NATO Leaders Are Set to Agree a Historic Defense Spending Pledge, But the Hike Won't Apply to All
NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5 percent of their gross domestic product on defense–except the new and much-vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them.
Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5 percent of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the US, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communiqué–a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs–would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance, like Belgium, Canada, France, and Italy, that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars.
On Friday, Trump insisted the US has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada a 'low payer.'
NATO's new spending goals. The 5 percent goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2 percent, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5 percent would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports, and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks, and preparing societies for future conflict.
The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5 percent on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28 percent of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender.
Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1 percent of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros (920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022.
Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern, and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election.
Why the spending increase is needed. There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks, and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more.
The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3 percent, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned capability targets to play its part.
Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that the debate must be 'not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1 percent.
Countries much closer to Russia–Belarus and Ukraine–all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5 percent to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros (18 billion to 22 billion).
Setting a deadline. It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2 percent target that they agreed to in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years.
The US insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge, and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5 percent target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Air France cancels flights to Middle East amid heightened tension
Air France said on Monday that it is canceling its flights to the Middle East amid ongoing tension. Developing
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
How Covering Your Face Became a Constitutional Matter: Mask Debate Tests Free Speech Rights
Many of the protesters who flooded the streets of Los Angeles to oppose President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown wore masks or other face coverings–drawing scorn from him. 'Masks will not be allowed to be worn at protests,' Trump posted on his social media platform, adding that mask-wearing protesters should be arrested. Protesters and their supporters argue Trump's comments and repeated calls by the Republican president's allies to ban masks at protests are an attempt to stifle popular dissent. They also note a double standard at play: In Los Angeles and elsewhere, protesters were at times confronted by officers who had their faces covered. And some US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have worn masks while carrying out high-profile raids in Los Angeles and other cities. All of which begs the question: Can something that covers your mouth protect free speech? Protesters say the answer is an emphatic 'yes.' Several legal experts say it's only a matter of time before the issue returns to the courts. 'What do these people have to hide and why?' Trump's post calling for a ban on masks came after immigration raids sparked protests, which included some reports of vandalism and violence toward police. 'What do these people have to hide and why?' he asked on Truth Social on June 8. The next day, Trump raged against the anti-ICE protests, calling for the arrest of people in face masks. It's not a new idea. Legal experts and First Amendment advocates warn of a rising number of laws banning masks being wielded against protesters and their impacts on people's right to protest and privacy amid mounting surveillance. The legal question became even more complicated when Democratic lawmakers in California introduced legislation aiming to stop federal agents and local police officers from wearing face masks. That came amid concerns ICE agents were attempting to hide their identities and avoid accountability for potential misconduct. 'The recent federal operations in California have created an environment of profound terror,' state Sen. Scott Wiener said in a press release. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the California bill 'despicable.' 'While ICE officers are being assaulted by rioters and having rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown at them, a sanctuary politician is trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers,' McLaughlin said in a statement. State restrictions on mask-wearing. At least 18 states and Washington, D.C. have laws that restrict masks and other face coverings, said Elly Page, senior legal adviser with the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. Since October 2023, at least 16 bills have been introduced in eight states and Congress to restrict masks at protests, the center says. The laws aren't just remnants of the coronavirus pandemic. Many date back to the 1940s and '50s, when many states passed anti-mask laws as a response to the Ku Klux Klan, whose members hid their identities while terrorizing victims. Amid protests against the war in Gaza and Trump's immigration policies, Page said there have been attempts to revive these rarely used laws to target protesters. Page also raised concerns about the laws being enforced inconsistently and only against movements the federal government doesn't like. In May, North Carolina Senate Republicans passed a plan to repeal a pandemic-era law that allowed the wearing of masks in public for health reasons–a move spurred in part by demonstrations against the war in Gaza, where some protesters wore masks. The suburban New York county of Nassau passed legislation in August to ban wearing masks in public. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, last month sent a letter to the state's public universities stating protesters could be charged with a felony under the state's anti-mask law. Administrators at the University of North Carolina have warned protesters that wearing masks violates the state's anti-mask law, and University of Florida students arrested during a protest were charged with wearing masks in public. An unresolved First Amendment question. People may want to cover their faces while protesting for a variety of reasons, including to protect their health, for religious reasons, to avoid government retaliation, to prevent surveillance and doxing, or to protect themselves from tear gas, said Tim Zick, law professor at William and Mary Law School. 'Protecting protesters' ability to wear masks is part of protecting our First Amendment right to peacefully protest,' Zick said. Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said the federal government and Republican state lawmakers assert that the laws are intended not to restrict speech, but to restrict unlawful conduct that people would be more likely to engage in if they can wear masks and that would make it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate if people are wearing masks. Conversely, he said First Amendment advocates oppose such laws because they deter people from protesting if they fear retaliation. Stone said the issue is an unresolved First Amendment question that has yet to be addressed by the US Supreme Court, but the court has made clear that there is a right to anonymity protected by the First Amendment. 'Few of these laws have been challenged in court,' Stone said. 'And lower-court decisions on mask bans are mixed, though several courts have struck down broader anti-mask laws for criminalizing peaceful expression.' Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the right to speak anonymously has deep roots in the nation's founding, including when anonymous pamphlets criticizing British rule circulated in the colonies. Federal agents wearing masks. The right to speak anonymously allows Americans to express dissenting or unpopular opinions without exposing themselves to retaliation or harassment from the government, Terr said. First Amendment advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers have called the masks an attempt by ICE agents to escape accountability and intimidate immigrants. During a June 12 congressional hearing, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, criticized ICE agents wearing masks during raids, saying: 'Don't wear masks. Identify who you are.' Viral videos appeared to show residents of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts confronting federal agents, asking them to identify themselves and explain why they were wearing masks. US Rep. Bill Keating, a Democrat who represents Cape Cod, decried the decision to use unmarked vehicles, plain-clothed officers, and masks in a June 2 letter to federal officials. Republican federal officials, meanwhile, have maintained that masks protect agents from doxing. 'I'm sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I'm not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line and their family on the line because people don't like what immigration enforcement is,' ICE acting Director Todd Lyons said.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Greenpeace joins protests against gala Bezos wedding in Venice
VENICE: Global environmental lobby Greenpeace added its voice on Monday to protests against this week's celebrity wedding in Venice between American tech billionaire Jeff Bezos and journalist Laura Sanchez. The event, expected to attract some 200 guests including US President Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, as well as scores of stars from film, fashion and business, has been dubbed 'the wedding of the century.' But some locals see the celebration as the latest sign of the brash commodification of a beautiful but fragile city that has long been overrun with tourism while steadily depopulating. Activists from Greenpeace Italy and UK group 'Everyone hates Elon' (Musk) unfolded a giant banner in central St. Mark's Square with a picture of Bezos laughing and a sign reading: 'If you can rent Venice for your wedding you can pay more tax.' Local police arrived to talk to activists and check their identification documents, before they rolled up their banner. 'The problem is not the wedding, the problem is the system. We think that one big billionaire can't rent a city for his pleasure,' Simona Abbate, one of the protesters, told Reuters. Mayor Luigi Brugnaro and regional governor Luca Zaia have defended the wedding, arguing that it will bring an economic windfall to local businesses, including the motor boats and gondolas that operate its myriad canals. Zaia said the celebrations were expected to cost 20-30 million euros ($23-$34 million). Bezos will also make sizable charity donations, including a million euros for Corila, an academic consortium that studies Venice's lagoon ecosystem, Italy's Corriere della Sera newspaper and the ANSA news agency reported on Sunday. Earlier this month, anti-Bezos banners were hung from St. Mark's bell tower and from the famed Rialto bridge, while locals threatened peaceful blockades against the event, saying Venice needed public services and housing, not VIPs and over-tourism. The exact dates and locations of the glitzy nuptials are being kept confidential, but celebrations are expected to play out over three days, most likely around June 26-28.
