Between NATO and a hard place: defence spending debate in Germany and Czechia

ABSTRACT

Defence spending has become a primary issue in the context of NATO. The question of fair burden-sharing and development of new capabilities in reaction to the changing security environment led NATO members to aim to spend 2% of GDP on defence by 2024. While some allies have managed to reach the level quickly, others seem not to be able or willing to do so. We know little, however, how the international commitment is reflected and referred to in individual member states. This article shows how size played a role when the 2% pledge was discussed in domestic politics, even if the resulting policy may be very similar. Based on expert and political debates in Germany and Czechia, it demonstrates that external expectations and the question of status play a crucial part in the small state’s reasoning whereas it is mainly internal drivers that shape the big state’s decisions.

KEYWORDS:

• Defence spending
• small states
• Germany
• Czechia
• NATO

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the BISA European Security Working Group workshop in Newcastle and at a CERGU research seminar. Thanks to all attendees for their comments that helped improve the article significantly. Many thanks also to the anonymous reviewers for their very useful critical comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Tomáš Weiss is Associate Professor and Head of Department of European Studies at Charles University, Prague. He is a member of the Scientific Council of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic and a member of the editorial board of Mezinárodní vztahy / Czech Journal of International Relations. After degrees in European Studies in Hamburg and in Prague, he did his PhD at Charles University in Area Studies, analysing the changing role of police and military forces in contemporary Europe. His research focuses on European foreign and security policy, small states in the EU, Europeanisation of national foreign and defence policies, and the Czech foreign and security policy in particular. In 2018–2019, Tomáš is a visiting researcher at the Department of Politics and International Studies and a visiting fellow at Clare Hall, University of Cambridge.

Notes

1. Very few argue that the current level of funding should remain unchanged (Biscop 2017) or even is too high (Robinson 2017).

2. The concept of size remains contested despite being widely used in the academic debate (Archer and Nugent 2002, Rickli 2008). Some base the definition on objective criteria, particularly geographic or demographic size of the country or the gross domestic product (Vital 1967). Others prefer the position of states in the system and focus on their influence (Maass 2016). And others focus on a state’s position relative to others (Thorhallsson and Wivel 2006) or self-perception (Crandall and Varov 2016). By all accounts, Germany remains a big state whereas Czechia is a small one in the context of European security. Clearly visible is the difference on the fact that Germany, along with the UK and France, belongs to the only EU countries with the full spectrum of military capability (with the exception of nuclear weapons).

3. It should be noted that Germany invests a lot of resources in other forms of external engagement, such as development assistance and post-conflict reconstruction. Czechia falls short of its commitments in this area too.

4. Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) did stand in the 2013 general elections but removed its manifesto from the website. It is not available on other websites either and could not be included in the analysis.

5. The minutes of the respective lower chambers’ plenaries have been used as a source, accessible on the websites of the institutions. The arguments in the debate are cited by the date and party affiliation of the speaker. Although a more detailed discussion usually takes place in the respective committees, their minutes are not published and could not be subject to analysis.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Czech Science Foundation [grant number: 17-05581S].