The euro crisis has not been good for NATO’s secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Mr. Rasmussen has used every occasion to cajole alliance members into investing and collaborating more in defense.
He said recently that allied defense expenditures had declined by more than $56 billion compared with 2009. Practically all of those cuts happened in Europe, reducing defense spending there by an average of 15 percent.
Speaking at a meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Prague, Mr. Rasmussen added that among the European allies, “only two devoted more than 2 percent of the gross domestic product to defense.”
One of those countries was Greece.
That seems astonishing given that Greece is in a deep economic and financial crisis. Greece’s economy has shrunk by 25 percent over the past two years.
During that time, the middle and lower classes — not the rich business community — have been hit hardest. The International Monetary Fund and the European Commission have imposed stringent austerity measures in return for loan guarantees. As a result, pensions and health care, transportation and education have all been cut drastically.
The armed forces, so far, have gotten away relatively lightly. During the height of the global financial crisis of 2008, Greek defense expenditures accounted for 3.1 percent of gross domestic product. Over the past two years, Greek defense spending still amounted to 2.1 percent of G.D.P.
“In relative terms, defense expenditure has been reduced given how much gross domestic product has fallen,” said Alexander S. Kritikos, an economics professor at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin.
“But the defense budget is still very high. It has been largely insulated from the huge cutbacks borne by the middle classes and poorer people,” he added.
Last August, the €10 billion, or $13 billion, defense budget was trimmed by €516 million. Even at that, Greece is the second-biggest defense spender among the 27 NATO countries after the United States, according to NATO statistics.
More than 73 percent of its budget is for personnel costs alone, making it one of the highest among NATO allies. Furthermore, military and civilian personnel account for 2.7 percent of Greece’s total labor force during, also making it one of the highest in NATO, according to alliance figures.
It is particularly hard to see how the armed forces can justify the current budget, as the money is not spent on supporting NATO or E.U. missions. According to the latest figures from the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, Greece has 10 soldiers based in Afghanistan, out of a total of 102,011 troops from 50 countries.
In its neighborhood, Greece has 118 soldiers serving in NATO’s stabilization mission in Kosovo, out of a total of 5,565 troops from 30 contributing countries.
NATO does not publicly comment about any ally. But officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Greek government has not used the financial crisis to overhaul its armed forces by making the purchase of military equipment transparent, or reducing the personnel count of 136,000, of whom 90,000 are soldiers.
Curiously, the Greek public, which has often protested against the austerity measures, has yet to demand that the armed forces carry some of the burden. One reason, analysts say, is Greece’s residual fear of Turkey, a leading NATO member — despite the improvement of relations between the two countries over the past decade.
“It’s all very well calling for deeper defense cuts, but geography still matters. Certain fears still run deep,” said Tomas Valasek, president of the Central European Policy Institute, a security think tank in Bratislava, Slovakia.
Other analysts agree that the Greek armed forces can always resist big defense cuts by playing the Turkey card. “The generals will always have an excuse to keep the budget high,” Mr. Kritikos said.
Indeed, over the past several months, the Greek media have written that Turkey violated Greek airspace at least once. In response, the Turkish General Staff said its airspace had been repeatedly violated by Greece, Italy, and Israel.
There is another political reason for exempting the army from cuts. Closing some of the 500 military bases and 17 training centers would mean sending tens of thousands of young soldiers into the ranks of the unemployed, adding a dangerous component to social unrest, according to Sipri, a Swedish research institute. Perhaps, analysts said, the Greek armed forces will have to wait for any major restructuring until the country’s economy picks up.
Comments(9)
2.1 percent of a 25 percent lower GDP against 3 percent of the higher pre-crisis GDP amounts to a precisely 50 percent cut in the military budget and new procurements have pretty much dwindled to a halt. The idea that a country like Greece, at the fringes of Europe with its territorial integrity severely threatened by Turkey, should further reduce military expenditures does not make any sense. The Turkish threats are not a phobia of the Greeks as the author claims, they are part and parcel of the Turkish foreign policy of neo-Ottomanism. Turkey attacked Greece in Cyprus and occupies 37 percent of the island's north which it has ethnically cleansed. Furthermore, Turkey is arming itself at a high level.
Greek defence budget in 2012: 4,1€ billion not 10€ billion. Greek defence budget in 2013: 2,6€ billion. Conclusion: Stop writing lies.
The first question: what is the author's purpose in trying to appear to make a valid point based on false and grossly exaggerated data on Greek military spending? Suddenly, the Greek military has become the problem by trying to cope with major budget cuts (over 50% in certain expenses!), while facing an increasingly demanding mission of protecting its territory from Turkey, a country that was about to receive another 2 U.S. frigates (free of charge of course!). While this is a textbook example of modern propaganda, the second intriguing question is: who is actually its sponsor?
I would like to add to Starfish's comment that Turkey has a Casus-belli on Greece, violates on a daily basis the Greek fisheries and much more... The author also doesn't mention the social help provided by the military in a state where several public services fail. The LAST reason for the financial problems of Greece is the military.
Turkey is the pacifist in the area. Turkey does not develop new warships and tanks. Turkey does not buy fourth generation fighters. Turkey does not have a national fighter plane program. Turkey has not developed sub-ballistic missiles, nor does Turkey have the second largest military in NATO. Turkey has no problems with its neighbors (take any one). Nor does Turkey have a casus belli over Greece and territorial claims. Clearly, with a neighbor like that, any country would have disbanded their own military. I hope it was worth it!
I do not Know who is the analyst who says "One reason, analysts say, is Greece’s residual fear of Turkey, a leading NATO member—despite the improvement of relations between the two countries over the past decade." PLEASE EXPLAIN WHICH ARE THE IMPROVEMENTS???????????????????????? I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE OTHER COMMENTS AND MY QUESTION IS WHO IS THE REAL AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE??? I THINK THE ANSWER IS.......AHMET DAVOUTOGLOU
AND PLEASE DON'T USE A GERMAN—GREEK ONLY BY NAME PROFESSOR (Alexander S. Kritikos)—TO MAKE AN IMPRESSION—, TO COMMENT ON THE SITUATION BECAUSE HE ONLY KNOWS THE NUMBERS NOT THE REAL SITUATION.
Does the author know that NATO does NOT guarantee the Greek borders against an attack from an ally? NATO officially protects Greece against a non-ally (even if this hypothetical non-ally does not exist anywhere anymore). This is the official NATO policy since the 1970's and it has never changed since then. If the author knew this fact, would she make the same arguments on budgets? This policy was repeated many times over the years and Greek diplomacy was never able to nullify it. Why does the author think that such a policy exists? Does the author know that Greece buys weapons at prices much higher than the market prices (perhaps multiple times)? This money fills back pockets of politicians, agents, and weapon companies. It is a never-ending party for them (in crisis or not in crisis). I wonder if this is why no guarantees are given to protect Greece against Turkey. Does the author know that in the summer months, Turkish military airplanes fly low above inhabited Greek islands multiple times every day? The appearance of the multiple blame that the article implies is very naive (even suspicious) given the severity of Turkish violations year after year during the last decades. Would the author make the same arguments if she knew the real facts and not the artificially "balanced" facts? I think that we all agree that Greece has been spending a tremendous amount of money in defense for many years. Greece cannot afford to do that, especially now. On the other hand, it is very simple for the EU and NATO partners to correct this and reduce the bail-out needs by just declaring that they simply guarantee Greek borders. However, they do not do that. There are reports (I am not sure how credible) that when the Greek prime-minister visited Paris or Berlin to talk about a bail-out during the beginning of the crisis, the second theme was the sale of weapons. I am not sure if this can be confirmed, but the author may be able to research it along with the other facts that are mentioned in the comments here and above. It seems that the author needs to calibrate her positions before writing such articles. I suggest a good debate or two with some of her colleagues, preferably colleagues with diverse backgrounds.
I would like to make one more point. I admit that I do not have data to support or argue against the cost of military personnel. The 75% for salaries seems high, though, given the facts that a. Greece buys many fancy and modern equipment (planes, ships, submarines, etc) and b. The great majority of the 90,000 soldiers are not professionals and they are paid only a small monthly allowance. To give you an idea, I remember that I was paid the equivalent of 2 Euros during the late 1980's, when I served in the Greek army. Given this fact, I suspect that some of the detailed budget numbers are purposely concealed by the government, because the 73% personnel costs do not sound logical.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.