The UK badly needs an Alternative Defence Review: Here it is

Just days into his premiership, Keir Starmer announced the commissioning of a “root and branch” Strategic Defence Review (SDR).

Under the leadership of Lord Robertson, former defence secretary and NATO secretary general, the review panel claims to have broken with tradition, by including a much wider range of participants than usual – like former US presidential adviser Fiona Hill – and encouraging submissions from pretty much anybody.

A better break with the past would have been a reassessment of whether the current policies are actually working, and whether the large amounts of cash involved could actually be better spent on something else.

In recent days, Lord Robertson has said that the SDR will be “bolder and more radical” than previous versions, and will inspire our friends and intimidate our enemies. We await the review with bated breath.

It’s generally been assumed that the SDR will be looking to justify “defence” spending increases, from the current 2.3% of GDP to 2.5% from 2027 to the end of the current parliament.

Controversially, the government has already announced that this increase will be funded by slashing international aid spending. The intention is then to increase spending to 3% in the next parliament, although it’s highly unlikely that the current prime minister will be making the decisions at that point.

It’s hard to see, as plenty of military types have pointed out, that this level of increase will enable some massive root and branch transformation of our supposedly “hollowed-out” armed forces. But that isn’t really the point.

Tired old policy

The reality is that this Labour SDR is a continuation of the same tired old “nukes plus NATO” policy of the last 75 years. Yes, there are likely to be some new technological knobs on it, like the promised £1bn to develop technology to “speed up decisions on the battlefield”.

There will also be a new Digital Targeting Web to “better connect soldiers on the ground with key information provided by satellites, aircraft and drones helping them target enemy threats faster”. What could possibly go wrong?

But the real problem is that the government is starting in the wrong place: more military spending, more emphasis on militarisation within our society and “might makes right”, more resources to the “defence” industrial sector.

And too many in the trade unions and on the left are buying into this – falling for the myth that spending on defence is jobs-rich and will boost the economy, and the old lie that if you want peace you should prepare for war.

It’s beyond time to counter this disastrous narrative. With the NATO Secretary General calling for increases in military spending of more than 3.5% of GDP, European rearmament going into overdrive, and constant references to being war-ready, a new approach is crucial.

We need to recognise that if we carry on in the same way, we will end up in a war that actually directly affects us, and that will likely end in nuclear weapons use.

A new approach

That’s why today sees the launch of the Alternative Defence Review (ADR), brought together by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the RMT union, and written by academics, trade unionists and experts – all committed to a new way of doing defence and foreign policy.

The ongoing genocide in Gaza and the catastrophic war in Ukraine – and wars across the globe – serve as stark reminders of the devastating consequences of militarisation, and how vital a new approach is.

The policies pursued by the British government entrench violence, prolong conflict, and undermine any remaining moral and diplomatic credibility that it may still have.

We argue that we need a truly ethical defence strategy centred on the principle of “common security”—that no nation can achieve genuine safety at the expense of another.

This is inseparable from a broader vision of “human security”, which prioritises the needs, rights, and dignity of individuals over military dominance. Together, these principles offer a foundation for a peaceful international order based on cooperation, justice, and mutual well-being.

To achieve this we must prioritise ceasefires, humanitarian relief, and long-term conflict resolution, rather than perpetuating cycles of violence through military alliances and arms exports.

The urgent need for an alternative approach has never been clearer.

Related

Moving away from militarisation

In line with this, the ADR calls for a foreign policy that addresses global and national poverty, inequality, health and environmental crises — and invests in the jobs that would accompany this agenda.

A transition away from militarisation requires a reallocation of resources towards building resilience and security in ways that genuinely protect people’s lives. Investment in diplomacy, conflict resolution, and sustainable development will provide long-term stability, as opposed to the short-term, profit-driven motives of the military-industrial complex.

If national security is truly about safeguarding the well-being of citizens, then this must be measured in terms of access to healthcare, education, climate justice, and economic stability rather than the capacity to inflict mass destruction.

It’s time to shift from an outdated militaristic model to a cooperative, multilateral approach rooted in the principles of international law and human rights.

The alternative we advocate is one rooted in building a sustainable and just economy — one that offers an abundance of decent and socially useful work; funds high-quality public services; rebuilds public infrastructure; invests in socially useful technologies and education; and works actively for international peace and security.

The prioritisation of peace over war can no longer be framed as naive or idealistic — it is, in fact, the only rational and sustainable choice for achieving a just and secure future for all.

We call for a genuinely open public debate on the kind of foreign and defence policy that Britain really needs.

The Alternative Defence Review is available here.