A rallying cry heard throughout the 20th century was “Bread, not bombs.” The original phrase captured the moral demand to prioritise human need over militarism, often in Cold War and anti-poverty contexts. But in the face of climate collapse, biodiversity breakdown, ecological injustice, and environmental racism, a reframing is badly needed.
The drums of war are loud and getting louder. We have all watched “genocidal actions” live streamed to our devices and nothing stopped it. The suffering of the Palestinian people is unavoidable but how many brutal conflicts rage beyond our gaze? We talk about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but conveniently elide over the fact that it is their second attempt. India and Pakistan trade blows on their disputed border. And Israel and the USA fired missiles at Tehran with the justification that if they didn’t do that, Iran would soon have a missile to fire back that could flatten all of Tel Aviv.
These wars – and this is certainly not an exhaustive list – and the rumours of more wars has convinced the European Union that they must massively increase their spending on defence. Bombs, not bread, is the order of the day. Whatever sense there is in Finland or Poland increasing their battle readiness, it is hard to understand why this is a demand every nation is expected to comply with. In just the three years between 2021 and 2024, the EU increased its defence spending by 30%, and that was before the real accelerations announced this year. We spend €326 billion on guns, bullets, tanks, and the other devices that exist to randomise the organs of other human beings we are told are our enemies.
And when a nation is not that interested in this massive investment in tools of death, the means of persuasion quickly move from reasoned democratic discourse to bullying. Ireland has centuries of experience of what it means from the underside when powerful nations decide that they have to defend themselves. There is some desire among the population to see our soldiers paid better and equipped to continue playing a role as a skilled and trusted peacekeeping force. But there is no popular call for Ireland to join the frenzy for militarism.
We can grant that Russia is a belligerent neighbour. We can recognise that there is likely a growing threat of terrorist action in the years ahead. And we can also be honest about the fact that the motivation behind this increased spending is not purely the noble defence of our democratic way of life. There are real military threats that our governments must attend to. But those threats remain firmly within the realm of awful things that could happen in the future. Meanwhile, climate change accelerates in our present. On just this point that we begin to see the insanity of the shift to spending on armies, navies, and air forces instead of on solar, wind, and batteries.
The real, existing threat to the “European way of life” is not an invasion from the east or a terror campaign from the south but the accelerating and compounding effects of climate breakdown. What a government seriously concerned with security would be investing in right now is a Green New Deal of unparalleled ambition. This would mitigate the real harm that is being felt across our continent. This would improve our quality of life. And this would harm our apparent enemies – the last thing that Russia or the hostile Middle Eastern states want to see emerge is a European block that is no longer reliant on fossil fuels.
The technological advancements that we have seen in renewable energy over the last generation are beyond even the most optimistic dreams of success. A massive, EU-wide push to invest in advancing and perfecting this technology would allow us to break free from Russian gas and Saudi oil. It would lower the costs of living for those who are must vulnerable in our Union. And it would crash our carbon emissions at just the moment when things seem to be spiralling out of control.
In the 20th century, popular movements protested for bread, not bombs. It may be time for 21st century European environmentalists to recognise that their battle is intrinsically concerned with defeating this militarist mindset, this fossil ideology that none of us buy into. Given the choice, who wouldn’t prefer to care for creation than prepare for carnage?
