How much for a nation’s defence?
The claim that President Donald Trump allegedly had threatened to withdraw the United States of America from NATO attracted considerable media attention in the past week. President Biden condemned the idea, as did many other security and defence experts. In the resulting media melee, even the authenticity of the story was lost.
What the story did highlight was the inadequate amount that some European nations have been spending on their own defence.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was established in 1949 as a collective security agreement. Following the Second World War, it was designed to ensure peace in Europe and avoid the terrible wars that had blighted the first half of the 20th century.
Comprising 29 European nations and two North American countries, the Brussels-headquartered NATO operates on funds provided by its members.
Some years ago, the NATO members agreed to providing 2 per cent of GDP to defence expenditure. That target has not been achieved by most of them.
Interestingly, the nations closest to Russia have the highest expenditure. According to 2023 data, Poland (3.9 per cent) leads the way from Greece (3.01), Estonia (2.73), Lithuania (2.54), Finland (2.45), Romania (2.44), Hungary (2.43) and Slovakia (2.03).
France expended just 1.9 per cent of GDP, while Germany lagged at 1.57 per cent. The UK spent 2.07 per cent. Canada had one of the lowest expenditures at just 1.38 per cent.
These figures stand in stark contrast to the 3.49 per cent of GDP expended by the US.
Obviously smitten by the revelations, NATO head, Jens Stoltenberg said last week that the number of European nations reaching the threshold of 2 per cent of GDP had risen recently from 11 to 20 of the 31 member organisations.
It is doubtful that if re-elected, Mr Trump would withdraw from NATO, but his alleged remarks have shone the spotlight on the issue. With Russia threatening Ukraine, attention to European defences is paramount.
The discussion has parallels in Australia where a reported dispute has broken out between the defence minister, Richard Marles, and his department.
Rumours of differences have been circulating for some time, but the matter came to a head with leaks of a very tense discussion between the minister, the secretary of his department, the chief of the defence force and other senior military leaders.
The crux of the dispute is the usefulness of some of the military equipment ordered by defence and the quantum of funds available.
There is a widespread view that Mr Marles has been rebuffed by the Expenditure Review Committee of Cabinet in his quest for most defence expenditure.
When the Abbott government established the figure of 2 per cent of GDP for defence expenditure, it was a floor, not a ceiling. But it has often been treated as the latter.
In an increasingly dangerous region, 2 per cent of GDP is grossly inadequate. Australia’s defence expenditure should be closer to 3 per cent of GDP.
The danger however is that the Albanese government is not committed to the expenditure required.
To date, the foreign minister seems more attracted to appeasement than the hard-headed assessment of the threats to Australia, especially from the Chinese Communist Party.
Mr Marles has also been on record as displaying sympathy towards the Beijing regime. He had little to say about the Chinese establishing an upgraded presence in Timor-Leste.
The dispute with the defence leadership is worrying. Defence can be a cumbersome department, unable to display the nimbleness required for a rapidly changing strategic situation, and wedded to projects whose usefulness has passed, but it and the minister should be on the same page.
Given Australia’s reliance on the US for our defence and security, perhaps the government should heed Mr Trump’s advice.
First published in the Epoch Times Australia.
