Head of Nato suggests alliance should look to ‘equalise' US defence contribution
Secretary-general Mark Rutte said allies will find themselves 'in great difficulty' in the coming years if they stick with the current 2% GDP alliance spending target.
The former Dutch prime minister is thought to be pushing for members to commit to spending 3.5% on the military, with a further 1.5% on defence-related measures.
America currently spends around 3.4% of its GDP on defence, and Nato members are expected to spend 2%.
Sir Keir Starmer has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament, a timetable which could stretch to 2034.
However, he and the Defence Secretary have already come under pressure to explain how the 3% target could be met.
Speaking at a press conference on Wednesday, Mr Rutte said: 'The expectation is that on the European side of Nato and the Canadian side of Nato, if we think that we can keep ourselves safe sticking with the 2%, forget it.
'Yes, the next three to five years, but then we are in great difficulty. And the US rightly expects us to spend much more to defend ourselves with their help, but also to equalise, which is only fair with what the US is spending on defence.'
Leaders from Nato will meet in The Hague later this month, and Mr Rutte said a new 'investment plan' will be 'at the heart' of the summit.
Defence Secretary John Healey said on Tuesday the UK already 'makes a huge contribution to Nato' amid speculation about what the body will call for.
'Britain already makes a huge contribution to Nato,' he told reporters.
'We've published a defence review that has Nato at its heart and I'm announcing today the new spending in this Parliament, £4 billion, doubling the amount that we'll put into drones.
'We'll make a bigger contribution to Nato through that, and £1 billion over this Parliament to develop laser weapons, the first European nation in Nato to have laser weapons on our destroyers and then with our land forces.
'This is Britain leading in Nato, contributing more to Nato, just as we do, for instance, with our nuclear deterrent, the only country with a nuclear deterrent that commits it in full to other Nato nations.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
9 hours ago
- The Independent
UK could face up to £30bn of tax rises to fund defence spending boost, economist says
Rachel Reeves could be forced to raise up to £30bn through tax rises or funding cuts as the chancellor seeks to meet Labour's pledge to boost defence spending, an economist has claimed. The government has promised to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, and has an 'ambition' – but no firm commitment – to raise it to 3 per cent in the next parliament, after 2029. But the UK's Nato allies are expected also to push for a fresh target of 3.5 per cent, with the alliance's chief Mark Rutte pushing for a 'dramatic increase', with discussions over a possible 5 per cent target – as called for by Donald Trump – also taking place. And Sir Keir Starmer this week vowed to make Britain 'a battle-ready, armour-clad nation' as a long-awaited defence review called for major upgrades to the UK's military. While the major proposals were based around Labour's current spending pledges for 2027 and the next parliament, the report warned that 'as we live in such turbulent times it may be necessary to go faster' on increasing the UK's defence capabilities. Michael Saunders, a senior economic adviser at the Oxford Economics consultancy, suggested that the government could take steps towards this in the chancellor's next Budget. 'To establish a more credible path to defence spending 'considerably north of 3 per cent' next decade, the government may decide in the autumn Budget that it needs to add some extra spending within the five-year OBR forecast horizon,' said Mr Saunders. 'It's not hard to see pressures for extra fiscal tightening of £15bn to £30bn,' he told The Telegraph. Fiscal tightening involves either raising taxes or cutting government spending. Earlier this week, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), also warned the only way to pay for the increased defence budget would be through 'chunky tax rises' as the government grapples with other key areas of public spending. He told Times Radio: 'You really do have to ask that question, what are the choices that you're going to make? Bluntly, it really does seem to me that the only choice that is available, is some really quite chunky tax increases to pay for it.' According to the IFS, hitting the 3 per target by 2030 would require an extra £17bn pounds between now and then which is yet to be accounted for. Sir Keir has previously said that increasing defence spending to 2.5 per cent would mean 'spending £13.4bn more on defence every year from 2027'. The Office for Budget Responsibility has also estimated that reaching 3 per cent by the next parliament would cost an additional £17.3bn in 2029/30. Speaking in parliament as the defence review was unveiled this week, Lib Dem defence spokesperson Helen Maguire said: 'It is staggering that we still don't have an answer to the vital question: 'Where is the money coming from?' The government has flip-flopped a number of times on 3 per cent.' On Tuesday, defence secretary John Healey failed to rule out tax rises to make Britain 'war ready' and insisted he was '100 per cent confident' the 3 per cent target would be met — but struggled to say how it would be paid for. It came as defence sources were reported to expect that Britain will be forced to sign up to a target to hike defence spending to 3.5 per cent by 2035 at a Nato summit later this month in a bid to appease the US president.
NBC News
13 hours ago
- NBC News
U.S. Salvadoran family's tough journey to Canada: 'We didn't want to be deported'
Aracely Serrano Ayala said she felt her world was ending several times in the last three months. After living and working in the U.S. for more than a decade, the 35-year-old resident of Plainfield, New Jersey, and her partner, Marcos Guardado, began to live in fear because they were undocumented immigrants. The Salvadoran couple never started the process of seeking a green card. As the Trump administration increased its deportation efforts, in March they decided to embark on a journey to Canada with their two daughters and apply for asylum there, where Serrano's brother is a citizen. 'We wanted a better future, to legalize our status and continue working," said Serrano, "but the United States gave us no hope." Serrano said nothing prepared her and her family for being turned away twice at the Canadian border, detained by U.S. immigration authorities and separated from her husband for several weeks, after he was transferred to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center. Serrano and her family are now living legally in Canada, but their story illustrates the complexities of the immigration and the asylum process, both in the U.S. and Canada. 'We just wanted to get out of the country and never imagined we would go through all this,' she says, her voice breaking. An opportunity in Canada - and unexpected setbacks Under the 2015 Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) between Canada and the United States, asylum-seekers must seek protection in the first safe country they arrive in. That is, if someone enters the U.S. first and meets the requirements, they must begin their asylum application there and cannot do so in Canada, and vice versa. However, there are exceptions in the agreement. If a person enters Canadian territory from the U.S. and can prove they have a close relative in the country who meets certain requirements (being of legal age, having Canadian citizenship or being a permanent resident, among other conditions), the person can enter the country and is allowed to begin their asylum application. 'I was hopeful because I know this agreement exists — and my brother had been there for 20 years,' Serrano said. But when the family got to the Canadian border, issues with documentation and even a misunderstanding over how last names are used in Latin America prevented them from being allowed into Canada and led to their detention in the U.S., illustrating the difficulties around migration and entry into another country. Serrano said that when she and he family crossed the Rainbow Bridge into Canada, "our dream of entering the country had collapsed," as Canadian border officials flagged several issues with their Salvadoran documents. One of the birth certificates had a mistake regarding Serrano's mother's name, Serrano's Canadian attorney, Heather Neufeld, said. Though there was a correction note in the margins, the border officials didn't pay attention to that and thought there was a discrepancy in their names, so they didn't accept it,' Neufeld said in an interview. The attorney added that another aspect complicating the process was that on one document, Serrano's father appeared with only one of his surnames, while on other documents, he had both. 'The [Canadian] officers didn't understand that in Latin America, people have two last names, but sometimes only one appears on the documents. So they thought they were fake. It was a series of errors made by border officials, when in fact, they were legitimate documents,' Neufeld said. Telemundo Noticias requested comment from the Canada Border Security Agency on the Serrano and Guardado case. Although authorities declined to comment on the Salvadoran family's case out of respect for their privacy, Luke Reimer, a spokesperson for the agency, said in a statement that port-of-entry officials are the ones who determine whether the evidence demonstrates that the asylum-seeker is subject to the Canada-United States Agreement. After the couple was declared inadmissible, Canadian authorities deported them back to the U.S., where they were detained at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility. 'They checked our documents there at U.S. immigration and then took us to a cell. It was a place with no windows or bathroom. When we wanted to go to the bathroom, we had to tell them to take us,' said Serrano. She said they were held there for two weeks. At the end of March, Serrano said, without warning, U.S. immigration agents sent them back to the Rainbow Bridge port of entry, but because they had the same papers, they were deported again to the U.S. Serrano, Guardado and Neufeld said that neither U.S. nor Canadian authorities have explained who made the decision to take them back to the Canadian port of entry. This is important because generally people only have one opportunity to resubmit their case to authorities. Noticias Telemundo contacted the Department of Homeland Security, ICE and CBP for comment on the case, but didn't receive a response. After the second deportation, Serrano and her daughters were separated from Guardado, who was transferred to an ICE detention center. Guardado said he'd never been imprisoned in his life; "it was the first time that happened to me, and I was there for a month and a few days,' he said, adding that he only had a few minutes to say goodbye to his daughters. However, things began to change. While Guardado was in detention, U.S. authorities placed Serrano in an electronic bracelet and released her along with her daughters. They spent a few days in a shelter in Buffalo, New York, and their case began to attract attention in the Canadian media. Neufeld then filed an official appeal with Canadian authorities. 'We submitted all the evidence with our arguments, but they sent us a one-sentence letter stating that they weren't going to change their initial decision, so the only option left was a petition in federal court,' Neufeld said. On May 5, the Canadian government agreed to allow Serrano and her two daughters to enter the country to begin the asylum application process. Meanwhile, Guardado remained detained in the U.S. and had to post a $12,000 bond to attend the interview with Canadian authorities to be able to reunite with his family. They turned to their family and close friends, all from the same Salvadoran town as Serrano and Guardado. "They all raised the bail to get me out; some put up $50, others $500," Guardado said. "Little by little, it all came together. I have a list of more than 500 people who helped me." Guardado recalled the day they told him he was entering Canada. 'I was able to be with them and hug my crying girls,' Guardado said. Serrano said the biggest difference she's experienced living in Canada is a sense of security and freedom that comforts her. 'We're no longer afraid. Imagine having that freedom with my girls, to go anywhere, without the fear that they'll find us and deport us without us committing any crime,' she said. But while the family begins a new life in Canada, bad news continue to cloud their horizon. Guardado's brother, Jaime — who's married to a naturalized U.S. citizen from El Salvador and was planning to go back to El Salvador as part of his green card process — was detained in New Jersey and continues to be in ICE custody.
The Guardian
14 hours ago
- The Guardian
Russia is at war with Britain and US no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says
Russia is at war with Britain, the US is no longer a reliable ally and the UK has to respond by becoming more cohesive and more resilient, according to one of the three authors of the strategic defence review. Fiona Hill, from county Durham, became the White House's chief Russia adviser during Donald Trump's first term and contributed to the British government's strategy, and made the remarks in an interview with the Guardian. 'We're in pretty big trouble,' Hill says, describing the UK's geopolitical situation as caught between 'the rock' of Vladimir Putin's Russia and 'the hard place' of Donald Trump's increasingly unpredictable United States. The best known of the reviewers appointed by Labour, alongside Lord Robertson, a former Nato secretary general, and retired general Sir Richard Barrons, Hill, 59, said she was happy to take on the role because it was 'such a major pivot point in global affairs'. She remains a dual national even after living over 30 years in the US. 'Russia has hardened as an adversary in ways that we probably hadn't fully anticipated,' Hill says, arguing that Putin sees the Ukraine war as a starting point to Moscow becoming 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. As part of that long-term effort, Russia is already 'menacing the UK in various different ways,' she says, citing 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations, all kinds of cyber attacks and influence operations. The sensors that we see that they're putting down around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables.' The conclusion, Hill says, is that 'Russia is at war with us'. Though the foreign policy expert, a long time Russia watcher, says she first made a similar warning in 2015, in a revised version of a book she wrote about the Russian president with Clifford Gaddy, reflecting on the invasion and annexation of Crimea. 'We said Putin had declared war on the West,' she says. At the time, other experts disagreed, but Hill says events since demonstrate 'he obviously had, and we haven't been paying attention to it'. The Russian leader, she argues, sees the fight in Ukraine as 'part of a proxy war with the United States; that's how he has persuaded China, North Korea and Iran to join in'. Putin believes, she says, that Ukraine has already been decoupled from the US relationship because 'Trump really wants to have a separate relationship with Putin to do arms control agreements and also business that will probably enrich their entourages further, though Putin doesn't need any more enrichment'. When it comes to defence, however, Hill says that the UK cannot rely on the military umbrella of the US as during the Cold War and in the generation that followed, at least 'not in the way that we did before'. In her description, the UK 'is having to manage its number one ally', though the challenge is not to overreact because 'you don't want to have a rupture'. This way of thinking even appears in the defence review published earlier this week, which says 'the UK's long-standing assumptions about global power balances and structures are no longer certain' – a rare acknowledgement in a British government document of how far and how fast Trumpism is affecting foreign policy certainties. The review team reported to Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, and defence secretary John Healey. Most of Hill's interaction were with Healey however, and Hill said she only met the prime minister once – describing him as 'pretty charming … in a proper and correct way' and as 'having read all the papers'. Hill is not drawn on if she advised Starmer or Healey on how to deal with Donald Trump, saying instead 'the advice I would give is the same I would give in a public setting'. She says simply that the Trump White House 'is not an administration, it is a court' in which a transactional president is driven by his 'own desires and interests, and who listens often to the last person he talks to'. She adds that unlike his close circle, Trump has 'a special affinity for the UK' based partly on his own family ties (his mother came from the Hebridean island of Lewis, emigrating to New York aged 18) and an admiration for the royal family, particularly the late Queen. 'He talked endlessly about that,' she says. On the other hand, Hill is no fan of the populist right administration in the White House and worries it could come to Britain if 'the same culture wars' are allowed to develop with the encouragement of Republicans from the US. Already, she notes, Reform UK won a string of council elections last month, including in her native Durham, and leader Nigel Farage wants to emulate some of the aggressive efforts to restructure government led by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) before his falling out with Trump. 'When Nigel Farage says he wants to do a Doge against the local county council, he should come over here [to the US] and see what kind of impact that has,' she says. 'This is going to be the largest layoffs in US history happening all at once, much bigger than hits to steel works and coal mines.' Hill's argument is that in a time of profound uncertainty, Britain needs greater internal cohesion if it is to protect itself. 'We can't rely exclusively on anyone any more,' she says, arguing that Britain needs to have 'a different mindset' based as much on traditional defence as on social resilience. Some of that, Hill says, is about a greater recognition of the level of external threat and initiatives for greater integration, by teaching first aid in schools or encouraging more teenagers to join school cadet forces, a recommendation of the defence review. 'What you need to do is get people engaged in all kinds of different ways in support of their communities,' she says. Hill says she sees that deindustrialisation and a rise of inequality in Russia and the US has contributed to the rise in national populism in both countries. Politicians in Britain, or elsewhere, 'have to be much more creative and engage people where they are at' as part of a 'national effort'. If this seems far away from a conventional view of defence, that is because it is, though Hill also argues that traditional conceptions of war are changing as technology evolves and with it what makes a potent force. 'People keep saying the British army has the smallest number of troops since the Napoleonic era. Why is the Napoleonic era relevant? Or that we have fewer ships than the time of Charles II. The metrics are all off here,' Hill says. 'The Ukrainians are fighting with drones. Even though they have no navy, they sank a third of the Russian Black Sea fleet.' Her aim, therefore, is not just to be critical but to propose solutions. Hill recalls that a close family friend, on hearing that she had taken on the defence review, had told her: ''Don't tell us how shite we are, tell us what we can do, how we can fix things.' People understand that we have a problem and that the world has changed.'
