Military spending

 

More military spending won't keep Britain safe – but boosting overseas aid could

In March, when Boris Johnson announced a national lockdown in response to the coronavirus pandemic, it seemed as though Britain, long a nation obsessed with its imperial past and military history, had shifted its concern to the wellbeing of its citizens. The government had accepted responsibility for the safety of individuals and their families, albeit more slowly than some other European nations.

Yet after all we’ve learned during the pandemic about the dangers posed by a virus smaller than a dust mite, Johnson’s recent announcement of a £16.5bn increase in defence spending over the next four years (over and above a commitment to increase the existing £41.5bn budget by 0.5 percentage points above inflation) signalled a return to business as usual. The new spending is focused on cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and a military space capability. Johnson said that he had taken this decision “in the teeth of the pandemic” because “defence of the realm comes first”.

What does “defence of the realm” really mean? Johnson refers to “our people and our way of life”, yet the dangers we face as a nation aren’t traditional wars: they’re global crises such as pandemics, the climate crisis and rising inequality, as well as security threats associated with terrorism and organised crime. Rather than spending on old-fashioned military defence, the UK’s focus should be on “human security”, a version of security that begins at the level of individuals rather than nation states and considers existential threats of all kinds – from poverty to ill health. In practice, this would mean spending more on climate change action and development assistance, as well as forms of defence spending where the military plays a roll in protecting and assisting citizens both at home and abroad, not fighting wars.