The West’s new arms race: Selling peace to buy war – politico.eu

Global Shift from Development to Defense: Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A significant global trend indicates a reallocation of government resources from diplomacy and Official Development Assistance (ODA) toward military expenditure. This report analyzes this shift, highlighting its profound and detrimental impact on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The reduction in investment for “soft power” mechanisms directly undermines progress on multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), while creating cascading negative effects on goals related to poverty, health, and inequality.

Diverging Trends in Global Expenditure

Recent data from leading international institutions reveals a stark contrast between rising defense budgets and declining commitments to international development and diplomacy.

• Increased Military Spending: According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), global military spending surged by 9.4 percent in 2024, the fastest rate since the Cold War.
  • Military expenditure in Europe increased by 17 percent in 2024, reaching $693 billion.
  • Russia’s military spending grew by 38 percent, while China’s defense budget rose by 7 percent.
  • NATO members have agreed to a new target of spending 5 percent of GDP on defense and security by 2035.
• Decreased Development and Diplomatic Investment: Conversely, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reported a 9 percent drop in ODA in 2024, with further cuts projected.
  • For the first time, the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany all reduced their ODA simultaneously in 2024.
  • Diplomatic networks are also shrinking, with staff cuts reported in the U.S. State Department, the British diplomatic service, the Netherlands, and the European Union’s External Action Service.

Direct Threat to SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The pivot from diplomacy to defense spending directly contravenes the objectives of SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies. By de-emphasizing dialogue and international cooperation, governments risk fostering an environment of instability and conflict.

• The reduction of diplomatic corps and the closure of embassies weaken the institutional capacity for peaceful conflict resolution.
• An escalating arms race, fueled by increased military budgets, runs counter to the goal of reducing violence and creating a secure global environment.
• The erosion of “soft power” undermines efforts to build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels, as it prioritizes military deterrence over preventative development and diplomacy.

Cascading Negative Impacts Across the 2030 Agenda

Cuts to ODA have severe and far-reaching consequences that jeopardize the achievement of numerous SDGs beyond peace and security.

1. SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): The withdrawal of funding for humanitarian programs directly threatens the provision of food and essential aid to the world’s most vulnerable populations, as noted by former U.K. International Aid Minister Anneliese Dodds.
2. SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Reductions in aid have life-threatening consequences. One estimate suggests that U.S. aid cuts alone could lead to 14 million premature deaths over five years.
3. SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): While some propose private investment as an alternative, the overall reduction in development funding limits opportunities to create stable economies and jobs in developing nations, which can lead to instability and forced migration.
4. SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): Slashing ODA exacerbates the economic disparities between nations and undermines a key tool for promoting global equity.

Erosion of SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The simultaneous retreat from aid and diplomacy by major Western powers represents a critical failure in the global partnership required to achieve the SDGs. This withdrawal creates a vacuum on the world stage and damages long-term international relationships.

• The reduction of diplomatic and aid presence allows rival powers such as Russia, China, and Turkey to expand their influence, potentially with agendas that do not align with sustainable development principles.
• As stated by the OECD’s Cyprien Fabre, developing nations remember which partners remained and which departed during times of need, leading to a permanent loss of trust and influence for those who cut support.
• The multilateral system, which European Commissioner Hadja Lahbib describes as “shaking,” is weakened, diminishing the collective capacity to address global challenges like conflict, climate change, and pandemics.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article’s central theme is the global shift from diplomacy and “soft power” towards military buildup and “hard power.” It discusses the erosion of diplomatic institutions, rising defense budgets, and the potential for increased global instability and conflict, which directly relates to the goal of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article extensively covers the significant reduction in Official Development Assistance (ODA) by major industrialized nations. ODA is a key component of the global partnership for sustainable development, and the article details how countries are failing to meet their commitments, thereby weakening the means of implementation for all SDGs.
• SDG 1: No Poverty & SDG 2: Zero Hunger: The cuts in foreign aid are explicitly linked to devastating impacts on humanitarian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that work in the “poorest parts of the world.” The article mentions that these cuts will “remove food… from desperate people,” directly connecting the financial shifts to the goals of eradicating poverty and hunger.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The analysis directly links aid cuts to severe health consequences. It cites an estimate that these cuts could lead to millions of premature deaths, including those of children, and will “remove… health care from desperate people,” undermining the goal of ensuring healthy lives.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article highlights a growing divide where wealthy, industrialized nations are cutting aid and diplomatic support for developing countries. This action exacerbates inequalities between countries and reduces the voice and support for nations in Africa and Asia, which are most in need.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article’s core argument is that the shift from “jaw, jaw” (diplomacy) to “war, war” (military spending) makes the world a “far more dangerous place,” increasing the risk of conflict and violence. The rising military budgets and arms race are presented as trends moving away from this target.
• Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions… to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime. The article details the weakening of diplomatic institutions, which are crucial for preventing violence. It mentions “slashing jobs in the U.S. State Department,” staff cuts for British diplomats, and the EU reducing its network of overseas offices, all of which undermine the institutional capacity for peace.
• Target 17.2: Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of ODA/GNI to developing countries. This target is explicitly referenced. The article notes the UK was a “world leader” for enshrining the 0.7% commitment in law but is now cutting its budget to 0.3%. It also details widespread ODA cuts by France, Germany, and the U.S., showing a clear failure to meet this target.
• Target 3.2: By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age. The article provides a stark projection that U.S. aid cuts alone “could cause 14 million premature deaths over the next five years, one-third of them children.” This directly relates to the failure to protect the most vulnerable and prevent child mortality.
• Target 1.a: Ensure significant mobilization of resources… to implement programmes and policies to end poverty. The article describes a significant de-mobilization of resources. The U.S. freezing “billions of dollars in foreign aid” and cutting “90 percent of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s contracts” directly contradicts this target by removing funding for programs aimed at ending poverty.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator for SDG 16 (Military Expenditure): The article provides precise data on military spending, which can be used as a negative indicator for progress towards peace. It cites the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) report that global military spending “rose 9.4 percent to reach the highest global total ever recorded” in 2024. It also notes specific increases for China (7%), Russia (38%), and Europe (17%).
• Indicator for SDG 17 (ODA as a percentage of GNI): The article directly references the key indicator for Target 17.2. It cites an OECD report finding a “9 percent drop in official development assistance (ODA)” in 2024. It also specifies the UK’s plan to cut its aid budget “from 0.5 percent of gross national income to 0.3 percent,” providing a clear metric of regression.
• Indicator for SDG 16 (Strength of Diplomatic Institutions): The article provides several qualitative and quantitative indicators of weakening diplomatic capacity. It mentions the U.S. State Department firing “more than 1,300 employees,” “85 out of 195 American ambassador roles were vacant,” and British diplomats facing staff cuts of “15 percent to 25 percent.” These figures measure the decline in institutional strength for peace-building.
• Indicator for SDG 3 (Mortality Rates): An explicit, though projected, indicator is mentioned. The estimate that aid cuts “could cause 14 million premature deaths over the next five years, one-third of them children” serves as a powerful indicator for measuring the potential negative impact on health and well-being targets, particularly child mortality.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

Source: politico.eu