Continuing to fund the two planned Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers plus the JSF planes that will eventually go on them together with funding for other urgently required procurement programs and the talking down of further defence cuts would be fair enough if one could really believe that our government was being totally honest and serious! Still, together apparently with additional funding for the NATO campaign in Afghanistan all this and more will, according to Downing Street spin, be part of a Green Paper directive about the future of the UK Armed Forces be included when the eagerly awaited paper is launched later this week. Better not get too excited though as this Green Paper will in effect foreshadow or at the very least set the scene for a period of significant cuts in UK armed forces and that, in my view, risk leaving the nation badly exposed and very ill prepared for future military events. Indeed, assuming my information is correct, this Green Paper will contain absolutely no formal mention of specific program commitment. Perhaps we should be satisfied with that as ahead of the Strategic Defence Review that is planned for later this year this is surely no time for government to make promises that are unlikely to be kept.
For months if not years I and many others that have followed UK military and defence have been continually airing concerns over the weak levels of government commitment to not only defence procurement spend but also the extremely poor level of support that it has provided to our forces in theatre and here at home. Today the UK actually spend less on defence as a proportion of GDP than perhaps at any time since the 1930’s and yet, through our vast NATO commitment together requirements that are specific to the UK and its overseas territories our forces are spread very widely across the world and the call on our military forces over the past six years has never been greater during the so called ‘peacetime’ years. Get ready though, soon the amount we spend on defence may slip below 2% of GDP compared to the 10% we were spending forty to fifty years ago. That said we must of course accept that not only is the Ministry of Defence effectively bankrupt as it fights to control cost overruns on various projects whilst at the same time makes desperate attempts to make itself more efficient under the watchful eye and pressure of a government that has always loathed spending on defence. Indeed, we also know that as a nation we are also broke too BUT in my book that doesn’t mean that we can afford to ignore the need to provide the UK with adequate defence – merely that we must constantly re-examine what it is we require to be in the world, where we wish to be, what resources we have and what resources we need.
Nevertheless, we can at least be pleased that both main political parties in the UK are at least wedded to the first full Strategic Defence Review (SDR) since 1998 that is planned to take place later this year following the General Election. But if the financial and economic situation in the UK really is so parlous that we are now being forced to consider what potentially could be the highest level of defence spending cuts since the 1966 Labour cuts then we must also ask ourselves whether a full strategic defence review really is enough. In saying this I refer to the need in my view for a full review of our foreign commitments, of our security needs and intentions and of course, of what level our NATO commitment should in future be. True, some of the concerns that I express will be covered within the 2010 SDR but at what level I wonder and at what depth? For me we would better be talking two reviews that should be closely aligned – a ‘Strategic Defence Review’ running alongside a ‘Foreign and Security Review’.
It is of course the level and state of our armed forces that make possible both foreign policy and internal security. Long may this continue and I for one do not consider that a defence budget of £35bn is a too low price to pay for what we need. As I say, we must of course redefine those needs on a constant basis – not just every ten or so years. We must continually refine and recognise the need for strategic and maybe tactical change. We must continually look at technology, of how this is created, of whether it is best acquired off the shelf or tailored specifically to our own need. We must look at interoperability of equipment and forces with our NATO allies. And rightly we must constantly look at the equipment we need not only to fight a war today or of what is needed to provide adequate defence and protection of the UK today but of what may be needed to fight a war or to protect ourselves twenty years from now.
In this first of what I expect to be two or three separate formal papers on the subject of UK defence this week I am not going to dwell on individual force requirements – needs of the RAF, the Royal Navy and the Army. My views on this and in what direction we should perhaps move will follow in the second and third papers. However, I will say now that this is no time in my view for our government to be attempting to draw away public contempt for its own dangerous handling of UK defence needs by encouraging or should I better say, forcing the chiefs of the three armed forces to battle the future of the individual forces in public.
Clearly the Government is hoping that the Green Paper this week will be perceived by the press and media as one that pushes forward perceived views of Prime Minister Brown that the Green Paper pays due regard to defence needs exampled by forward spend on various conventional defence projects such as the two aircraft carriers, the planned JSF aircraft that will fly off them and replacement and renewal of the recently announced plan to upgrade the UK heavylift Helicopter fleet and by announcing the acquisition of one further C-17 aircraft. Nothing could be further from the truth though – not that government support for the above projects isn’t real enough but that it hides the reality that this government has for slashing spend on various other armed forces projects, intentions of further cutting front line aircraft, further cutting the surface fleet of ships and, most likely, pushing back various procurement projects such as the £20bn Trident nuclear replacement. Be in no doubt that we are not dealing here with a government that is committed to ensuring a satisfactory level of defence spend ahead of the upcoming SDR.
As an instance to my general concerns as to the level of real commitment to defence by the government and ahead of the proposed SDR I would instance the surprising decision announced in December to move the three existing Harrier aircraft squadrons from RAF Cottesmore to join the existing single squadron at RAF Wittering. What probably lies behind this decision will be covered in the second of my two papers but for the purposes of today I may highlight that the very fact that the announcement was made ahead of the Green Paper let alone waiting for the SDR is to me sufficient proof of intention by the Government to pursue a dangerous strategy of significant defence cuts rather than waiting for the strategic review.
I have also expressed previous concern on Tory policy with regard to defence and this is nowhere better confirmed than reading the article published in the current edition of The Times written by a former Tory Secretary of State for Defence and later, Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind. One of the more interesting points that Rifkind makes in this article today is that of NATO members only the US, France and the UK actually have the ability to deploy serious military forces around the world. Generally, although note that I have added the word NATO, this statement is true enough although I fear that when Rifkind says that China, Russia and India have larger armies but that these are without the technology, the logistics or experience to contemplate combat operations in diverse environments he is deluding both himself and maybe both the UK and France in unnecessary grandeur! Of course, Rifkind is not even shadow defence spokesperson – that pleasure is held by Dr. Liam Fox. But given that this maybe an ‘informed’ Tory view on defence you can sense within the Rifkind article the direction that the party may wish to take – partnership in defence with France. If so I for one have serious misgivings about this – after all it was only last year that after forty years adrift and self imposed exile from NATO military command that France finally saw the light and rejoined. Rightly so, national independence is of course an inextricable right for France just as it is for Britain. We should welcome France coming back into the NATO fold but we in Britain should not see this as an escape clause for continuing to ensure that we spend sufficient on our defence.
As is well known through my forty years of close involvement in the defence arena I have always been a huge supporter of NATO. Indeed, given that we were born just four days apart in 1949 we may be considered inseparable. Though there importance diplomatically is strong it is true to say that in military terms unless you are the US, Russia or China which have significant armies, have and continue to increase levels of defence spending and have the necessary resources that single nations such as the UK and France have significantly less military influence than they often like to believe. But the UK and France are of course both nuclear powers in their own right and this does at the very least set them apart from the rest. In the current age though having an independent nuclear deterrent though is supposed only to be seen as a defensive as opposed to an offensive capability meaning the influence it creates is significantly less than it was twenty years ago. In saying this I am not advocating change or withdrawing one single ounce of support for maintenance and renewal of the UK nuclear deterrent. However, if the Tories are advocating that this is one program that could be pushed back by five years I may be inclined to agree. What I would not necessarily agree would be if the policy was to include adapting and aligning UK military lift capability with that of France. Of course I can agree with Malcolm Rifkind that joint procurement and maybe harmonisation of equipment between Britain and France maybe a desirable road to travel but not if it was to be at the sole expense of UK equipment. Thus I am naturally cautious of such views and whilst fully understanding that financial resources in the UK are limited I am not sure that at this time we should suddenly go the route of resource pooling with a country in which trust between us has not yet been fully rebuilt or that, even if it was feasible from a military perspective, would be welcomed by the French.
The Green Paper is a start of course and whilst there is little doubt that it will provide an entry point for the SDR to begin. Neither am I in any doubt that between now and then many wrong decisions will be made. In the days ahead I will as I say be looking at both RAF and Royal Navy specifically although having already given my views on who should lead the armed forces forward and concluded status quo I will leave the Army to fend for itself. Meanwhile I have no dispute with either the government or Tory opposition view to our continuing support in Afghanistan. The danger though is that our whole defence structure is built around Afghanistan and that we lose sight of the wider role and non NATO responsibilities that stretch from the Falklands to the Indian Ocean. Whatever the government – this one and the next – do we who are interested parties in this debate must fight for every inch of ground to ensure that Britain is adequately defended. The electorate have a right to believe that what a Prime Minister and Government and what an Opposition Party too say on defence is what they will do. Mr Brown has chosen to spin a line that this Green Paper heralds the safeguarding of defence spend from cuts next year. Would that this was true – would that Mr. Brown was not being economical with the truth readying as he no doubt is the result of the SDR as reason why inevitable cuts will come. As to the Conservative – please let us know what it is that you are really committed too?
