Global military rise threatens peace and public welfare spending

Source: The post Global military rise threatens peace and public welfare spending has been created, based on the article “What will be effect of rising military spending?” published in “The Hindu” on 9th July 2025

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2-Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India’s interests.

Context:: The June NATO summit’s pledge to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 marks a sharp escalation in global militarisation. It reflects growing global conflict, including new wars in 2025, and threatens funding for public goods like health, development, and climate mitigation.

For detailed information on Should military spending be increased? read this article here

Global Trends in Military Expenditure

1. Surge in Global Spending: In 2024, global military spending reached $2,718 billion, marking a 9.4% year-on-year rise—the highest since 1988. Conflicts like Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Gaza contributed significantly. New wars in 2025, including India-Pakistan and Israel-Iran, are expected to escalate spending further.
2. Historical Comparisons: The Cold War era saw peak military spending—6.1% of world GDP in 1960, falling to 2.1% by 1998. In 2024, it rose again to 2.5% from 2.3% in 2015, indicating a reversal of post-Cold War demilitarisation.
3. Top Global Spenders: The U.S. leads with $997 billion, followed by China ($314B), Russia ($149B), Germany ($88.5B), and India ($86.1B). The top 15 countries account for 80% of global spending. NATO’s 32 members collectively contribute 55% of global military expenditure.

Impact on Public Welfare and Social Spending

1. Crowding-Out Effect: Studies show military spending often crowds out health spending. Middle- and low-income countries suffer the most, but even wealthy nations are not immune. Spain, for instance, resisted NATO’s 5% target citing a €300 billion cost that would cut welfare programs.
2. Global Peace and Militarisation: The Global Peace Index in 2023 reported increased militarisation in 108 countries, with record-high conflict numbers since World War II. The shift back toward remilitarisation threatens peace dividends gained since the Cold War.
3. UN Budget Crisis: Despite $2.7 trillion in military expenditure, the UN’s full budget is only $44 billion. It has received just $6 billion in six months and plans to cut the budget to $29 billion, severely undermining global peacekeeping and aid programs.

Undermining Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. Neglect of Development Priorities: Achieving global poverty eradication needs $70B to $325B annually—just a fraction of high-income countries’ income. Yet, rising military budgets divert resources from essential services like healthcare and education.
2. Health and Human Lives at Risk: The closure of USAID by President Trump has jeopardised millions of lives. USAID previously prevented 91 million deaths; its absence could result in 14 million additional deaths by 2030—one-third being children.
3. Environmental Consequences: Military expansion also threatens climate goals. If NATO spends 3.5% of GDP, emissions may rise by 200 million tonnes annually. This adds to climate stress, especially as 2024 marked the hottest year on record.

India’s Militarisation and Trade-offs

1. Sharp Rise in Defence Allocation: Post-Operation Sindoor, India sanctioned an extra ₹50,000 crore for emergency defence purchases, above the existing ₹26.81 lakh crore budget. Public health funding remains comparatively low at 1.84% of GDP.
2. Health vs Defence Dilemma: Ayushman Bharat’s allocation for 58 crore people was ₹27,200 crore, far less than defence hikes. India’s military spending (2.3% of GDP) exceeds its public health investment, which still falls short of its own 2.5% target.
3. Lessons from Other Nations: Countries like Lebanon and Ukraine, with military spending of 29% and 34% of GDP respectively, highlight the dangerous trade-offs for low- and middle-income nations during militarisation.

The Geopolitical Justification and Its Risks

1. Russia as a Justification: NATO cites Russia as the main threat, pushing for the 5% goal. However, Russia’s economy is 25 times smaller, and its military budget is 10 times less than NATO’s, revealing possible exaggeration of threats to fuel defence spending.
2. Fear-Based Militarisation: Leaders may exploit fear to justify higher military budgets. NATO Secretary General’s comment—“We must spend more, to prevent war”—reflects this mindset, despite evidence suggesting the opposite outcome for human well-being.

Question for practice:

Evaluate the impact of increasing global military expenditure on public welfare and sustainable development goals.