Bernard Jenkin MP (North Essex) is a member of the Defence Select Committee and was Shadow Defence Secretary from 2001 until 2003.
I am distressed the John Hutton should go now. John has been a conscientious, consensual, non-partisan defence secretary. Having said that, Bob Ainsworth has also been an excellent Minister for the Armed Forces. His taking over will provide continuity. He is equally non-partisan and has shown great commitment to the job. Particularly at a time when the Armed Forces are under such strain, while there is plenty of scope for legitimate questioning and disagreement, Defence is not, and should not be, part of the usual battle between the political parties.
Which ever party wins the next election will face the same huge challenges and decisions, while government as a whole will be facing the consequences of over-spending, over-borrowing and the recession. We should be working with Labour defence ministers to see where we can ensure continuity. Which ever Party wins, there will be a defence review. (We should not overuse the word "strategic", which Labour have used just for the political packaging of their defence review. A defence review is by definition "strategic"!)
Over the next 6-12 months, we want Labour to take the right decisions about revisions to the equipment programme which is way beyond the present defence budget, and about revised "strategic guidance". (This is the right use of the word here: this is MoD-speak for the context of long-term policy). Then the 2010 defence review will be set in the right strategic context.
The next five years of defence decisions are going to be about nursing the Armed Forces through a period of necessary financial stringency, because of the state of the public finances. The big long-term question remains: as we emerge into the second half of the next decade, what sort of country do we want to be. Are we to remain a global player, capable of projecting global military force and able to operate alongside the US - and to influence them? The US is the ultimate and only guarantor of our security. If so, we will need to plan major increases in defence spending as we come out of the recession, aiming at around 3% of GDP for defence. This would be in fact a very good value deal for the UK taxpayer.
Or are we to accept that we no longer have global reach, that we no longer need to influence over US policy, that we become just another European passenger on the great US aircraft carrier? Is saving 1% of GDP worth the risks of letting this happen? I think not.
The danger is that we lose leverage which is in the interest of US, UK and global security. Our post-Empire perspective and global diplomatic reach (- it is no accident that the world speaks English -) would be dissipated. The US would listen to others instead of us. Who would they be? China? Look at what they are doing in Africa! Meanwhile the world will be becoming more overpopulated, more hunger, more competition for energy, fresh water food and other resources, there will be more extremism, more terrorism, more international and humanitarian crises, against a background of environmental catastrophe, more instability - hardly the time for the UK to take another misguided "peace dividend".
