At the June 2025 NATO Summit, member states pledged to raise defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, a sharp increase from the earlier 2% target. This decision reflects a rising global trend in militarisation amid ongoing conflicts, but raises concerns over its implications for development, health, and climate goals.

GLOBAL TRENDS IN MILITARY SPENDING

• Record Global Military Expenditure in 2024: According to SIPRI, global military spending reached $2.718 trillion in 2024, registering a 4% annual increase, the sharpest rise since 1988. Conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war and Israel-Gaza tensions were major contributors.
• Concentration Among Few Countries: The top five spenders—USA ($997 bn), China, Russia, Germany, and India—accounted for the bulk of global military expenditure. NATO’s 32 members alone spent $1,506 billion, nearly 55% of the world total.
• Spending as % of GDP: Wide Disparities: Among non-warring nations, Saudi Arabia (7.3%), Poland (4.2%), and USA (3.4%) are the highest spenders relative to GDP. In contrast, several NATO members still failed to meet the earlier 2% target set in 2002.

OPPORTUNITY COST OF MILITARY SPENDING

• Undermining of Social Sectors: Studies show a crowding-out effect of military expenditure on health spending, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Even Spain rejected the 5% NATO target citing potential cuts to welfare.
• Impact on Global Development Goals: The UN’s annual budget is only $44 billion, dwarfed by global defence spending. Just $70–325 billion/year could end extreme poverty, a fraction of the current military outlays.
• Military-Climate Nexus: According to the Conflict and Environment Observatory, a 5% defence GDP target by NATO could add 200 million tonnes of CO? annually, derailing climate mitigation targets under the SDG framework.

IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIA AND GLOBAL SOUTH

• India's Rising Defence Allocations: Following Operation Sindoor, India sanctioned ?50,000 crore in emergency defence purchases, in addition to its ?6.81 lakh crore defence budget (2.3% of GDP). In contrast, public health expenditure remains low at 1.84% of GDP.
• Fiscal Pressure on LMICs: Countries like Ukraine (34%) and Lebanon (29%) spent disproportionately on defence, weakening their economies. If India follows a similar trajectory, it may undermine public investment in essential services.
• Disproportionate Threat Perception: Despite NATO citing Russia as a key threat, Russia’s economy is 25 times smaller and military spending 10 times lower than NATO’s. This reflects the use of strategic fear-mongering to push remilitarisation agendas.

Practice Question:

"Rising global militarisation poses serious trade-offs for achieving Sustainable Development Goals. Critically examine in the context of recent NATO defence spending commitments."   (250 words)