The Security Paradox: More Defense, Less Stability? How Cutting Development and Diplomacy Spending Undermines Long-Term Security

Key Chapter Title List

1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. The 3D Imbalance: How Today's Security Spending Undermines Future Stability
4. Defense: Rising Expenditure, Shrinking Stability
5. Development: When Defense Becomes the Default Option
6. Diplomacy: Declining Investment, Diminishing Influence
7. Health in the 3D Equation: Why Strong Health Systems Are a Prerequisite for Stability
8. Conclusion and Policy Recommendations
9. Appendix A1. Methodology: Measuring 3D Expenditure
10. Appendix A2. Diplomatic Data Sources
11. Appendix A3. Detailed Country Notes

Document Introduction

This report, based on the analytical framework of the three dimensions—Defense, Development, and Diplomacy (3D)—provides the first unified, data-driven comparison of expenditures across these three dimensions for the top 10 OECD defense-spending countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Israel, South Korea, Australia, and Poland). It aims to address the profound shifts in the current global security landscape: against the backdrop of great-power competition and intensified conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and elsewhere, governments are significantly increasing military budgets while simultaneously cutting investments that help prevent crises at their root. The report's core argument is that excessively prioritizing defense spending while neglecting development and diplomatic investments not only fails to ensure security but actively undermines long-term security.

The report reveals a severe structural imbalance in current security spending. Data shows that for every 7 dollars these top 10 defense spenders invest in defense, only 1 dollar is allocated to development and diplomacy combined. Overall, over 85% of security-related expenditure is dedicated to defense, while the share for tools that reduce vulnerability, manage shocks, and maintain political stability (development and diplomacy) is less than 15%. This imbalance has worsened following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, with NATO's 2025 commitment to raise defense readiness spending to 5% of GDP, while development spending as a share of GDP has stagnated or declined, and the share of development aid flowing to fragile and conflict-affected states has sharply decreased. This strategic retreat from preventive investment is inefficient, as most of the world's extreme poor now live in fragile contexts, and the security spillovers, if addressed militarily, are far more costly than prevention.

The report specifically focuses on global health, a core preventive component of development spending, to illustrate the cost of this imbalance. In 2024, the top 10 OECD defense spenders' expenditure on defense was 65 times their spending on global health. Despite overwhelming evidence that strong health systems are among the most effective investments for preventing instability, protecting human capital, and enhancing state legitimacy, health spending's share of total development expenditure in these countries has declined by nearly 15% over the past decade. The report analyzes the critical role of health within the 3D framework: at the defense level, health is a means for stability and conflict prevention; at the development level, it is a cornerstone of prevention and economic resilience; and at the diplomatic level, it is a tool for soft power and strategic influence. Using Germany's Zeitenwende 2.0 as an example, the report explores its potential role in preventive global health.

Regarding diplomacy, the report points out that underinvestment not only weakens influence but also impairs the effectiveness of defense and development expenditures. Faced with China's expanding influence through initiatives like the Health Silk Road and Russia's use of targeted engagement and influence operations to consolidate alliances and undermine Western credibility, the relative atrophy of Western diplomatic capacity poses a direct strategic risk.

Based on the above analysis, the report concludes that sustainable security requires a rebalancing of 3D expenditures. To this end, it proposes a series of policy recommendations for the top 10 OECD defense-spending countries, including: linking increases in defense spending to proportional investments in diplomacy and development; risk-targeting the allocation of development expenditure; rebuilding diplomatic capacity in regions of heightened influence competition; establishing collective early-action triggers to coordinate diplomatic and development initiatives when vulnerability indicators deteriorate; improving aid effectiveness through pooled funding; stabilizing global health financing; expanding debt-for-health swaps; and making preventive investment politically durable by quantifying the cost of inaction. The ultimate strategic question the report poses to policymakers is not whether to invest in defense, but whether expanding defense at the expense of development and diplomacy weakens the capacity to prevent future crises.