The Alternative Defence Review is a piece of research produced by the CND which aims to challenge the dominant pro-war narrative. The review comes after the Labour government’s Strategic Defence Review was a continuation of Conservative defence policy focusing on Britain’s nuclear deterrents, further commitments to Nato, and the Australia UK defence pact. Defence spending is set to increase from 2.3% of our GDP to 2.5%. These increases to military spending come at a cost to our domestic welfare system and international aid. Britain spends more than France, Spain or Germany do on defence.
The destruction of Gaza and Yemen represent the impact of our current arms output, whilst Starmer’s push for the Ukraine conflict to continue, demonstrates that the Labour government lacks long-term vision for defence policy. A real long-term vision could give Britain a leading role in the international peace movement emphasising diplomacy and cooperation. Russia, Iran and China have become the bogeymen through which militaristic defence spending is aimed at combating. US officials attended the Defence Select Review Committees looking at whether there should be a stronger alliance with the US in 2018-19 to advocate for increased military expenditure to combat China and Russia as well as increasing the role Britain plays in Nato.
The US has pushed to increase the role of Britain in Nato since 2021 due to concerns about the US trade deficit. If this trend continues, the dollar looks to be in trouble as countries shift to de-dollarise. In order to consolidate its influence, the US is moving to a world war footing and pushing for the expansion of Nato. Arms fairs are now promoting military-grade weaponry for police forces. For example, the Metropolitan Police have now purchased a Sandcat vehicle which is also used by the IDF. In what context is the Met police expecting to use this against civilians?
The state has gone to significant lengths to stop the peace movement through infiltration via spy cops and smears against journalists for speaking out about Gaza. Peace is bizarrely seen entirely at odds with the aims of the state, considered a threat to national security. The defence industry is responsible for a significant amount of environmental harm, many of the resources involved are non-renewable, the British arms industry alone contributes the same carbon emissions as 60 countries combined. The production of weapons is reliant on minerals, such as silica, cobalt and lithium, the extraction of which harms the environment and the workers involved in the process.
It is predicted we will spend a minimum of £288.6 million in the next decade on equipment. Some of this equipment is not fit for purpose, programmes run over budget and are late to complete. There is a lack of scrutiny and oversight over this spending and failure to deliver, with the National Audit Office restricted in its ability to evaluate spending.
We are told that there is no magic money tree for social welfare to support workers and their families, but there is always money found for war. This spending is justified with the claim that research projects and manufacturing create jobs, but this is not well evidenced. What is evidenced is that investment in heath care and public services such as rail does increase jobs and productivity across the economy.
The defence sector is highly concentrated with large firms dominating contracts and orders, investment in the sector is absorbed into firms and the shareholder profits redistributed to US-based private equity firms. BAE systems have been involved in multiple corporate bribery cases and other large firms have been fined for accounting irregularities. Defence is a high-profit industry with gains rarely reinvested, contributing little to long-term economic growth.
Large contracts won by firms like BAE systems do not guarantee more jobs as production is often subcontracted to the global supply chain. Only 5% of manufacturing jobs are in defence, of this, only 0.6% of these are full-time in Britain. For towns hit with de-industrialisation, military contracts are often the only option for manufacturing jobs. The decline of these towns is a result of economic policy that opted to get investment through land sell-offs, subsidies and enterprise zones. This has decayed communities and led to exploitative insecure work being the only option for many.
The focus of state policy on defense spending and arms research has a negative impact overall because the product created is only useful for war and does not have a social value. It has been suggested that defence diversification should be adopted as a framework. It seeks to re-orientate resources, technology and labour that is usually focused on military production to ‘transition to socially useful production’ that benefits peace and sustainability.
Unite have called for diversification to be a statutory duty. For the MoD sites to consider diversification, these sites are direct suppliers to the government and could be changed to suit production needs.
Trade unions have an important role to play in the peace movement with mobilising against defence spending and for high-quality, well-paid jobs for their members.
The 2022 TUC Congress passed a motion reversing its long-held policy of not supporting increased defence spending and backing the late, and over-budget dreadnought programme. We must not let militarism be accepted within the trade union movement. There is a concern from some that canceling programmes such as Trident will lead to a loss of jobs. Diversification and a worker-led Just Transition would allow workers to retain their jobs, learn new skills and develop the economy.
The diversification process must consider that workers are not always mobile and that jobs need to come to them, maintaining their wages and terms and conditions which this requires wider social support and investment in retraining opportunities such as retrofit, health & social care alongside investment in the social infrastructure of the community to ensure its long term sustainability. The transition should be managed and will require state support.
Instead of policy focusing us on our preparedness for war we must consider issues like climate change, future pandemics, cyber-threats and economic inequality. A defence strategy focusing on combatting these will enable us to be more prepared and orientate us towards common security on the international stage. Peace is the only sustainable defence strategy to guarantee the security of our future.
Its important to note that as Marxists we support revolutionary wars but the ongoing conflicts are not in the same context and instead seek to expand imperial influence and consolidate control over resources. Some people I’ve spoken to that are more ‘Reform leaning’ have an understanding of anti-imperialism and have an understanding of the malignant influence the US has on international politics, but there is a lack of a mainstream narrative for peace that helps people develop their understanding to action for the peace movement.
Emma Richards is a member of the Young Communist League’s London branch
