16 July 2009 : Financial Times
By Alexander Nicoll
It is important that the UK defence review incorporates foreign policy priorities. Only with a proper understanding of a nation’s levels of ambition is it possible to establish the required roles and capabilities of its armed forces. This ensures that the overall mission of the armed forces reflects the political will of the country.
Amidst the political arguments surrounding the difficult campaign in Afghanistan, it should be noted that Labour’s defence policy has steadily lost the clear purpose that emerged from the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, and that the Conservatives, after cutting defence spending while in government, have avoided setting out clear defence commitments while in opposition.
Neither party appears to favour a lowering of Britain’s profile, which is high – including repeated command and combat roles in challenging operations. But equally, neither Labour nor the Tories has seemed ready to set out an argument for the devotion of significantly more resources to the military. Establishing a clear new purpose is essential to the future health of the armed forces.
In light of these approaches from the political parties, there is no reason to expect that defence will escape substantial cuts in spending in the next few years. Given that much of the defence budget is committed to salaries, existing contracts and so on, any government has only limited discretion as to how to reduce and reallocate it.
The traditional way to deal with such situations is to put off spending on new equipment, and there will doubtless be a strong element of this. It would be a “courageous” prime minister who unilaterally abandons the nuclear deterrent or cancels a well-established aircraft carrier programme.
The emphasis must be on meeting the needs of today’s wars: this is the thrust of Robert Gates’ efforts to reform the Pentagon in the face of entrenched opposition. Britain has worked hard to meet operational needs, but clearly has some way to go in well-known areas such as helicopters – it is hardly alone in this respect.
The UK review offers a major opportunity to work more closely with France, the only other European country with armed forces capable of carrying out a wide range of challenging missions. Last year’s French defence white paper represented a significant shift in its strategic outlook, aligning it much more closely with Britain’s. It has rejoined the Nato command structure. President Nicolas Sarkozy shares arguments long made by Britain on avoiding European duplication of spending and of capabilities.
The fact is that European countries take part in the same missions around the world, and are likely to continue to do so. There is no reason why they should not be able to work out common requirements and capabilities; they have known this for decades, but efforts always founder in inertia and bureaucracy.
Europe needs flexible, practical approaches. There are positive signs – the European Defence Agency is one. But a decision by the two major European military powers to achieve more common capabilities and get better value for money could have a galvanising effect. It would, for example, encourage further consolidation of Europe’s fragmented defence industries. The British review should lead to a decision to work with France to begin a Europe-wide effort to get better capabilities with less money. If this resulted in an increase in the usability of more countries’ armed forces – in many, a tiny proportion is deployable – the pressures on Britain and France could be reduced.
Even if the budget is reduced, it will be important to look to the longer term. It is vital to keep up spending on defence research. In this area, relatively small amounts of money spent on the early stages of new technology development now can create important capabilities that Britain – or any other country that chooses to do this – can field in 20 or 30 years time. Without it, all important technologies will have to be bought from elsewhere, and Britain will have nothing really of its own to contribute to multinational capabilities. In that situation it is easy for a country to lose control over its own destiny.
The writer is director of editorial at the International Institute for Strategic Studies
