New and new information is constantly emerging about corruption investigations against current and former employees of the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NATO Support and Procurement Agency - NSPA). So far, five people have been arrested - two in Belgium and three in the Netherlands. According to the Belgian prosecutor's office, it is about "possible irregularities" in the distribution of orders for ammunition and drones for NATO.
Current or former employees of the agency, based in Luxembourg, may have passed information to arms companies, Belgian authorities said. "There is evidence that the money received through these illegal practices was laundered through the establishment of consulting companies", the statement also says.
The authorities in the Netherlands in turn announced the arrest of three people, including a 58-year-old former employee of the Ministry of Defense, whose field of activity included "international procurement contracts". The prosecutor's office in Luxembourg confirmed that documents were seized there. Investigations are already underway in Italy, Spain and the United States and are coordinated by the EU Agency for Legal Cooperation.
How important is control when distributing money
At the recent NATO meeting in Antalya, the Alliance's Secretary General Mark Rutte said that the Procurement Agency itself had divided the investigations. "We want to get to the heart of the matter," he told reporters.
The Procurement Agency, which has 1,500 employees, is headquartered in Luxembourg but has bases in various other European countries. The agency is not only concerned with logistical support for NATO operations and missions - it can also negotiate arms supplies on behalf of member states. By effectively tying up demand, such joint procurement initiatives can enable individual member states to save money. As NATO states, the agency itself has neither profits nor losses.
Last year, the Procurement Agency signed a contract for Stinger air defense missiles worth 624 million euros on behalf of many member states. Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced the agreement in May 2024, without naming the parties involved.
According to defense expert Francesca Grandi of "Transparency International", NATO's ongoing investigations, regardless of their outcome, are "a valuable reminder" of how important oversight is when distributing public defense money. "This case comes at a certain time, as it reminds us how important transparency is," she emphasizes.
A bad time for NATO
For NATO, however, the time is not favorable. In the context of Russia’s massive armament in its war against Ukraine, NATO countries are in the midst of what is likely to be a long-term defense spending boom.
Under pressure from US President Donald Trump, the 32 member states are likely to commit to spending at least 3.5 percent of GDP on defense at their next summit. That would be a significant increase compared to the current commitment of 2 percent or an average of 2.7 percent.
Data released by NATO last month show that the Alliance spent a total of 1.16 trillion euros on defense in 2024.
The European Union, whose members account for two-thirds of NATO’s members, is also preparing for significant spending. The European Commission has announced that it wants to use the Community’s excellent credit rating to borrow a total of 150 billion euros. They are designed to help the 27 member states invest an additional €800 billion in defence.
More money, more problems for the defence sector
With hundreds of billions more to be poured into the defence industry over the next five years, public institutions are likely to come under great pressure to contain potential corruption risks.
The high degree of secrecy surrounding arms contracts, the high amounts of money involved and the sensitivity of negotiations make the defence sector particularly vulnerable to corruption worldwide, Grandi said. Europe is no exception. Mechanisms that should ensure transparency in other procurement processes often do not apply to defence and security contracts, both at national and European level.
For example, the European Parliament does not exercise the usual budgetary control over the funds provided to Ukraine for its defence. Over ten billion euros have already been provided to Kiev under the mechanism, which is outside the EU budget.
"Transparency International" is generally very concerned about the lack of transparency and scrutiny in Europe regarding ever-increasing defence spending, Grandi stressed. At the same time, the defence industry is stepping up its lobbying activities.
"The risk of insufficient scrutiny is that the defence architecture ultimately does not guarantee the security of citizens to the extent it should, is not effective, wastes resources and also opens up opportunities for abuse and undue influence," warns the defence expert.
Author: Ella Joyner