Europe at a crossroads: Security or an arms race

Europe at a crossroads: Security or an arms race | Photo: Abed Ismail

The announcement by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen regarding the "ReArm Europe" plan to mobilise nearly €800 billion in defence has sparked both concerns and debates. While the need to strengthen the European Union's security in a context of increasing geopolitical tensions is undeniable, it is crucial to critically analyse the economic repercussions of this decision and explore more sustainable alternatives.

One of the main challenges of this plan is its impact on the economies of member states. Von der Leyen's proposal suggests that the European budget will support loans aimed at increasing military spending, which could generate significant debt. Currently, the EU's military expenditure amounts to approximately €240 billion annually, representing around 1.5% of the bloc's GDP. However, this new plan would drastically increase that figure, potentially creating fiscal tensions in countries with weaker economies, such as Greece or Spain, which are still grappling with high levels of public debt.

At a time when many countries are still struggling to recover from previous crises, allocating such a large sum to the defence industry could divert resources from essential sectors such as healthcare, education, and sustainable development. For instance, in 2023, the EU allocated approximately €13.6 billion to research and innovation programmes under the Horizon Europe programme, a figure far lower than the projected spending on rearmament. Furthermore, the possibility of using cohesion funds for this purpose is being considered, which would undermine efforts to reduce inequalities within the EU.

Another concerning aspect is the dependency this rearmament model creates on the arms industry, a sector historically linked to conflicts of interest and opacity in public fund management. In 2022, the five largest European defence contractors (Airbus, BAE Systems, Leonardo, Rheinmetall, and Thales) reported combined revenues exceeding €100 billion, with sustained growth driven by the war in Ukraine and increased security spending.

Encouraging the massive purchase of weaponry and military systems, such as drones and missiles, could lead to a war-driven economic model that prioritises the profits of large corporations over the real security of citizens.

History has repeatedly demonstrated that the use of weapons and a confrontational approach to conflict resolution are not beneficial to any party involved. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which led to trillions of dollars in spending, resulted in devastating human and economic costs without achieving long-term stability. Similarly, the ongoing war in Ukraine has severely impacted global markets, exacerbating energy and food crises worldwide. The conflict in the Balkans during the 1990s further serves as a reminder of how military interventions can leave lasting scars on societies, economies, and international relations. These cases highlight the importance of prioritising diplomatic solutions over military escalation.

There are alternatives to this approach that deserve greater consideration. Instead of focusing spending on conventional weaponry, the EU could strengthen its defence capabilities through diplomacy, the reinforcement of strategic alliances, and the development of non-lethal security technologies. Investing in cybersecurity, intelligence, and infrastructure resilience could be a more efficient and less costly solution in the long term. According to World Bank data, cyberattacks have cost the global economy over €1 trillion in the past five years, suggesting that a strategic investment in this field could be more beneficial than a purely militaristic approach. Moreover, promoting a foreign policy based on cooperation and peaceful conflict resolution would reduce the need for an arms race, which could ultimately increase global instability.

Several non-governmental organisations successfully work to promote peace and dialogue as an alternative to armed conflict. The Berghof Foundation, for example, is dedicated to conflict transformation through mediation and peace education. International Alert is another NGO that works with communities affected by violence to strengthen peaceful governance structures. Additionally, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) provides analysis and recommendations on global security from a conflict prevention perspective. These organisations demonstrate that there are effective ways to ensure security without resorting to an excessive increase in military spending.

The European Union must consider whether its security can be guaranteed solely through an exponential increase in military expenditure. The true strength of the EU lies not only in its military capacity but also in its leadership in human rights, economic stability, and international diplomacy. A balanced security strategy should take into account not only territorial protection but also financial sustainability and the well-being of its citizens. Betting on a defence strategy based on innovation and diplomacy could be the key to a secure Europe without compromising its economic future.