European military spending must be more equal
A glance over the latest statistics from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, on the world’s fifteen biggest spenders on armaments and defence, provides a quick snapshot of the importance some countries place on military power. Overall, the world spends in excess of $1 trillion per year, and this figure has grown by $100 billion per year for the past few years. Almost ninety percent of that money is spent by Western powers. Here are the Stockholm Institute’s statistics, in tabular format:| Spending ($bil.) | Spending per person ($) | Population (mil.)[1] | |
| United States | 582.7 | 1,756 | 303 |
| European Union | 301.0 [2] | 614 | 490 |
| Britain | 59.2 | 990 | 60 |
| France | 53.1 | 875 | 64 |
| China | 49.5 | 37 | 1,320 |
| Germany | 37.0 | 341 | 82 |
| Russia | 34.7 | 244 | 142 |
| Italy | 29.9 | 514 | 59 |
| Saudi Arabia | 29.0 | 1,152 | 24 |
| India | 23.9 | 21 | 1,169 |
| South Korea | 21.9 | 455 | 48 |
| Australia | 13.8 | 676 | 21 |
| Canada | 13.5 | 414 | 33 |
| Brazil | 13.4 | 71 | 187 |
| Spain | 12.3 | 284 | 45 |
European Union Member States in bold.
European Union in italics.
[1] Official statistics
[2] Estimate, 2007
At first, these statistics probably do not seem that out of the ordinary. At the top is the United States, spending almost the same as the rest of the world combined, followed in distant succession by the United Kingdom, France, China, Germany, and so on. It might surprise many people that the amalgamated spending of the European Union’s Member States is so high—now comparable to American levels of defence spending in the late 1990s. In comparison to the Americans, however, the Europeans get far less firepower for their expenditure, this being a product of costly and wasteful duplication across twenty-seven different armed forces and defence ministries. Indeed, some have even estimated that any one military item costs Europeans ten times more than Americans in order to get a comparable output of firepower!
What really should stand out though is Spain. Strategies such as ‘naming and shaming’ are not normally appropriate when discussing fellow Europeans, but on this occassion the problem warrants closer attention. While thirty years ago, Spain was economically impoverished and recovering from the iron rule of General Franco’s dictatorship, it is today an advanced, affluent and democratic component of the European Union. With the continent’s fifth largest economy, and one of the highest levels of personal income in the world, Spain must take more responsibility alongside Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands for the security and defence of the European Union.
The statistics are as decisive as they are damning: Even though Spain’s population is only fifteen million people smaller than those of Italy, Britain and France, its defence spending is between a fifth and sixth of either the United Kingdom or France’s. Spending per person seems even worse. Whereas every Briton or French citizen contributes nearly $1,000 each to the upkeep of their armed forces, Spaniards spend a lousy $287 each. This sorry level of expenditure is even more astonishing given that Spain’s geopolitical location makes it very close to the north of Africa, a region of simmering tensions, problems and instabilities.
Spain is not the only culprit, of course. A gaggle of other Member States are also shirking their military responsibilities. The consequences of this are that the burden of the security and defence of the European Union is left to the larger and more globally oriented Member States, like Britain and France. Yet one group of European citizens should not have to foot the bill for the security of all the rest. This is not right; it runs against the grain of European solidarity and everything European integration stands for. Therefore, the time has come for a pan-European Union military and defence spending review. This idea has been mooted for several years now, but unfortunately no European government has plucked up the courage to begin the process, which is long overdue. Should Europeans eventually get round to such an audit, the result must emphatically not be that Member States like Britain, France and the Netherlands—which spend a higher proportion of their gross national incomes on security and defence—reduce their outlay to the weaker Member States’ level of spending, but rather, a common benchmark should be set for all.
Britain and France both spend approximately two and a half percent of their economies on armaments and defence, and this seems like a sensible level for all Europeans. Quite simply, at a time of rising military budgets in Russia, China, India, and East Asia more generally, the defence and security of Europe—our homeland—cannot be left only to one small group of Europeans, or to foreign countries like the United States. In an uncertain world, Europeans must stick together; with unity comes strength. But for unity, which also brings security, everyone must contribute equally to the pot. So Spain, Europe needs you to spend more on defence!

4 comments:
James Rogers, your article is illuminating. These matters are, of course, discussed at NATO and EU tables, but something more than just talk is needed.
The birth of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) offers a glimmer of hope for prodding the European Union towards more coherent foreign, security and defence polices.
France's new drive to re-integrate into the military structures of NATO (on certain terms) and President Sarkozy's efforts to snatch the pole position in EU defence matters offer new impetus to these processes, but tenor of these proposals seems less European than French.
In my opinion, the time is ripe for the non-aligned EU countries to become whole-heartedly European, including NATO membership.
Regards
Ralf Grahn
I have just finished reading some of your recent blogs and they are very interesting. I agree with you the European Union needs to work closer together in terms of its military spending and research.
This is not the time for a massive increase in funding for the European military. Currently there is little threat to the continent our armed forces are not able to deal with. Europe is only behind the USA on defense.
The biggest challange is Russia, we must invest billions more in eastern Europe to improve economies there. We need to do all we can to improve ties with Russia and one day see them in a position to join the European Union.
An EU with Russia in it would clearly be the most powerful economic and military force in the world. We would no longer have 1000s of Russian nuclear weapons facing us that we can do nothing about.
Union Englargement (not including Turkey) must be the top priority of Europe and funding should reflect this.
Dear Ralf: I agree with everything you say.
Dear Anonymous: I agree that we need to ensure the new post-2007 eastern Europe (i.e. Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus) must be changed into functioning constitutional democracies, but I strongly disagree with your assertion that our armed forces are sufficient for defending our continent from hostile forces. Had 11th September 2001 been targeted at London’s Canary Wharf, central Frankfurt, La Defense in Paris, or the city centres of Warsaw or Madrid, Europeans would have had insufficient means to remove the Taleban—and those they harboured—from power in Afghanistan. So no, we do not have credible armed forces; they are unable to comprehensively protect, extend and defend European interests at the moment.
As for Russia joining the European Union, all I can say is that I don’t think that is going to happen anytime soon, if at all. If we assume that ‘Europe’ is a community of values and common standards, Russia is now less European than Turkey. Whereas Turkey has made considerable strides in improving its government, reducing corruption, and implementing democratic reform, Russia under Vladimir Putin has gone in a different direction entirely. There can be no place in the new enlarged Europe for Russian authoritarianism.
Dear all, I am discovering this very interesting blog and appreciating the insights provided here about defence matters.
If overall, I agree with you (Ralph and James), I must disagree on two points:
1. I don't think it is a proper way to measure defence spending efficacy using the firepower per dollar spent on defence ratio.
The three more 'modern' armies in the world (US, UK, France) have become more than bureaucraties + an aggregate of tanks, planes and vessels : they've become integrated networks, comprehensive and swift reacting structures, fast learning and innovative organizations, they digitalized (or are about to complete digitalization of) the battlefield, lifting the fog of war like no other army can do and they are assuring themselves information dominance.
2nd point I disagree with: I think a european army like the French and British ones could have toppled the taliban regime. Because the Afghan model is about Special Forces on the terrain + the presence of fighter-bombers with precision guided weaponry + local allies (the Northern Alliance for instance).
All is required is carriers or land bases in neighboring countries (Douchambé in Tadjikistan, for example, is hosting french planes)
So the operations that took place in october - december 2001 were anything but a heavy expeditionnary force. It's only become a dozen of thousands strong NATO force years later.
Furthermore, diplomatic alliances are part of power. It has rarely occured that wars were not waged by coalitions. Being a member of NATO entitles the attacked nation to call upon the help of the other NATO countries.
It is not beyond imagination that the USA would have come to the help of England had her been bombed on sept 11th 2001.
I would conclude that, in my opinion, the main issue affecting Europe as a military power is that of the willingness of her political leaders to make use of her strength.
Even if the UK and France are great military powers in Europe they cannot be compared to the US superpower. But it is not so evident that a given number of states (EU states, in this case) have to gather as much 'firepower' or commit to as much military expenditure as the USA to be considered a global power. What if the USA had excess power?
Post a Comment