European governments are increasingly opting for cuts to social spending to fund militarisation. However a new paper argues that tanks and pensions needn't be pitted against one another.
"If you want peace, prepare for war." This is Prime Minister Bart De Wever's mantra as his new government coalition prepares to invest €4.5 billion in defence, reaching 2% of GDP by 2029 as per Belgium's NATO obligation.
Even this ambitious objective is not enough, a paper recently published by the Egmont Institute argues. The paper, titled 'Tanks Versus Pensions? How European NATO Countries Fund Defence and What Belgium Can Learn', maintains that Belgium has not pulled its weight since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and will now have to take a combination of severe measures to make up for its security shortcomings.
"The era when Belgium could prioritise other policy areas while neglecting security is over," the researchers state. "The 'butter' of the welfare state still exists, but it now requires protection. Security is the foundation of a stable economy, and the cost of failing to deter threats far exceeds the price of prevention."
"The world is on fire and Europe is not in a good position. It is clear that we cannot count on America's support forever," co-author and UGent researcher Tim Haesebrouck told The Brussels Times. "Belgium is far away from Russia and we are surrounded by friendly countries, so the general public doesn't feel threatened. But now I think reality has sunk in: Belgium is not entirely safe."
More tax, more debt
MR leader Georges-Louis Bouchez and Prime Minister Bart De Wever (N-VA). Credit: Belga / Nicolas Maeterlinck
The paper endorses a combination of several strategies as each approach has its drawbacks. The first is to raise taxes, which will ensure a steady stream of revenue but is more difficult to sell to the public given the pressure it puts on ordinary people.
But there is another substantial roadblock: De Wever's right-wing N-VA party is economically conservative, as is its main coalition partner Mouvement Reformateur (MR).
"Neither party will want to increase taxes, but on the other hand, coalition partners CD&V and Vooruit [social democrats and socialists, ed.] don't want to cut social spending. So finding a compromise will be difficult," says Haesebrouck.
For this reason, it is likely that public debt will be increased – especially in the context of relaxed EU rules which now include 'Escape clauses' that exempt defence spending from the calculation of national deficits in order to encourage military investment.
Haesbrouck and his colleagues warn that this option is only a temporary solution and debts will still have to be repaid eventually. De Wever has indicated that he shares this view, stating in Parliament on Wednesday that the proposal is not "free money".
"For countries with a large deficit like ours, a euro remains a euro," he said. "Just because Europe is flexible does not mean that the deficit does not exist."
Austerity in everything but name
"Reallocating funds", or as Haesebrouck refers to it, "budget restructuring", is probably the most divisive route to rearmament. The paper only explicitly refers to austerity once in the ten pages and Haesebrouck says he prefers to avoid this word because of its "negative connotations".
A vocal anti-austerity movement that fills the streets of Brussels at least once a month disagrees.
Anti-austerity protest. Credit: Belga / Hatim Kaghat
General Secretary of the trade union ABVV-FGTB Bert Engelaar says it is "naive" to think defence and social spending can coexist. "Extra expenses can only be financed through taxes, borrowing, or cuts," he told The Brussels Times. "Additional cuts to social spending are unacceptable for our members, and if the government borrows, the national debt will increase. Ultimately, this debt will have to be repaid, and historically, it has always been the weakest in society who bear the burden."
Chairperson of the trade union ACOD-CGSP Chris Reniers believes "defence and social spending can perfectly coexist, but things become more difficult in times of budget deficits."
"Investing in additional armament ultimately results in more money for the arms lobby and the specialised weapons industry," she said. "Social deficits or poverty reduction do not benefit from this."
National strike in protest of the Arizona government's austerity measures, 13 January. Credit: Belga / Hatim Kaghat
Haesebrouck concedes that "trade unions have a role they need to play" but counters that "you have this huge opportunity with increased defence spending to create more manufacturing jobs in Belgium [...] we of course have FN Herstal, a world famous manufacturer of small arms and of ammunition."
"We are already facing staff shortages in healthcare, education, childcare, prisons and public transport," said Reniers. "For us, these jobs have more priority than those in industries that only make the arms lobby richer."
Numerous reports, including one coordinated by Amnesty International, have highlighted that FN Herstal and other arms manufacturers in Wallonia knowingly exported to clients and countries that were breaching human rights laws and using weapons against civilians.
Rearming Europe
Dissenting voices are doing little to stop Europe's plan to rearm as the bloc is determined to prove itself as a relevant, autonomous player in global affairs.
The EU's 'Rearm Europe' plan, worth €800 billion in total, will consist in a Common Defence Fund of €150 billion and €650 billion of spending on the part of Member States.
The Egmont Institute's paper aims to dispel the idea of a standoff between defence and social spending but suggests that cuts in foreign aid may now be replacing the welfare state as the victim of Belgium's militarisation. The government cut its foreign aid budget by 25% last month.
