The Times Australia
Fisher and Paykel Appliances
The Times World News

.

NATO’s 5% of GDP defence target ramps up pressure on Australia to spend vastly more

  • Written by Jennifer Parker, Adjunct Fellow, Naval Studies at UNSW Canberra, and Expert Associate, National Security College, Australian National University




After lobbying by US President Donald Trump, NATO leaders have promised to boost annual defence spending to 5% of their countries’ gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035.

A NATO statement[1] released this week said:

United in the face of profound security threats and challenges, in particular the long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security and the persistent threat of terrorism, allies commit to invest 5% of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence-and security-related spending by 2035.

This development comes at a tricky time for the Albanese government. It has so far batted away suggestions Australia should increase its defence spending from current levels of around 2% of gross domestic product[2] (GDP), or almost A$59 billion[3] per year (and projected to reach 2.33% of GDP by 2033–34). Trump has called on Australia[4] to increase this to about 3.5%.

With this NATO agreement, global security deteriorating and defence capability gaps obvious, pressure is mounting on the Australian government to increase defence spending further.

Pressure from Trump

A long‑time critic of NATO, Trump and his key officials have castigated NATO’s readiness and spending.

Meanwhile, Russia’s war on Ukraine, now in its fourth year, and a spate of suspected Russian sabotage across Europe have sharpened concerns about allied preparedness.

Against this backdrop, the NATO summit saw Trump publicly reaffirms US commitment to the alliance, and European members pledged to lift defence spending.

What exactly did NATO promise and why?

The headlines say NATO members agreed to increase annual defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035.

In fact, the actual agreement is more nuanced.

The summit communique[5], notably shorter than in previous years, broke the pledge down into two parts.

The first is 3.5% of GDP on what is considered traditional defence spending: ships, tanks, bullets, people and so on.

The second part – the remaining 1.5% of GDP – is to

protect our critical infrastructure, defend our networks, ensure our civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen our defence industrial base.

Exactly what strategic resilience initiatives this money will be spent on is up to the individual member nation.

It might be tempting to paint NATO’s commitment to increased defence spending as evidence of European NATO partners bowing to US political pressure.

But it’s more than that. It is a direct response to the increased threat posed by Russia to Europe, and perhaps an insurance policy against any doubts European NATO partners may have about the US reliability and enduring commitment to the 76-year-old alliance between the US and Europe.

However, not all countries are keen on the defence spending commitment, with notable reservations from Spain and Belgium[6].

These two[7] countries are yet to[8] meet NATO’s 2014 commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence.

What’s all this mean for Australia?

The commitment to hike NATO defence spending will have an indirect impact on Australia’s own beleaguered defence spending debate.

As mentioned, Australia’s main strategic ally – the US – has pressured Australia to hike defence spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from around 2.02% of GDP this financial year (which the government projects will reach 2.33% by 2033–34).

Australia is not the only Indo-Pacific partner being pushed to spend more on defence. Japan[9] is too.

This is consistent with US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Shangri-La speech in May, when he urged Asian allies to step up on defence spending[10], pointing to Europe as the model.

The NATO announcement will likely embolden the US to apply greater pressure on the Australia to increase defence spending.

Trump’s strategy towards NATO has clearly been to sow ambiguity in the minds of European countries as to the US’ commitment to NATO, to get them to come to the table on defence spending.

This may well be a future Australia faces, too. It could mean a bumpy road ahead for Australia and its most crucial alliance partner.

Where to from here?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said[11] Australia will determine its own level of defence spending, and that arbitrary GDP limits are unhelpful. Defence spending, he argues[12], should be based on capability needs, not demands from allies.

And he is right, to a point.

That said, allies have a right to have an expectation all parties in the alliance are holding up their end of the bargain.

Australian defence spending should be based on the capabilities it needs to resource its stated defence strategy and defend its core interests. Currently, in my view, Australia’s defence capability does not match[13] its current strategy.

There are clear gaps in Australia’s defence capabilities, including:

  • its aged naval capability
  • a lack of mine warfare, replenishment and survey capabilities
  • a limited ability to protect critical infrastructure against missile attack
  • space capabilities.

These are key risks, at the moment of possibly most significant strategic circumstances since the second world war.

In the event of a major crisis or conflict in the region, Australia would not presently be able to defend itself for a prolonged period. To address this requires structural reform and defence investment.

In response to this week’s NATO announcement, Defence Minister Richard Marles said[14]:

We have gone about the business of not chasing a number, but thinking about what is our capability need, and then resourcing it.

During the election campaign both the prime minister and defence minister left the door open[15] to increasing defence spending.

The real unknown is how long it will take to make it happen, and how much damage it may do in the meantime to Australia’s relationship with the US and overall defence-preparedness.

References

  1. ^ statement (www.nato.int)
  2. ^ 2% of gross domestic product (theconversation.com)
  3. ^ A$59 billion (www.defence.gov.au)
  4. ^ Trump has called on Australia (www.9news.com.au)
  5. ^ communique (www.nato.int)
  6. ^ Spain and Belgium (www.bbc.com)
  7. ^ two (www.bbc.com)
  8. ^ yet to (www.bbc.com)
  9. ^ Japan (www.reuters.com)
  10. ^ step up on defence spending (www.theguardian.com)
  11. ^ said (www.theguardian.com)
  12. ^ argues (www.theguardian.com)
  13. ^ does not match (theconversation.com)
  14. ^ said (www.minister.defence.gov.au)
  15. ^ left the door open (www.abc.net.au)

Read more https://theconversation.com/natos-5-of-gdp-defence-target-ramps-up-pressure-on-australia-to-spend-vastly-more-259886

Times Magazine

Australia’s electric vehicle surge — EVs and hybrids hit record levels

Australians are increasingly embracing electric and hybrid cars, with 2025 shaping up as the str...

Tim Ayres on the AI rollout’s looming ‘bumps and glitches’

The federal government released its National AI Strategy[1] this week, confirming it has dropped...

Seven in Ten Australian Workers Say Employers Are Failing to Prepare Them for AI Future

As artificial intelligence (AI) accelerates across industries, a growing number of Australian work...

Mapping for Trucks: More Than Directions, It’s Optimisation

Daniel Antonello, General Manager Oceania, HERE Technologies At the end of June this year, Hampden ...

Can bigger-is-better ‘scaling laws’ keep AI improving forever? History says we can’t be too sure

OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman – perhaps the most prominent face of the artificial intellig...

A backlash against AI imagery in ads may have begun as brands promote ‘human-made’

In a wave of new ads, brands like Heineken, Polaroid and Cadbury have started hating on artifici...

The Times Features

The way Australia produces food is unique. Our updated dietary guidelines have to recognise this

You might know Australia’s dietary guidelines[1] from the famous infographics[2] showing the typ...

Why a Holiday or Short Break in the Noosa Region Is an Ideal Getaway

Few Australian destinations capture the imagination quite like Noosa. With its calm turquoise ba...

How Dynamic Pricing in Accommodation — From Caravan Parks to Hotels — Affects Holiday Affordability

Dynamic pricing has quietly become one of the most influential forces shaping the cost of an Aus...

The rise of chatbot therapists: Why AI cannot replace human care

Some are dubbing AI as the fourth industrial revolution, with the sweeping changes it is propellin...

Australians Can Now Experience The World of Wicked Across Universal Studios Singapore and Resorts World Sentosa

This holiday season, Resorts World Sentosa (RWS), in partnership with Universal Pictures, Sentosa ...

Mineral vs chemical sunscreens? Science shows the difference is smaller than you think

“Mineral-only” sunscreens are making huge inroads[1] into the sunscreen market, driven by fears of “...

Here’s what new debt-to-income home loan caps mean for banks and borrowers

For the first time ever, the Australian banking regulator has announced it will impose new debt-...

Why the Mortgage Industry Needs More Women (And What We're Actually Doing About It)

I've been in fintech and the mortgage industry for about a year and a half now. My background is i...

Inflation jumps in October, adding to pressure on government to make budget savings

Annual inflation rose[1] to a 16-month high of 3.8% in October, adding to pressure on the govern...