“THE UN’s 0.7 per cent aid target is ignored. Climate goals are missed. These are greater threats than Russia. You can talk to Russia, but not to the climate,” argues Professor Tom Sauer.

He has a point. Social and ecological targets have been trampled for decades, but military spending is treated as sacred. When Donald Trump and Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte demand 2 per cent of GDP for Nato, no-one questions it — except Sauer: “Why 2 per cent? That’s a political fetish, not law.”

Belgium doubled military spending from €3.9 billion (2017) to €7.4bn (2024). To hit the 2 per cent fetish, the 2025 Easter Agreement raises it to €12.8bn annually — €5bn more yearly, stolen from pensions and social security.

Before even achieving this, whispers of a new Nato demand emerge: 5 per cent of GDP for defence, 3.5 per cent for “hard defence.” For Belgium, that’s €22.3bn yearly — €15bn more than 2024. Lunacy. That’s our pensions. Our public services. Our healthcare.

When Belgian Defence Minister Theo Francken praised the US model this year, some thought it a bad joke. “We laughed at US poverty, addiction, lack of safety nets, $1,000 dentist bills,” Francken told the newspaper, De Tijd. “We didn’t want to live there because they spent on ‘hard security.’ It’s nicer to fund pensions, unemployment, a ‘Cuban model’ where €13 buys a large bag of medications at the pharmacy. But who was right?”

Who’s right, the Nato parliamentary assembly’s vice-chairperson asks. Those pouring billions into a warmongering military-industrial complex while millions lack basic protections? Those wasting money on imperialist wars while six million Americans battle opioid addiction? Those charging $1,000 for dental care? Francken’s message is clear: The shift to a war economy will kill social security.

French journalist Remi Godeau agrees: “Let’s be clear, the war economy means longer work hours and rationing the welfare state’s ‘excess’.” Social security, housing, elderly care — all “excess.” Francken calls social security “too fat,” but he won’t spare a word for arms industry dividends, corruption and billionaire hoarding.

What European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen calls the “era of rearmament” means an era of social dismantling for Europe’s working class. More money for tanks means less for pensions; more for drones, less for childcare.

“The German government ordered, among others, 105 Leopard II tanks from Rheinmetall. One tank costs €27.8 million. A new primary school in my district costs €25 million. What’s good for Rheinmetall is bad for our children,” says Gesine Lotzsch of Die Linke. She’s right. These are political choices with consequences that will haunt us for decades. There’s no reason to accept them — it’s never too late to say no.

Breaking the deadly arms race

In the narrative of Trump, Rutte and Francken, we supposedly have too few weapons. That is grotesque. Military spending on Earth has been moving in only one direction for the past 10 years: upward!

Last year, $2.718 trillion was spent globally on armaments, an increase of nearly 10 per cent compared to the previous year, according to calculations by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. That is the strongest increase since 1988. Military spending by European countries will rise to $693bn in 2024. This is an increase of 17 per cent compared to 2023 and 83 per cent compared to 2015. How can there be too few weapons?

The world is slowly suffocating under a hallucinatory arms race. It always follows the same logic: if one country upgrades, others will follow. Anyone who pursues the logic of deterrence to its inevitable conclusion will end up advocating for the nuclear armament of Germany and Europe.

At worst, this spiral will culminate in a major war with many losers and few winners. History teaches us that this dangerous vortex can only be broken through mutual disarmament treaties. This requires sober diplomacy, but also a robust international anti-war movement applying pressure from below.

Arms production won’t save the economy

“What many forget when hearing these astronomical defence figures is that this tax money largely flows back into our economy.” So claims our defence minister Francken. The title of his X post leaves no room for doubt: “Defence is business!”

The advantage of Minister Francken is his ability to articulate Nato and arms industry talking points so clearly. The theory that increased militarisation will boost the economy is an evergreen of the military-industrial complex. They proudly call it “military Keynesianism” — have governments massively subsidise the arms industry. Now that Europe’s auto sector is floundering and Germany faces its third consecutive year of recession, they want us to believe switching from cars to tanks is the solution.

This is nonsense, of course, because families don’t buy tanks. You don’t drive a tank to grandma’s house. Yet these tanks must be sold. To sustain this industry, they must be used — otherwise, the sector collapses. In other words, militarising the economy creates permanent pressure for war. A war not meant to be won, but to be endless, because peace threatens profit margins.

The only way to sustain this is through perpetual war. This is Washington’s model: 850 global military bases, endless interventions, and coups. The Korean war, the Bay of Pigs invasion, Vietnam, Grenada and Panama, the Gulf war, Afghanistan and Iraq, the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine — the list goes on. Permanent war is the lifeblood of military Keynesianism.

Moreover, the new arms race is to be funded partly by debt. “Just like in the US,” say the warmongers. They omit that US debt is historically high, and inequality has never been worse. This is the cost of near-permanent war.

Tanks don’t fill lunchboxes. Higher military spending won’t raise living standards. Arms production offers no economic benefits. Building tanks, bombs or missile systems contributes nothing to the broader economy. The myth of job creation is equally false: €1 invested in hospitals creates 2.5 times more jobs than €1 in weapons. In terms of employment efficiency, defence ranks 70th out of 100 sectors.

Even arms industry jobs aren’t secure — they depend on perpetual war. Francken’s claims are false. The billions funnelled to arms manufacturers don’t “flow back” to society. They flow to one group: the arms-makers themselves. Profits for Rheinmetall, Dassault, BAE Systems, Leonardo, Thales and Saab have reached astronomical levels.

“Returns have soared up to over 1,000 per cent in three years. The sector averages 400-500 per cent. It’s enormous, unprecedented,” says KBC Bank’s chief economist. Yes, Francken is right about one thing: defence is big business.

Peace builds care, war builds ruin

To further fuel the overheated push toward militarisation, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever eagerly revives a late Roman slogan — once meant to halt the decline of the western Roman empire through stricter military discipline and higher defence spending: “Si vis pacem, para bellum” (If you want peace, prepare for war). This was never a slogan of peace. It has always been a rallying cry for militarisation and war. But militarisation does not strengthen society. Mere decades after Rome embraced it, the empire collapsed irreversibly.

History teaches us: wars and arms races are not stopped from above. Those in power halt militarisation and war only when pressured from below. It is the people who pay the price — with their livelihoods, their futures, their children — who can make the difference. If the labour and peace movements join hands and unite, much becomes possible.

The left must not conform to the new military consensus. Instead, it must boldly challenge the West’s hypocrisy, its warlike conflicts of interest, and the destructive arms race.

“Wenn wir zum Krieg rusten, werden wir Krieg haben” (If we prepare for war, we will have war), wrote German poet Bertolt Brecht in the lead-up to World War II. The bitter reality of the 20th century proves his point. The lesson is simple: Those who want peace must prepare for peace, not war.

When it comes to war, billions suddenly seem to materialise effortlessly. When it comes to people, they don’t. This is a world turned upside down. We don’t need Nato — we need peace. The arms race does not lead to security, but to greater inequality, more violence, and endless war.

Peace will not be achieved by surrendering to the dogma of militarisation and today’s military fetishes. It requires building new power structures. Peace is not inevitable — it is the result of struggle. A struggle that embeds demands for social progress into a different logic, one daring to think beyond the constraints of capitalism.

This system, where powerful monopolies impose profit-driven domination through conquest, war, and an economy of destruction, offers no future for humanity or the planet. “It’s barbarism or socialism,” declared Rosa Luxemburg. We choose the side of labour, peace, and socialism.

Peter Mertens is a member of the Belgian chamber of representatives and is former leader of the Workers Party of Belgium (2008-21)

This article is republished from peoplesdispatch.org.