Our panellists John Baron (left) and Clare Short (right). And a big expensive helicopter. © Echo/newsquest
Britain’s defence spending has fallen by 13 per cent in real terms (including operations spending) since 2010. The UK is currently meeting Nato’s target of 2 per cent of GDP but, while critics say spending has already fallen too far, neither the Conservatives nor Labour have committed to maintaining this level after the election.
John Baron
Successful foreign policy is underpinned by strong and well-resourced armed forces. However, the continued shrinking of the defence budget, intended to plug short-term financial pressures, has created overstretch, threatens our ability to deliver and sends the wrong message to allies and adversaries alike. This could be costly over the long term.
Our misguided military interventions over the last decade or so have distracted us from recognising the bigger picture—that of countries not necessarily friendly to the west increasing their defence spending and becoming more assertive. The shadow of Russian bombers is again over Nato.
This is significant. No one can predict with any certainty where the next substantial threat will come from. As a consequence, our armed forces need to be of sufficient capability that we are prepared, preferably in concert with our allies, to meet all challenges. The South China Sea or the Straits of Hormuz may seem far away but, given that the vast majority of our goods arrive by sea, their importance to us would soon become apparent should sea lanes close. The Falklands War also reminds us that we should be prepared to act alone if necessary.
Yet cuts continue. Plans to replace 20,000 regular troops with 30,000 reservists have created unacceptable capability gaps in the short term and false economies in the long. The Royal Navy has been reduced to 19 surface ships—in 1998, a strategic defence review suggested the number should be 32. In addition to problems with the F-35 fighter destined for our aircraft carriers, Britain is now without a marine patrol aircraft and has to go cap in hand to the French and Americans for anti-submarine air cover when our Trident boats put out from Faslane.
Declarations that we have the world’s fifth largest defence budget ring hollow when we continually erode our ability to deploy force overseas. As a bare minimum, the government should spend 2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product on defence, in line with our Nato commitment. We should also remember that a strong defence can, in deterring potential aggressors, help prevent conflict and save cost over the longer term.
Clare Short
I agree that the disposition of our armed forces should be linked to our foreign policy, but our foreign policy is an unthought-out mess. We should begin by asking what our foreign policy is for. At the moment it is to follow the United States wherever it leads in order to pretend that we are important. It is humiliating and makes us part of the problem.
The growing disorder in the Middle East is a cause of great suffering and instability and is feeding the threat of terrorism. US policy on Israel and Palestine is completely unbalanced and encourages Israel constantly to breach international law. I suggest that we should link with other middle ranking powers to stand up for international laws.
In my view, Russia has been provoked by European Union and US policy encouraging Ukraine to think of joining the EU and Nato. We are now in a dangerous situation but we are not going to war with nuclear-armed Russia. We and Nato have to be willing to stand by the Baltics and others, but we can do this with existing resources. We should then join with the German-French initiative to offer a deal on Ukraine not joining Nato or the EU and being free to trade with Russia and Europe—but we should also join with others to be absolutely firm on the point that no Nato members will be destabilised by Russia.
We are not conceivably going to war in the South China Sea so that suggestion is ludicrous.
I do think there will be more instability in poor African countries due to poverty and the crises that come with climate change. We should consider reconfiguring our armed forces to take part in United Nations peacekeeping missions; without them, there is a risk of growing disorder and instability.
Our GDP was recently recalculated and increased to take account of prostitution and drug dealing. This cannot possibly be a reason to increase our defence spending.
JB
I am glad you agree the nature and extent of our armed forces form a key component of our foreign policy, and would wholeheartedly agree with you that our recent foreign policy decisions, especially in the Middle East, have been misguided. Having opposed and voted against our interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, I do not believe I could be accused of slavishly following a US line.
A thorough reappraisal of how we formulate foreign policy would be an excellent initiative. A positive first step would be to resource properly the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, whose budget has also been deeply cut in recent years. The loss of expertise and diplomatic know-how has been palpable, and has been a significant factor in our stumbling responses to the annexation of Crimea, the Ukraine crisis and the Arab Spring.
I believe your response underlines an important point I made earlier—that the military interventions of the last decade, so costly in blood and treasure, have distracted us from the greater danger of potentially hostile nation states. It is doubtful that President Vladimir Putin and his acolytes would be operating as they are if they thought that Nato—especially the European members—would robustly stand up to their unacceptable actions. Putin has seen defence budgets fall across Nato and has concluded that the heart has gone out of the alliance. This is dangerous and also underlines my other point that well-resourced and capable armed forces can, by deterring potential aggressors, make future conflict less likely.
Well-funded armed forces also have the capacity to react to the unexpected, whether that is helping the survivors of natural disasters, contributing to UN peacekeeping missions or responding to unprovoked aggression. It would be brave to conclude that our over-stretched armed forces currently have that capacity, especially as research by the Royal United Services Institute suggests that the defence budget could be cut by 10 per cent after the election. We ignore the lessons of history at our peril.
CS
It is good that we agree on the need for a review of our foreign policy and our approach to the Middle East. I strongly think that we should cease to follow the US in the region and unite with others to stand up for international law, which could lead to a settlement on Israel/Palestine, changing the atmosphere in the region massively.
I do not agree that Putin’s response to the EU and Nato’s threat to include Ukraine is a response to cuts in defence spending. Russia spent $70bn on defence last year. EU Nato members combined spent at least three times as much. That Nato breached the promises made to Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the Soviet Union, at the time of German unification that it would not expand up to Russia’s borders is part of Russia’s fear and is much wider than Putin. We should seek a fair settlement promising that Ukraine will not be invited to join Nato or the EU but also making clear that we will defend the borders of all Nato members. This does not require more spending.
The UK military got things wrong in Iraq. It did badly in Basra. The deployment to Afghanistan’s Helmand province in 2006 was a disaster. Libya was not thought through. The one deployment it can be proud of is Sierra Leone. Our preoccupation with defence sales has led to shameful corruption in dealings with Saudi Arabia. And the sordid story of Tanzania’s military air traffic control system—which Britain sold to them even though it was unnecessary and overpriced—shows just how badly we can behave in order to prop up our arms sales.
We need a bigger review of our role in the world. I believe that allowing the largest ever UN peacekeeping operation in eastern Congo to be such a failure deeply undermines the authority of the international system. The UK has to pay for much of this. If we were willing to deploy rather than leave it to poor, ill-equipped countries, we could do enormous good and strengthen the authority of UN peacekeeping. We need this to prevent growing disorder on Europe’s borders.
More money for our badly-led military and more of the same from Nato would lead to more of the same old mistakes. It is desirable that the US ceases to see us as reliable poodle. We should start with a major review of our foreign policy and then decide what kind of military we need.
JB
I do not believe the UK is in a position to “threaten” that any country will join either the EU or Nato. It is up to sovereign democratic governments whether they choose to join or not. I would be uncomfortable if the international community “banned” a sovereign country from joining an organisation if there was strong democratic support in that country favouring membership. Perhaps a pertinent question for the Russian government might be why so many of its neighbours were so eager to join Nato in the first place.
I do not believe we should be confident that Nato can properly defend its borders given the current level of defence expenditure across Europe. The significant number of near-incursions into western waters or airspace by the Russian military suggest that falling European defence spending is not deterring the Russians from aggressive Cold War-style behaviour. A well-funded and well-resourced military would be a valuable corrective to these unwelcome developments.
The UK is an enormous force for good in the world, and I agree a reappraisal of our foreign policy, how we make it and how defence fits into it, would be a worthwhile exercise. However, I believe we as a nation still see ourselves as a “full spectrum” power which takes on all challenges and does not simply retreat into peacekeeping—vital though that is. Politicians must therefore bridge the “disconnect” between these global aspirations and a falling budget, and fund defence accordingly.
CS
Oh dear—it simply isn’t true that it is up to individual nations whether they want to join the EU or Nato. Israel, for example, has expressed interest in joining the EU and Turkey would dearly like to join but has been blocked. Macedonia is being blocked by Greece from joining Nato. You ignore the fact that Russia remains bitter about the broken promises given to Gorbachev, who was promised that Nato would not expand up to its borders. And the massively larger spend of EU Nato countries on defence compared to Russia demonstrates that more defence spending will not ease tension with Moscow. But let’s conclude by agreeing that we need a major review of our foreign policy and where defence fits into it.
