Against rearmament
New for Tribune
Over at Tribune I have a new article - ‘Against Rearmament.’ It argues that we are now in one of the most dangerous periods since the end of the second world war.
Extreme warmongering is normalised, and the drive for higher military spending across Europe and the NATO member states is unrelenting.
The choices and conflicts caused by rearmament are an unavoidable reality of the current phase of politics: the Left must organise its actions, priorities and programme accordingly – including its economic programme – so that concerted opposition to rising military spending and warmongering is a central priority.
You can read the whole thing here. Thanks to Tribune under its new editorial team for running it.
To go alongside the Tribune article, I have pulled together some of the sources as notes below.
US pressure for higher defence spending
It is often argued by proponents of higher military spending that the other NATO member states need to step up because the USA is not a reliable ally. But it is the USA itself that is driving the pressure for higher military expenditure. As an example, here in the Times (£) the US ambassador pressed Andy Burnham to meet American demands for Britain to raise its spending. Here (£) and here (£), Trump’s denunciations of Spain for its failure to meet his demands are recorded.
Facts and figures
This helpful House of Commons paper sets out the NATO requirements for increased spending on defence as a proportion of GDP, ie ensuring at least 3.5% of GDP is devoted to spending on core defence requirements; and spending a further 1.5% of GDP on defence and security-related investments.
The Tribune article refers to Britain being the country with either the fifth or sixth largest military spending in the world. Take your pick: from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute here, or the International Institute for Strategic Studies here. These sites also show other nations’ military expenditure referred to.
I referred to the teachers’ pay award being unfunded, which means – if left unresolved - schools will have to find cuts in other spending to pay for it. The School Teachers’ Review Body (STRB) has recommended a higher than expected pay settlement for teachers, but the DfE’s funding of that does not meet the cost. Details here. This is an example of tight decisions in departments across government, whilst the argument about defence spending is about how high it should go and by when.
On the question of German rearmament but austerity measures for the population, with a rising pension age, attacks on sick leave rights and cuts to government jobs. Some details here.
‘Military Keynesianism’?
CND’s excellent Alternative Defence Review discusses the ineffectiveness of military spending compared to other more productive spending. Read it here. Last year the Guardian reported a study by Greenpeace looking at the economies of Germany, Italy and Spain that concluded that investing in healthcare, education or green technologies creates more jobs and growth than investing in defence. It can be found here. Also in this vein but not referred to in the Tribune article is this Transition Security Project briefing, Buying The Dip, which formed the basis of a major Guardian report on the downsides for jobs and services caused by rising defence spending. Detailed reports and research such as these deserve much wider circulation on the Left and in the labour movement.
Masters of war
Macron’s “l’économie de guerre” – ‘We have launched a war economy’, Le Monde
Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin said his message to Andy Burnham was that he must be ‘almost like a wartime prime minister,’ BBC
‘There’s no point worrying about our welfare if the cities are in ashes,’ General Sir Richard Barrons, Sky News
‘Russians stomping down your streets shooting the children,’ Lord Alan West, Good Morning Britain
Welfare is ‘unimportant when you lose a war and you have Russian Chechen stormtroopers coming down the street,’ also Lord Alan West, BBC Radio 4
Mark Rutte, NATO secretary general: ‘if you do not do this, if you would not go to the 5%, including the 3.5% core defence spending, you could still have the National Health Service, or in other countries their health systems, the pension system, etcetera, but you had better learn to speak Russian.’
The last of these comments – Rutte’s - is the most important because it underlines that the extreme cold war-style rhetoric ranges from the British military establishment all the way through to the NATO leadership.
Nurses not nukes, welfare not warfare
As noted in Tribune, last year the TUC adopted a new position on defence spending, following a motion moved by the UCU.
Despite that, it has often been the case that in discussing defence spending the unions are characterised as favouring rising levels of expenditure because of jobs in that sector. This impression tends to arise from interventions by Unite and GMB. So it is important to emphasise the position adopted by the TUC, and also that the recently-elected general secretary of Unison - Britain’s largest union – has been a prominent critic of ramping up military spending as a proportion of GDP. In the latest edition of Tribune, Andrea Egan argues against a situation in which ‘rather than getting patients out of corridors and into beds, reopening community centres, funding a dignified social care system or putting money in the pockets of struggling workers, the military will be handed more blank cheques to buy more weapons made in America.’
Arguments
Readers of this Substack will know that the issue of militarism and military spending have been a frequent theme, such as here and here. This debate will not go away. We are now only in the foothills of the political impact of rearmament; major political arguments over it are now inevitable.