‘The old Lie: Dulce et Decorum est, Pro patria mori.’
This is the end to Wilfred Owen’s famous poem about the First World War. The Latin phrase is a reference to a Roman poem that says ‘It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country’. While I may have discussed the Roman idea of citizenship in my introduction to Youth, Peace and Security last week; the Romans were not fighting drones, machine guns, and cruise missiles. Modern war, as the fields of eastern Ukraine and the broken streets of Gaza can attest to, is a slaughter. There are many motivations for why so many people engage with the Youth, Peace and Security Agenda: activism, ambition, vision. I have to confess, however, that mine is fear.
In this piece, I want to explore the challenges of youth involvement in security and why we need to be aware of what it is that we as young people are being left out of.
Assessing the Terrain
In the UN report on Youth, Peace and Security, Be Seen Be Heard, there is a study that reveals that 80% of under-30s in the UK think that politicians do not listen to young people. This situation is particularly dire for a country with an aging population. Census data from 2021 show that the population of England and Wales has continued to age since 2011 with the number of people aged 65 years and over increasing from 9.2 million (2011) to 11 million (2021) while the proportion increased from 16.4% to 18.6%. Indeed, in the last 40 years, the number of people aged 50 and over has seen a 47% increase while the number aged 65 and over has witnessed a 52%. This change is particularly acute in rural areas as young people continue to move to larger cities.
Beyond a mistrusting youth demographic and an aging population, the UK also struggles to manage an outdated system of social care. Earlier this year, I wrote about our politics fuelling the winter of discontent but it is worth highlighting that 22.4% of our budget goes toward social security – more than half of which is taken by pensioners. Healthcare – which already stands at 18% of our budget – also becomes increasingly financially demanding since the nature of the care provided grows evermore complicated and expensive while the provision of such services are extended as people live longer. While this is clearly a testament to our social democracy, it is also burdensome on the working population providing the resources through various taxes. The pension system was specifically created with a younger population in mind and was solely focused on alleviating old-age poverty. Since 2011, however, post-2008 Britain has been shackled to the ‘triple lock’ pension. This policy means that the state pension is increased in line with either inflation, wage growth, or 2.5% – whichever is higher. For many, wages are failing to rise and the job market is slow to offer prospects despite inflation persistently rising (a phenomenon known as ‘sticky inflation’). The result is that pensions do not simply match the direction of the country but rather significantly exceed it while the number of pensioners also goes up. In peacetime, such decisions are tricky enough to navigate but now our leadership must also face the prospect of war and therefore increase defence spending.
Infamously, the UK does not have a ‘magic money tree’. Any government has to decide between raising taxes, borrowing money, or lowering costs (which has a detrimental long-term effect for the country). Following the 2008 Financial Crash and, more recently, COVID; the UK spent staggering – though not unwarranted – sums of money to handle the crises through policies such as the Government Furlough Scheme. Britain now has a bloated deficit which has reached a national debt of £2.9 trillion, therefore making the option to borrow more money increasingly expensive. To provide existing services while reducing the deficit means increasing taxes on the working population. In other words, younger people.
When all of this is tied together, an environment is created in which our democracy must choose between making cuts or increasing taxes, yet the demographic most able to sway elections has a bias towards maintaining our system instead of reforming it. This one-way social contract is indicative of a more fundamental problem: the lack of interest in youth issues.
L’esprit de corps
The world over, youth issues are associated with sport, culture, and education. While these things matter for a healthy, productive society, they sideline the conversation away from ‘serious’ topics. However, youth issues also cover housing, employment, and financing – the lack of domestic venture capital means that, while young people might be able to start a business, it is decidedly harder to grow a business in the UK. Part of this issue stems from the fact that large pension funds in the UK do not invest in ‘riskier’ enterprises like venture capital unlike their American counterparts. In other words, pensioners and their wealth managers are less supportive of (young) ambition.
The societal understanding of young people is an additional facet to the problem. Despite frequent allusions to the threat of hooded youths with Prime Minister David Cameron trying to ‘hug a hoodie’ and films such as Hot Fuzz depicting the parochial aversion to young people; young people largely live up to their side of the social contract. The COVID-19 virus, for example, disproportionately affected older generations but young people nonetheless self-isolated to support the country’s attempt to fight the virus. As a consequence of these sacrifices, youth have faced prolonged mental health issues, a worsening job market, and years of sub-par education.
I mentioned fear before and to state it clearly, my fear is that our country will continue to place crippling demands on young people without ever providing the support they need to build a future for themselves and their communities. The debate on conscription shows just how untenable this situation is. The debate was re-ignited in 2024 when General Patrick Sanders said that the UK needed a ‘citizen army’ which led to leading platforms and figures exploring the topic. Much of the public conversation seemed to come down to a patronising criticism that young people should be willing to pull their weight with then-Secretary of Defence Ben Wallace tweeting that ‘Labour wants to give 16 year olds the vote but sneer at making 18 year olds contribute to making the country safe. Classic. Labour are always about rights but never responsibilities… Young people are better for [National Service]’. Wallace earned a great deal of respect for his conduct during his time as minister but the Conservative notion that not only should young people be conscripted, but that it would be beneficial to them is utterly blind to the environment our demographic faces. Ultimately, the impression is given that young people ought to be treated as a resource rather than an investment; a freeloader rather than a partner.
Final Rites
I want to return to the fear that I mentioned at the start of this piece. At the time of writing, I am living in Kosovo – a country many would consider ‘post-conflict’. Here, everyone over-30 has some memory of the 1999 conflict and they are harrowing to listen to. Villages slaughtered, communities ravaged, indignities inflicted on the innocent – it would be unfair of me to share the details of these stories without warning you of the contents beforehand. I also have a friend who is currently living in Kyiv and regularly shares her experiences as both a journalist and a citizen there. Conflict is becoming an increasingly prevalent feature in European politics and we should prepare accordingly. But it is disproportionately young people who shoulder its burdens.
As a young Brit, I am scared that we have a political class that is not only patronising and uncaring, but that is actively willing to make our situation worse. As a recent Master’s graduate in strategic studies, I also ask myself questions about war.
What happens when conflicts become more than just financially relevant?
What happens when Russia takes a step too far and NATO triggers Article 5?
What happens when a conscripted British force is required to defend European allies?
The answer is simple.
It will be our friends returned in body bags. It will be our responsibility to explain to the parents and partners why their loved one was not on the flight back with us. It will be us sitting at the pub with a newly-empty space next to us. And when we grab our keys to leave? It will be us returning to a shitty flat that demands 45% of our pay check as rent.
Wilfred Owen died on the 4th November 1918, one week before the Armistice was signed. His mother received the telegram about his death on Armistice Day while the local church bells rang out in celebration. He was 25 years old.