Latest news with #militaryspending
Arab News
9 hours ago
- Business
- Arab News
Pakistan to hike defense spending in FY26 budget to counter India's ‘hegemonistic designs' — minister
Planning and Development Minister Ahsan Iqbal said on Sunday Pakistan's defense spending would be hiked in the budget for the next fiscal year as the military would 'certainly require' more financial resources to defend the country against India. Pakistan and India attacked each other with missiles, drones and artillery earlier this month in the worst military confrontation in decades between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. The conflict erupted after an attack in April on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir that New Delhi blamed on Pakistan. Islamabad has denied the charge. The tensions erupted into a military confrontation on May 7 after India first hit what it said was 'terrorism infrastructure' in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir with missiles, and Pakistan retaliated, saying it had downed six Indian fighter jets. Fighting between the two nations continued for four days until a ceasefire was reached on May 10. 'Obviously, Pakistan will do anything within its reach to make its defense impregnable,' Ahsan told Arab News in a telephone interview when asked if there were plans to increase defense spending in the budget for fiscal year 2025-26, which will be unveiled on June 10. 'Our military would certainly require more financial resources to defend the country against the hegemonistic designs of Modi.' Ahsan declined to disclose the new figures for the defense allocation. Beijing is Pakistan's primary supplier of military equipment. This includes more than half its 400-odd fighters, primarily the JF-17 but also the J-10C. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), China has sold Pakistan $8.2 billion in arms since 2015. China was the world's fourth-largest arms exporter from 2020-24, and Pakistan was China's top customer. Islamabad consumed 63 percent – nearly two thirds – of Chinese weapon sales in that period. In response to a question about media reports China was fast-tracking delivery of its advanced J-35A fifth-generation stealth fighters to Pakistan, with the first batch expected by early 2026, planning minister Ahsan said: 'Pakistan's fighter jets have already done well against India and the country will do anything it can to make it's defenses stronger.' The finance ministry declined to comment on a planned hike in defense spending but an official privy to budget talks within the government and with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said: 'We are discussing all the issues including Pakistan's revenues and defense with the IMF but nothing has been finalized yet.' An IMF official said the lender did not comment on any country's defense budget. An IMF mission led by Nathan Porter visited Pakistan last week to discuss the country's new fiscal plan but returned without reaching an agreement. 'We will continue discussions toward agreeing over the authorities' FY26 budget over the coming days,' the Washington-based lender said in a statement on May 24. The media wing of the Pakistan army declined to comment on the issue immediately. 'WAR-LIKE SITUATION' Two days after the ceasefire, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned Pakistan New Delhi would target 'terrorist hideouts' across the border again if there were new attacks on India and would not be deterred by what he called Islamabad's 'nuclear blackmail.' 'In the coming days, we will measure every step of Pakistan... what kind of attitude Pakistan will adopt,' Modi said, adding that India had only 'paused' strikes. Ashfaq Tola, the chairman of Karachi-based tax and corporate advisory firm Tola Associates and an adviser to past Pakistani governments on the budget-making process, said an over 40 percent hike in the current defense budget of Rs2.122 trillion ($7.53 billion) could be expected in the new financial plan. 'Considering the ongoing situation, the country's defense budget should stand at as much as Rs3,000 billion ($10.6 billion),' Tola said. 'In such a big conflict, you need a lot of ammunition, surveillance, border movement, border troops management. To finance all these requirements, they will have to allocate more money this time.' In a report published on Saturday, Tola Associates proposed raising the defense budget to Rs2.8 trillion, a 32 percent increase compared to the last fiscal year, owing to a 'war-like situation' with India. 'The budgeted defense expenditure stood at Rs2,122 billion for FY25 while the actual expenditure till March 2025 was Rs1,424 billion. [However], due to the ongoing war situation with the neighboring country, defense spending may increase by up to 50 percent in the Q4FY25,' the report said. 'Given the current regional tensions and the need to ensure Pakistan's defense preparedness, we estimate total defense spending to reach Rs2.4 trillion by June 2025.' After debt servicing, defense is the second biggest drain on Pakistan's revenue, which the IMF, since approving a $7 billion bailout program for Islamabad last September, wants the government to increase through taxing incomes from agriculture, real estate and retail sectors in the new budget. Pakistan's historically large defense budget is attributed to a complex interplay of factors, primarily driven by regional security concerns and internal challenges. These include the perceived security threat from India as well as internal instability and security threats like terrorism. Additionally, debt servicing and the allocation of resources toward military interests have also played a role in shaping the budget. In the last five years, Pakistan has increased its defense expenditures more than 60 percent to Rs 2.12 trillion ($7.53 billion), or two percent of GDP, according to data compiled by Karachi-based research firm Arif Habib Ltd. 'An increase [in defense spending] is certainly a possibility. The recent clash with India emboldened Pakistan's military, as it has regained public goodwill and popularity that will give it the confidence to take potentially politically risky steps,' Michael Kugelman, a South Asia specialist based in Washington, told Arab News. 'That includes ramping up an already-sizable defense budget at a moment when the economy, despite some recent stabilization on the macro level, remains fragile.'
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Defence chiefs spent more than £200million of taxpayers' money on travel and luxury stays - while troops lived in squalid conditions
Defence chiefs spent more than £200 million of taxpayers' money on travel and luxury stays for senior staff last year while troops lived in squalid conditions. Figures released by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) show that officers and civil servants stayed in five-star hotels often costing more than £300 a night. The MoD spent almost £800 million on hotels and travel between 2018 and 2024 at locations such as the French Alps and Las Vegas. In sharp contrast, the living conditions of troops in UK Armed Forces accommodation during the same period – some infested with vermin and harmful black mould – led to more than 60,000 complaints. Meanwhile freedom of information requests obtained by The Mail on Sunday and National Security News revealed a huge leap in costs from £136 million in 2018 to £218 million by 2024 covering hotel accommodation, flights and travel by train and ferry. The figures revealed numerous MoD personnel stayed in pricey hotels in central London including the Park Plaza and the Marriott – which can cost up to £400 a night. Outside of the UK a £1,426 bill was submitted for a four-night stay at the Auberge Saint Hubert Hotel Val D'Isere ski resort in France, a bill of £1,032 was also racked up at the Novotel Sydney Harbour for three nights and one staff member spent seven nights at the Anantara The Palm Dubai Resort which cost £2,439. And another staff member spent £323 for one night at the four-star Hampton Inn Tropicana in Las Vegas. Defending the costs, the MoD argued that more than 200,000 civil servants and military personnel are deployed overseas and often needed to be accommodated in hotels. One commanding officer of an infantry battalion based in Bulford told the MoS: 'I have soldiers living in really poor-quality housing who are constantly battling to get repairs. I have soldiers on sick leave living in homes which are barely habitable.' Callum McGoldrick, researcher at the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'Splashing hundreds of millions on hotels and flights raises questions about priorities in Whitehall. Ministers must get a grip on MoD spending.' A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: 'These figures relate to spend under the previous government. This Government is committed to getting a grip of MoD budgets.'
BBC News
4 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
World Business Report US House passes Trump's mega tax-cut bill
A massive tax and spending bill has just been passed by the US House of Representatives. The so-called mega-bill would extend tax cuts from President Donald Trump's first term, end taxes on tips, and increase military and border spending. The sportwear giant Nike is raising prices - but how much of it is down to the global tariff situation, and how much is down to other difficulties in the company? And we look at the Japan's economy - why the price of rice is increasing and how it is affecting Japanese businesses? You can contact us on WhatsApp or send us a voicenote: +44 330 678 3033.
Free Malaysia Today
4 days ago
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Sweeping Trump tax bill clears key hurdle with US house Republicans
Speaker of the house Mike Johnson has little room for error on the floor, as a handful of Republican 'no' votes could scuttle the bill. (AP pic) WASHINGTON : US President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill cleared an important procedural hurdle in the Republican-controlled house of representatives yesterday, when a gatekeeper committee approved the measure and set up a floor vote for passage to occur within hours. Republicans have been deeply divided over the bill, which would extend Trump's signature 2017 tax cuts, create new breaks for tipped income and auto loans, end many green-energy subsidies and boost spending on the military and immigration enforcement. It would pay for those changes by tightening eligibility for food and health programmes that serve millions of low-income Americans. The nonpartisan congressional budget office estimates the bill will add US$3.8 trillion to the US's US$36.2 trillion in debt over the next decade. The house rules committee voted 8-4 to advance the bill late yesterday after a marathon session that lasted nearly 22 hours. Republican leaders later scheduled two votes, one to begin debate and a second to pass the bill, before sunrise on Thursday. House passage would set the stage for weeks of debate in the Republican-led Senate. A handful of party hardliners, angry that the bill did not contain more spending cuts, met with Trump and house speaker Mike Johnson yesterday, a day after Trump's visit to the Capitol failed to unify the narrow 220-212 majority. Johnson expressed confidence that the bill would pass the house. 'I believe we are going to land this airplane,' he told reporters. Revisions Representative Dusty Johnson, who leads the chamber's Main Street caucus, said he believed the speaker had reached a deal that could pass the house. 'The speaker has been working with a broad cross section of the conference,' he told reporters. 'We have every expectation, the speaker has every expectation, that we will get there.' Credit rating firm Moody's last week stripped the US government of its top-tier credit rating, citing the nation's growing debt. US stocks fell on Wednesday amid investor concern about the mounting debt. The Medicaid health programme for low-income households had proved to be a major sticking point, with fiscal hawks pushing for cuts to partly offset the cost of the bill's tax components, which moderate Republicans say would hurt voters whose support they will need in the 2026 midterm congressional elections. The rules committee approved an overall amendment package containing deals between Johnson and various Republican factions. The revisions included imposing work requirements for the Medicaid programme at the end of 2026, two years earlier than previously planned. It also penalised states that expand Medicaid in the future and raised the amount of state and local taxes that can be deducted from federal income taxes. The amendment package also exempted firearm silencers from registration requirements under the National Firearms Act and eliminated a US$200 tax on the firearm accessories, changes demanded by representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia. Democrats railed against the legislation. 'Republicans are kicking millions of Americans off their healthcare and (food) benefits in order to finance tax cuts that will help billionaires,' said representative Jim McGovern, the top Democrat on the house rules committee. 'Cutting benefits means families will go hungry, farmers will suffer and health care costs will go up,' he said. Trump visited Republican lawmakers at the Capitol on Tuesday to try to persuade holdouts to get in line on what he calls a 'big, beautiful bill.' Little wiggle room Johnson has little room for error on the house floor, as a handful of Republican 'no' votes could scuttle the bill. Republican lawmakers have said they do not believe the nonpartisan analysts' projections and accused Moody's of deliberately timing its downgrade last Friday to try to block the bill's passage. Lawmakers must act to address the debt limit by this summer or risk triggering a devastating default. 'Deficits aside, this bill is ugly because it is ultimately a betrayal of the contract that we have made with the American people, and especially to our babies and to our working people,' said Democratic representative Gwen Moore.
Mail & Guardian
5 days ago
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
Europe's defence gamble: Can more spending buy true autonomy?
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has announced initiatives to boost Europe's defence spending. It says something about the mood in Europe that a record military spending figure is not being treated with alarm but with a measure of relief. According to the latest data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, global military expenditure soared to $2.7 trillion last year, with Europe accounting for a historically unprecedented $693 billion — its highest since the Cold War. This surge in military spending, we're assured, is a measured reaction to Russia's war in Ukraine. But the subtext, increasingly difficult to ignore, is less about tanks in Donbas and more about uncertainty in Washington. Europe's post-war defence architecture, premised on the reliability of American leadership, now looks increasingly fragile in the shadow of Trumpism — and whatever comes after it. The institute's researchers phrased it diplomatically: there are 'concerns about possible US disengagement within the alliance'. Translation: Europe is bracing for the possibility that the next US president could abandon Nato — or at least redefine it beyond recognition. In theory, this is the moment Europe has been preparing for since the phrase 'strategic autonomy' entered the EU lexicon. In practice, however, the continent seems to be responding not with clear-eyed planning but with a familiar impulse: spend more, fast. Germany has announced a trillion euro plan to modernise its military. France is pushing for European defence production to be prioritised over imports. The EU has launched a €150 billion investment programme for common defence projects. And yet, for all the rhetoric and revised budgets, strategic clarity remains elusive. Part of the problem is structural. Europe's defence sector remains fragmented along national lines, riddled with duplication and beset by competing interests. Collective procurement is the exception, not the rule. Even the new funding schemes have sparked disputes over who qualifies for support — European arms manufacturers, of course, but should American or Israeli firms be excluded? But the deeper issue is philosophical. European leaders continue to speak of autonomy while behaving like junior partners. The gap between aspiration and action remains yawning. As US Vice-president JD Vance pointed out, Europe has rarely had the muscle to turn its objections into deterrents. He cited the 2003 Iraq invasion as an example — France and Germany opposed the war but neither could halt it. That episode underscored a fundamental truth. Europe's strategic dependence is not a recent vulnerability but a long-standing condition of the transatlantic relationship. The US leads; Europe supports, critiques or occasionally dissents. Rarely does it chart an independent course — militarily or diplomatically. Now, with a more volatile US, Europe appears to be doubling down on a familiar formula — spend more on defence and hope that credibility follows. But, as history suggests, firepower alone does not confer influence. Nor does autonomy automatically emerge from bigger budgets. What's needed is a coherent strategic vision; one that goes beyond buying more jets and building redundant missile systems. Europe must ask itself: 'Autonomy for what?' To act independently of the US? To become a global military actor in its own right? Or simply to plug the gaps in an increasingly incoherent alliance? There's also a risk of moral confusion. A militarised Europe is not necessarily a principled one. The post-war European project was built, in part, on the idea that diplomacy, integration and economic interdependence could supplant the brute force of past centuries. Returning to the language of hard power without a clear political or ethical framework risks unravelling that legacy. Russia's aggression, China's assertiveness and the dysfunction of global institutions have all chipped away at the liberal order Europe once championed. But the answer cannot be to emulate American-style militarism without the mitigating qualities of American power — economic heft, cultural projection and a willingness, however inconsistent, to shape global norms. Strategic autonomy requires, not just military capability, but political will and diplomatic self-confidence. It means being able to say 'no' to Washington when necessary, and 'yes' to initiatives that might diverge from American preferences. It means crafting policy not just in Brussels or Berlin, but in response to realities in Kyiv, Ankara, Tehran and beyond. The irony is that in seeking to insulate itself from American unpredictability, Europe risks replicating its own past mistakes: disunity, over militarisation and a failure to articulate a global role that is neither nostalgic nor naive. If Europe's ambition is to be more than a well-armed vassal, then the work ahead will require more than spreadsheets and contracts. It will demand a willingness to rethink not just defence policy, but the very principles that guide European power. Because if there's one lesson from this century's long parade of wars, it's this — you can spend your way into a conflict but rarely out of one. Dr Imran Khalid is a freelance columnist on international affairs based in Karachi, Pakistan.
