UK ministers turn on critics of defence cuts
|
Version 0 of 1. There is nothing new in former admirals, generals, and air force marshals, bemoaning cuts in the defence budget. This time it is different. The government is particularly peeved by criticisms from the US, Britain’s closest ally, about cuts in the armed forces, claiming that the UK is retreating from the world stage. The head of the US army, General Raymond Odierno, and his defence secretary, Ash Carter, have publicly expressed concern about the impact of UK spending cuts in Britain’s annual £34bn defence budget. Barack Obama is reported to have raised the Cameron government’s refusal to guarantee it will continue to devote 2% of the UK’s GDP - the official Nato target even though it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Britain’s defence secretary, Michael Fallon, has hit back. It is one thing to reject jibes from former military chiefs, or even from his backbench MPs. It is quite another to criticise American leaders. He seemed close to doing just that in an article he penned for the Sunday Telegraph. “Those who belittle our armed forces’ efforts fail to recognise that our national security depends on tackling the causes of instability, not just treating the symptom” he said. He added: “It means using smart power, our better-focused development budget, on conflict prevention and stabilisation as well as on disease and suffering.” He gave a run-down of Britain’s contribution to military operations: 900 British troops training Iraqi forces, 500 in Kabul, three UK warships which had just taken part in a Nato exercise in the Baltic. “Over the next ten years we’ll spend £160bn on new aircraft carriers, helicopters, armoured vehicles and joint strike fighters. And, because we can’t be sure there will be no nuclear threat in the 2030s, 2040s, and 2050s, we’ll renew our four ballistic missile submarines, too”, continued Fallon, driving home his point. He added, naughtily, “I can announce that we will commit a battle group of around 1,000 personnel to the new [Nato] rapid reaction force every year from its launch and into the next decade”. This was not a a new announcement. The UK’s contribution to the Nato force was first revealed at Nato’s summit in Wales last September. Fallon was on stronger ground when he stated: “No country in Europe is playing such a strong global role.” The trouble is the US does not expect much from most of its Nato allies. It wants the UK to set an example on the 2% issue. UK defence officials are now drawing up proposals whereby some foreign aid and intelligence services’ spending would be reclassified as “defence”. Here, perhaps, lies the significance of Fallon’s reference to “using smart power, our better-focused development budget, on conflict prevention and stabilisation as well as on disease and suffering.” The 2% issue should be an irrevelant. What is important is the current and future relevance of a country’s armed forces, the practical uses to which they can be put, and the political will to deploy them. The concern was reflected by a speaker in a recent Lords debate on defence. “I deplore targets in this because I believe that is only sensible to base defence spending on what the defence of the realm requires”, said the former general and chief inspector of prisons, Lord Ramsbotham. He added: “Without having a national security strategy on which an SDSR [strategic defence and security review] can be based you have no idea when you are going into these sums whether you have what is required.” A new SDSR is due later this year. Julian Lewis, the new chair of the Commons defence committee, can be relied on to subject the Ministry of Defence to rigorous scrutiny. He is a strong supporter of Trident. He also believes there is a need for adequate, relevant, conventional armed forces. That will be very difficult to achieve. |