Is the 25-26 billion the government has announced Greece will be spending on armaments over the next 12 years too much or too little?
If you’re Luxembourg or Switzerland, it’s probably a waste of money.
But we’re Greece. And our neighborhood’s the same as it’s always been. With nothing reassuring in the air.
It’s no coincidence the Economist chose the hardly optimistic “The Age of Chaos” as the title for its Easter issue (April 12).
And in a time of chaos, no expenditure is excessive if it enhances our nation’s security. The choice between “guns or butter”, defense or welfare spending, is not only illusory and outdated, it is also historically compromised.
Because a country’s security does not depend solely on armaments.
At the same time, there’s no doubting that over the several thousand years of human history, security has always been primarily a matter of military power—then as now…
But not only. Obviously, alliances, geopolitical inter-relations, the training and organization of the armed forces, the morale and psychology of the people, the robustness of the economy and many other, perhaps less important, factors also play a role.
But no matter how we divided up the effort, one thing is certain: in an uncertain era and unstable environment, armaments are always going to be a priority.
With the proviso that they are not the be all and end all of security.
Because from here on in, it is the responsibility of the government and the leaders of the armed forces to make the right operational choices, at an appropriate cost and by means of unbiased procedures.
It is not our job to decide whether we need frigates or corvettes, missiles or planes.
But we said we need to arm ourselves. Not to be robbed by the usual suspects—because we’ve all paid dearly for their greed in the past.
And on this issue, the opposition—and, of course, parliamentary procedures—will have an important role to play.
As long as the opposition shares the government’s objectives and priorities, respects the nation’s choices, and exercises serious and close control over costs and procedures.
As long as it does not seek to leave the country undefended. But to be protected in the best way possible, with the greatest possible transparency and at the lowest possible cost.
I realize that I may well be describing the workings of an idealized democracy in action which we are unlikely to experience in practice. But making an effort always leaves some good behind, and every endeavor needs to start somewhere.
Until then, To Vima wishes you ‘Kali Anastasi’ and a Happy Easter.
