(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
The Norwegian Defense Research Establishment (FFI) recently published a report that addresses three possible scenarios for future defense budgets in Norway up to the year 2015. All scenarios are based on stated political ambitions or planning assumptions, and have been chosen to highlight the consequences of the various directions the government has outlined as possible ways forward for the Armed Forces: First they look at a flat compensated continued 2015 budget, then at a budget with 0,5 per cent real annual growth, and finally a budget where the GDP share is increased to two per cent by 2025. The first two scenarios are taken from the two economic development paths that will form the basis of a new Professional Military Council (FMR), and the third is from the NATO summit in Wales in September 2014. According to Sverre Kvalvik, one of the researchers behind the report, all the three forms relevant path choices for the government going forward – but he points out that the different scenarios will have very different consequences. "The most central question concerns which of these three scenarios the Armed Forces should base its long-term planning on," says Kvalvik. "The first two will both lead to the defense budget's share of gross domestic product (GDP) continuing to fall. Furthermore, the difference between the two scenarios will increase over time, reaching several billion kroner in 2035, "he says, adding:" The third scenario represents a significant break in the trend, as it means that the defense budget must be increased by almost 60 percent in the period 2015–2025 to account for 2 per cent of GDP in 2025. » Kvalvik also says that the first scenario involves a relatively dramatic downgrading of the Armed Forces, and thus seems unrealistic in view of the security policy changes Norway is in the middle of. The second alternative also involves a further reduction of the Armed Forces' GDP share, but to a lesser extent. "While scenario number three represents a clear break with the last 25 years of defense policy, and will require a re-prioritization of tasks in Norway in a time of declining oil revenues and increasing challenges associated with the aging wave," says Kvalvik. He says that the report points out scenario number two, ie that with a budget of 0,5 per cent real annual growth, as the least risky alternative for the Armed Forces. This alternative will result in a moderate increase in the defense budget, but will still result in a decline in the defense's share of GDP. "This means that the Armed Forces will only benefit from barely half of the growth the rest of society is expected to receive," concludes Kvalvik.
Many NATO countries have reduced their defense budgets over the last five to six years – reductions that come on top of the dramatic adjustments after the end of the Cold War.
The peace dividend. While the defense budget up to 1990 followed developments in the rest of the Norwegian economy, this has not been the case since the Cold War ended. This is illustrated by the fact that the Armed Forces' share of GDP has also fallen in the period after 2000. This reduction in the size of the defense budget has been referred to as the "peace dividend", or the benefit society could reap from a new security policy climate. Economic expansion has taken place in sectors other than the Armed Forces, which have been relatively prioritized for other purposes, and in particular typical welfare purposes. "There has been a significant real increase in the defense budget since World War II. The end of the Cold War marks a clear trend break, with annual growth slowing. This period of lower growth lasted about 2000, and was replaced by a period of somewhat higher growth, "says Kvalvik, adding:" While the budgets in the 1990s were in effect reduced by about 1,5 per cent per year, they have grown by about 3,3 percent annually in the period after 2000. ” In the period of flat and partly falling defense budgets up to the year 2000, the perceived threat level in both Europe and Norway was significantly lower than before, and it was not considered necessary to increase the defense budgets further. The composition of the defense budget has changed in line with the restructuring of the Armed Forces. While the Armed Forces spent almost a third of the budget on investments in the 1980s, the level in the 2000s has remained at 20 percent. NATO's goal for member countries to spend at least 20 percent of the defense budget on investment is more than fulfilled in 2015 for Norway, with 23 percent. Nevertheless, the investment share in 2015 is among the lowest for the Armed Forces since the late 1970s. The current government proposes to increase the defense budget for 2015 by 3,4 per cent, corresponding to NOK 1,46 billion, which is neither more nor less than was already assumed in the current long-term plan. The defense budget nominally increases by NOK 789 million to a total of NOK 43 million. The budget involves a significant investment in relevant and modern capacities. Among other things, the government will strengthen the defense sector's ability to contribute to social security by enhancing helicopter preparedness at Rygge and Bardufoss. The Storting has already granted authorization to order a total of 818 F-16 fighter aircraft for delivery in the period 35–2015. The draft budget proposes to procure a further six aircraft with scheduled delivery in 2018. In 2019, the government proposes an increase of NOK 2015 million for the defense sector for further development and integration of JSM on the new fighter aircraft. Military center of gravity. EU military spending is "the elephant in space", and a key factor in the European debt crisis, the report claimed Guns, Debt and Corruption, published by the Transnational Institute and the Dutch Campaign against the Arms Trade in 2013. Years of euro crisis are marked on the European defense budgets. Since 2008, the EU's total defense spending has been cut by around NOK 250 billion. There is also great political pressure in the US to cut the state budget. An ever-increasing budget deficit has led to broad political consensus that something needs to be done, and the US defense budget is under intense pressure. The FFI report from this year also highlights the defense economy of Brazil, Russia, India and China, the so-called BRIC countries. "These are countries that it is not natural for Norway to compare with, but it is still important to see Norway and NATO's defense economic development in light of what is happening in other geographical areas," the report states. The BRIC countries have had a steady increase in their defense budgets since 2003. Of the BRIC countries, China is spending most on defense, followed by Russia. This indicates that the world's military center of gravity is moving. China's defense budget increased by 12,2 percent last year to $ 130 billion, the second largest defense budget in the world after the United States. This year it will increase by around 10 per cent compared to last year. Strong increases in Putin's Russia. While Europe has cut, Russia has prepared itself. Since Vladimir Putin first became prime minister, Russia has significantly increased its military spending. SIPRI's overview shows that Russian military investment was NOK 143 billion in 1999. The following year, when Putin became president, it had increased to NOK 193 billion. In 2013, the figure was up to a total of NOK 544 billion – more than doubling over the last 10 years. In 2013, the Russian defense budget grew as much as 26 percent. This year, the country will cut all spending items in the state budget for 2015 by more than 10 per cent, compared to the original budget proposal. The only exception is military spending, which is the highest priority for President Vladimir Putin. In the years 2011-2020, the country plans to spend around NOK 4500 billion on acquiring, upgrading and developing military equipment.
Norway is one of four NATO countries that have continuously increased investment since 2008.
Many NATO countries have reduced their defense budgets over the last five to six years – reductions that come on top of the dramatic adjustments after the end of the Cold War. "At the time of writing, there are long-term plans for several key NATO countries in Europe to further cut defense spending. This development can be problematic for Norway, as it can lead to both weakening of NATO as an institution and of the capabilities of individual NATO countries, ”the report concludes. Despite this, NATO is completely superior to Russia in defense investment. Today, the United States alone stands for two-thirds of NATO's total spending, and Americans will put pressure on European members to make them pay a larger portion of the bill. The Defense Alliance has warned Europeans several times: They cannot expect the United States to pull the load alone. The Eastern European countries in particular are now pushing for armaments in Europe and NATO troops to their countries to meet the threat from Russia. The United States has for many years pointed out that Europeans must take more responsibility for their own and global security, which has been difficult for a Europe in economic crisis. More and more people believe that in a time of great cuts in public services it would be morally reprehensible to spend money on weapons, money that should rather be invested in creating jobs and preventing poverty. 2 percent requirement. During the NATO summit in Wales last fall, which, according to Nina Græger at the NUPI Research Group on Foreign Policy and Diplomacy, was the most important NATO summit of many years, it was decided that all member countries should invest at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense. The goal is to get there in a decade. According to SIPRI, only six countries – Estonia, France, Greece, Portugal, the United Kingdom and Turkey – in European NATO fulfill this. Norway is one of four NATO countries that have continuously increased investment since 2008. With a share of 1,43 percent of its GDP, Norway is roughly on average, but with a high GDP and a low population, the country is still one of the countries that uses the most per head. Norway spends more per capita on defense than the United Kingdom, three times as much as Belgium, twice as much as Germany and more than twice the average among NATO's member states in Europe. On the other hand, the United States uses almost twice as much per capita as Norway. Among the NATO countries, only the United States spends more on defense per capita than Norway. Sweden stands at 1,2 per cent and Denmark at 1,4. Increased commitment. If Norway strives for NATO's 2 per cent defense goal, it will in practice mean a significantly increased commitment. According to the report, in the years to come, politicians will have to prioritize the Armed Forces ahead of areas of society that are currently given higher priority than the defense, which is typically welfare purpose. Unless the threat picture changes drastically, such a re-prioritization would seem unlikely, the report says. However, Ida Helene Berg, Kvalvik's research colleague and co-author of the report, does not believe that 2 per cent is excluded in the long term. "If the changes we have seen over the last year, with changed Russian security policy and terrorist threats against Norway, become lasting and further sharpened, they can in the long run affect Norwegian opinion and decision makers' willingness to prioritize defenses as high as 2 percent of GDP," she says. When Jens Stoltenberg took over as NATO commander, he was clear that cuts in defense budgets should be a laid-back stage: “I am very aware that many countries in NATO are struggling with financial crisis and major debt problems, but we are living in an era of more uncertainty, and we live in a time when uncertainty has come closer to NATO, "Stoltenberg said. "I find that there is a consensus in NATO that the time for cutting is at least over." The question one can ask is whether or not we are involved in creating the conflicts we are involved in. Unless it is the case that by spending more in defense spending, we will only participate in a arms race. And whether or not weapons production in itself just provides the basis for further conflict. Otherwise, as Anders Kjølberg, who has for many years researched Norwegian and Russian security policy, told Dagsavisen last fall: “The military power is good to have, but it should primarily be used to prevent and deter. If you pursue a policy that the other party considers aggressive, then you only promote the use of force by the other party. "
