conflict and forced displacement worldwide.
Finally, we need to talk about nuclear weapons. It has been a taboo subject for far too long. At the very least, we need to have a public discussion about the very expensive and probably unworkable missiles we are buying from the United States. Part of the knee-jerk reaction is the assumption that American nuclear weapons keep us safe. We will only know whether deterrence works if it fails. The modernisation and upgrading of such weapons by all nuclear powers is very dangerous. Obama called it ‘insane’. The more nuclear weapons that are around, the more likely they are to be used, either deliberately or by accident. If we ban cluster munitions or landmines because of their indiscriminate effects on civilians, why do we treat nuclear weapons, which are indiscriminate on a terrifying scale, differently? Is this an opportunity to establish a European nuclear-free zone? This is something that would greatly enhance the standing of European countries as bastions of peace and democracy.
The Government will publish the results of its Strategic Defence Review soon. Let us hope that this will provide a moment to air these issues.