Robert Habeck, who himself supports raising the allocation threshold, claims that the medium-term goal must be 3.5% of GDP
German Economy Minister Robert Habeck rejected US President-elect Donald Trump’s proposal to NATO members to extend defense spending to five% of GDP. In an interview Thursday with the Funke media group, Habeck named the goal
His comments followed Trump’s Tuesday remarks through which he highlighted disparities in defense spending amongst NATO members. Speaking to reporters, Trump said the United States was spending money and argued that EU countries should increase their defense budgets to five%.
Habeck said. Currently, NATO’s defense spending goal is 2% of GDP, a benchmark that many member countries, including Germany, have struggled to fulfill. While Habeck supports higher defense spending, he said the goal must be 3.5%.
he said, emphasizing the necessity for greater European investment in defense given the evolving security landscape.
Habeck, who is running because the Green Party’s candidate for chancellor in February’s early elections, suggested financing the rise through special defense funds or reforming existing debt limits without making budget cuts. He added that such a rise must be temporary.
he said.
Trump’s proposal for a 5% spending goal has sparked debate in Germany and across Europe. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz strongly rejected the concept, saying EU residents shouldn’t bear the financial burden. Friedrich Merz, leader of Germany’s opposition Christian Democratic Union (CDU), also rejected Trump’s goal, saying the precise percentage was less necessary than ensuring Germany’s defense needs were met.
Merz told broadcaster Bayerischer Rundfunk on Wednesday.
READ MORE:
NATO countries is not going to achieve spending targets quickly – El Pais
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte recently suggested that members should pursue such a goal, but acknowledged that even that may be insufficient to attain full modernization. Rutte also called for easier access for European members to US military equipment, pointing to delays attributable to congressional and Pentagon approvals.
