NATO’s 5% Defence Pledge: A Global Gamble with African Consequences

When NATO leaders gathered in The Hague this week to commit to spending 5% of their GDP on defence by 2035, the headlines focused on Europe’s rearmament and the message it sent to Russia and China.

However, the ripple effects of this decision will stretch far beyond the transatlantic alliance, reaching deep into Africa and reshaping global security dynamics in ways that demand attention.

For Africa, NATO’s militarisation push arrives at a precarious moment. The continent is already grappling with overlapping crises, from jihadist insurgencies in the Sahel to civil wars in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, not to mention the economic aftershocks of climate change and pandemic recovery.

The fear now is that as wealthy nations pour more resources into their own defence industries, Africa could become both a battleground for proxy conflicts and a neglected priority in development aid.

History offers a cautionary tale. During the Cold War, superpower rivalries turned African nations into chessboards for ideological battles, leaving behind a legacy of instability and weaponised regimes.

Today, the risk is not just of history repeating itself, but of compounding old wounds with new tensions. Russia’s Wagner Group has already entrenched itself in Mali and the Central African Republic, while China expands its military and economic footprint through bases in Djibouti and infrastructure deals across the continent.

If NATO’s spending surge triggers an arms race, African governments may face even starker choices: align with one power bloc or another, or struggle to maintain neutrality amid escalating great-power competition.

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS

The economic implications are equally stark. Many African economies depend on foreign aid for healthcare, education, and infrastructure. If European nations redirect budgets from development assistance to fighter jets and missile systems, critical programmes could face cuts.

At the same time, African leaders may feel pressured to increase their own military spending at the expense of social services—a dangerous trade-off in regions where poverty and unemployment already fuel unrest.

Then there is the question of maritime security. The Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the Mozambique Channel are vital arteries for global trade, yet they are increasingly contested spaces.

NATO’s heightened posture could provoke rival powers to assert themselves more aggressively in these waters, disrupting shipping lanes and threatening the livelihoods of coastal communities from Somalia to South Africa.

But the most unsettling prospect is the erosion of diplomatic solutions. NATO’s 5% pledge sends a clear signal that the alliance is preparing for confrontation, not cooperation.

For a continent that has suffered immensely from foreign interventions, this shift risks sidelining African voices in global security debates just when they are needed most. The African Union’s calls for “African solutions to African problems” may drown in the noise of great-power posturing.

The world is at a crossroads. NATO’s decision reflects a growing belief that military might is the only language adversaries understand.

Yet for Africa, where the scars of conflict run deep, the lesson is different: without inclusive diplomacy and equitable development, no amount of spending on guns will guarantee peace.

The challenge now is to ensure that the global rush to rearm does not leave the continent behind—or worse, drag it into another era of division and dependency.

By Fauxile Kibet 

Fauxile Kibet is a journalist and political analyst based in Nairobi. The views expressed are his own.