As NATO leaders, including President Trump and Prime Minister Keir Starmer, convene to discuss a significant increase in defence spending, it's worth noting that nearly a third of NATO's members have not yet met the existing spending target. The new objective is to allocate 5% of GDP to core defence and related security areas. However, recent estimates reveal that nine NATO member countries failed to achieve the current benchmark of 2% of GDP on defence.
Criticism has been directed at Spain, labeled by Trump as "notorious" for its low defence spending. Rachel Ellehuus, director of the defence think tank RUSI, indicates a clear spending disparity among NATO members, particularly along geographical lines. Countries situated closer to the Russian threat in the north and east are increasing their defence budgets, while southern allies often fall below the 2% spending target, Ellehuus explained to BBC News.
The 2% spending target is not legally binding, meaning there is no international court to penalize nations failing to comply. Instead, political pressure plays a crucial role in motivating these nations to increase their defence budgets. President Trump has been vocal in his stance, suggesting that he warned a NATO leader about the potential consequences of not meeting spending commitments, implying that neglect could embolden aggressors.
Jamie Shea, a former NATO official now affiliated with the Chatham House think tank, emphasized that no one wants to be labeled a "bad ally" for not meeting the target. Despite the ongoing challenges, there are signs of progress; all NATO countries, even those below the 2% threshold, have increased their defence spending since 2014. The collective spending among NATO members (excluding the US) has risen from 1.4% of GDP in 2014 to 2% in 2024.
Spain emerged as the lowest spender in NATO last year, with a defence expenditure of just 1.2%, according to NATO estimates. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has publicly committed to exceeding the 2% target by 2025, although there have been demonstrations against increased defence spending. According to Mario Saavedra, a diplomatic correspondent for El Periódico, Spain historically viewed its armed forces as primarily focused on natural disaster response rather than traditional military roles.
However, the landscape is changing. Sánchez anticipates reaching 2.1% by year-end without facing political backlash. Interestingly, he claims to have received an exemption from the new proposed 5% NATO target, describing it as "incompatible with our worldview." Analysts contend that while a 2% target is acceptable, the notion of a 5% requirement seems excessive.
Spain argues for a shift in focus from merely spending more to enhancing capabilities. Jamie Shea notes that Spain suggests that prioritizing smart procurement could help achieve NATO's goals without necessitating significant budget increases. "There's been too much emphasis on money and not enough on capabilities," Shea stated.
Despite the failure of nine countries to meet the 2% of GDP defence spending target by the 2024 deadline, many, including Spain, are committed to reaching this goal soon. In Canada, newly elected leader Mark Carney pledged during his campaign to achieve the 2% target by 2030, but has since accelerated that timeline to March of next year. Similarly, Belgium announced plans to boost their defence budget to 2% following an increase of €4 billion (£3.4 billion) this year. Portugal is also on track to meet its 2% target this year, four years ahead of its original schedule.
Italy is expected to reach the 2% target this year, up from 1.5% in 2024. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte commended Trump for his efforts in motivating NATO members to bolster their defence spending, stating, "Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should." This sentiment reflects the ongoing emphasis on enhancing military capabilities across the alliance.
The pressure on NATO members to meet defence spending targets is intensifying, with significant implications for international security. While some nations are making strides towards meeting the 2% GDP target, debates continue regarding the feasibility and rationale of escalating spending to 5%. The focus now shifts to balancing financial commitments with the capabilities necessary to address the evolving global security landscape.
