Who pays for defence? Myth and reality of military aid in international relations

Military aid is propositioned to come at the gross neglect of domestic priorities and investments.(Representative image)

As the American Presidential election gains momentum, a political rhetoric is emerging that billions of dollars of American taxpayers’ money was spent on providing military aid to Taiwan over several decades and time has come to scale it back! Similar chorus is heard on Ukraine, getting huge military aid from the US and other NATO countries. Such military aid, it is propositioned, often come at gross neglect of domestic priorities and investments. Political elites raise such demands during elections. However, judged through cost-benefit framework, donor countries appear fixated with certain economic, military or political dividends while extending military aid.

Economic and Strategic Gains for Donor Nations

In contemporary international relations, we have different models of military aid being provided to recipient countries. However, nearly all of them provide some or the other benefits to the donor countries as well! The US, for example, is committed to defend Taiwan against unilateral provocations from China under the Taiwan Relations Act (1979). Every American President, since then, has swore to this act by providing liberal military aid to Taiwan to boost its defences against China. This has mostly been in the form of advanced technology and weapons. For instance, the US has pledged $8 billion military aid package to Taiwan in 2024. This is as part of the Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act (2023) passed by the US Congress that commits $10 billion every year in foreign military financing to Taiwan from 2023 to 2027.

Much of these aid is indeed in the form of liberal loans, guarantees and financing of weapons to be insourced from the American domestic military industrial complex (MIC). Thus, money supposedly spent on Taiwan is being re-invested in the American MIC. The US also remains Taiwan’s largest arms supplier, sending 99 per cent of its weapons imports, although Taiwan’s overall imports have declined substantially in recent years. The pay-off is indeed huge for the US that gets to checkmate the Chinese military power projection in East Asia and Indo-Pacific in a cost-effective manner apart from deterring an armed invasion of Taiwan.

The US is also providing $61 billion in military aid to Ukraine this year. The US indeed has been the biggest pillar of support ever since Russian armed forces invaded Ukraine in February 2022. It has also goaded other NATO countries to cough up substantial military aid to Ukraine. However, much of the military aid would be reinvested in the domestic MICs of the US and other NATO countries. The expected political dividend was to be in the form of NATO membership for Ukraine and a limited military sphere of influence for Russia in Europe. Military aid was a calculated risk to shore up the defences of Ukraine against Russian military might. Ukraine’s protracted defensive operations will really pass the cost-benefit framework filter if it holds on against the Russian might and manages NATO membership!

What is the Cost Benefit of Military Aid Spending?

The US is not the only country to extend military aid within a cost-benefit framework; most great powers do this while engaging smaller countries. These donor countries, in the true spirit of homo economicus, insist that recipient countries buy weapons from donor MICs. Additionally, they also target political pay-offs that cannot be actually measured or even felt very easily. Very few recipient countries have actually benefitted from the military aid doles from big military powers without reverse benefits for the donor countries. Countries like China have gone a step ahead. While China has emerged as a significant weapons exporter, it is using military aid politics to trap small and under-developed Afro-Asian countries into a perpetual debt trap economy, seeking hefty concessions in airports, seaports and domestic markets. All related work contracts go to Chinese companies. Some recipient countries have started revolting against what they perceive as ‘pure mercantilism’ or ‘neo-colonialism’ in the garb of military aid politics!

It is, therefore, debatable if military aid politics is always beneficial for the recipient countries. Some countries become victims of domestic political instabilities since military aid often leads to domestic competition for financial resources. In the process, such military aid does promote autocracy, despotism, and large-scale corruption. Pakistan is a glaring example where the generals presided upon the collective loot of military aid received during Cold War days and even thereafter. Military aid also kills incentives for the indigenous growth of domestic MIC in these countries since quality weapons kill the compulsions for defence R&D. Sadly, at the end of the day, imported weapons do not lead to comprehensive enhancement in combat capabilities since there are supply-chain gaps and training related issues about the alien weapons and weapons platform. The recipient countries often get stuck in a perpetual patron-client relationship that may be financially draining for them.

Political Manipulation of Military Aid

Based on different national electoral campaign histories, it appears that political elites in developed countries raise the military aid bogey only for electoral gains! In most cases, foreign affairs do not affect the electorate directly. Consequently, there is a knowledge gap. Political elites exploit these gaps to impose their own false narratives. They mobilise the public opinion through a hawkish foreign and military policy agenda and attempt translating them into votes. In competitive political environment, a price-sensitive electorate may get influenced when such aid politics is questioned! However, these very elites develop cold feet when it comes to decision-making on abandoning military aid in due course!

Military aid politics may have had significant relevance in the Cold War days since the two superpowers followed their strategic instincts in buying and expanding the ally network. However, it has become a polemical foreign policy tool in recent times due to increased domestic scrutiny. Apart from benefitting donor countries, military aid politics has only perpetuated conflicts rather than resolving them! Unfortunately, these aspects are not debated in electoral politics. Therefore, military aid as a benevolent foreign policy tool is likely to stay afloat as myth in international relations.