More guns, less butter: Starmer's defence spending splash

The urge to throw more money at defence budgets across a number of countries has become infectious. It was bound to happen with Donald Trump's return to the White House, given his previous insistence that US allies do more to fatten their own armies rather than rely on the largesse of Washington's power. Spend, spend, spend is the theme, and the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has shown himself willing to join this wasteful indulgence.

On February 25, just prior to his visit to Washington, Starmer announced that spending on defence would reach 2.5% of GDP from April 2027. In the next parliament, it would rise to 3%. "In recent years," states a UK government press release , "the world has been reshaped by global instability, including Russian aggression in Ukraine, increasing threats from malign actors, rapid technological change, and the accelerating impacts of climate change."

Almost predictably, the term "Cold War" makes its retro appearance, with the spending increase the largest since that conflict of wilful misunderstandings and calculated paranoia. Russia figures prominently, as do "malign actors" who have burdened "the working people of Britain" with "increased energy bills, or threats to British interests and values."

The governing Labour Party has also gone a bit gung-ho with the military-industrial establishment. In an open letter reported by the Financial Times, over 100 Labour MPs and peers thought it wise that ethical rules restricting investment by banks and investment firms in defence companies be relaxed. Financial institutions, the letter argues, should "rethink ESG [environmental, social and governance] mechanisms that often wrongly exclude all defence investment". It was also important to address the issue of those "unnecessary barriers" defence firms face when "doing business in the UK". Among such barriers are those irritating matters such as money laundering checks banks are obliged to conduct when considering the finance needs of defence and security firms, along with seeking assurances that they are not financing weapons banned under international law.

That these uncontroversial rules are now being seen as needless barriers to an industry that persists in shirking accountability is a sign of creeping moral flabbiness. Across Europe, the defence and arms lobbyists, those great exploiters of fictional insecurity, are feeling more confident than they have in years. They can rely on such figures as European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, who stated on March 4 that, "We are in an era of rearmament. And Europe is ready to massively boost its defence spending."

To pursue such rearmament, Starmer has decided to take the axe to the aid budget, reducing it from its current level of 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% in 2027. It was, as the press release goes on to mention, a "difficult choice" and part of "the evolving nature of the threat and the strategic shift required to meet it". The Conservatives approved the measure, and the populist Reform UK would have little reason to object, seeing it had been its policy suggestion at the last election.

It was a decision that sufficiently troubled the international development minister, Anneliese Dodds, to quit the cabinet. In a letter to the prime minister, Dodds remarked that, while Starmer wished "to continue support for Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine; for vaccination; for climate; and for rules-based systems", doing so would "be impossible … given the depth of the cut".

Making the Office of Overseas Development Assistance absorb such a reduction would also see Britain "pull-out from numerous African, Caribbean and Western Balkan nations – at a time when Russia has been aggressively increasing its global presence." It would be isolated from various multilateral bodies, see "a withdrawal from regional banks and a reduced commitment to the World Bank". Influence would also be lost at such international fora as the G7 and G20.

Defence establishment figures have also regarded the decision to reduce aid with some consternation. General Lord Richards, former Chief of Defence Staff, saw the sense of an increase in military spending but not at the expense of the aid budget. "The notion that we must weaken one to strengthen the other is not just misleading but dangerous," opined Richards in The Telegraph. "A lack of investment and development will only fuel greater instability, increase security threats and place a heavier burden on our Armed Forces."

The aid budgets of wealthy states should never be seen as benevolent projects. Behind the charitable endeavour is a calculation that speaks more to power (euphemised as "soft") than kindness. Aid keeps the natives of other countries clothed, fed and sufficiently sustained not to want to stray to other contenders. The sentiment was expressed all too clearly by a disappointed Dodds: a smaller UK aid budget would embolden an already daring Russia to fill the vacuum. How fascinating, then, that a daring Russia, its threatening posture inflated and exaggerated, is one of the primary reasons prompting an increase in Britain's defence spending in the first place.