Fox to build anti-federalist defence coalition

Liam Fox is to tour Eastern European capitals later this year to cement links with like-minded political groups opposed to EU control of security and defence policy.  This news emerged in answer to questions following his speech The European defence tide: can it be turned? to the Centre For Policy Studies last night.  The Warsaw Pact had sought to drive a wedge between the US and Europe, he said, and "it would be a tragedy if the EU achieved what the Warsaw Pact didn't".

Earlier, in a thoughtful and well-balanced speech, Dr Fox had explained that NATO should remain the cornerstone of British defence policy.  He had no objections to the ostensible aims of the European Defence Agency for boosting overall military expenditure - and it made sense for the UK to develop a portfolio of suppliers (especially in light of disputes with the US over the sharing of software codes for the Joint Strike Fighter project) - but at present the EU was living in a "mindset of denial" and bent on establishing new institutions without any real increase in defence capacity.

The EU is currently failing the three tests set by Madeline Albright: EU plans would duplicate existing provision, sought to decouple the US from Europe, and discriminated against non-EU members of NATO.  Dr Fox robustly denied, however, that a "threshold of irreversbility" had been crossed.  If the European Defence Agency strayed from its remit, by trying to construct a common European defence policy or seeking to introduce qualified majority voting, then a future Conservative Government would have no hesitation in "not co-operating and not funding" that body.

The special relationship with the US would remain central to Tory security policy, but not from the position of a supplicant.  Dr Fox endorsed William Hague's criticism of Guantanamo - "Frank friends make better partners".

William Norton

Comments

[Peter]

Hello Tim does he say what countries he is going to? I would say one thing the first people get upset by in countries like the Czech Republic is by calling them Eastern Europeans rather than Central Europeans, but you may have already found that out?

[G-MaN]

Good good good. All very good indeed!

[Big John]

Good stuff, and encouraging to a retired but unrepentant militaristic former empire builder. The EUs ambitions in this respect are worrying, another reason seriously to question our continuing support of Brussels

[Richard North]

Regretably - as I would very much like to see a coherent defence policy from the Conservatives - I must beg to differ. This is horribly superficial stuff, demonstrating an almost complete lack of understanding of the core issues and strategic developments.

Basically, as Fox rightly says, "Defence policy follows foreign policy..." and this is where the lack of coherence starts.

Our problem, in the context of limited funding, is that we are pursuing two fundamentally incompatible foreign policy objectives - support for the US in Iraq and Afghanistan in prosecuting the "war on terror", and building up a "rapid reaction force" to support EU and other multinational "peacekeeping" strategies.

Where the shoe pinches is that the force structures, equipment and tactics required for each objective are fundamentally different. We cannot do both simultaneously.

However, the bulk of our funds are being devoted to fulfilling our commitment to the European Rapid Reaction Force (double-hatted with Nato and also available for multinational operations), which we cannot afford and are already trimming.

The result is that we potentially end up with a dangerously inadequate rapid reaction force while our forces in Iraq and Afghanstan are undermanned and ill-equipped, because we are devoting so much funding to building up the rapid reaction capability. See here and here.

We are at risk, therefore, of performing both tasks badly and, in the context of our unwillingness to increase defence spending, the crucial issue is to decide where we put our resource. That is where the debate should lie, and one which Fox completely ignored (or missed).

[Valerie]

I think he's barking up the wrong tree a little bit. The current and future challenges essentially require that the US and EU pull on the same rope - when they do, the results are encouraging. NATO should obviously be the main coordinator of that, but EU defence policy needs in itself to be very well-coordinated for NATO to work.

I think he's also a bit cliched in his comments on the Balkans. Certainly, the EU failed - but that was back in the early 1990s, and a lot has changed since then. Whenever the US and EU are pulling on the same rope there now, there tends to be success. As soon as competition starts to creep in - trouble.

[Yet Another Anon]

but EU defence policy needs in itself to be very well-coordinated for NATO to work.
If the European countries want a co-ordinated defence plan then they can join NATO as some already are in, proposals for an EU Defence scheme is a threat to remaining national sovereignty of the nation states inside the EU - rather I think that sticking to NATO and colaitions formed on particular issues is best and that really the next thing to focus on is some kind of permanent UN Standing Army , either that or development of a Permanent NATO force seperate from that of the forces of Nation States - NATO is after all a Regional UN body.

[malcolm]

The US saved the EU's bacon in Yugoslavia Valerie.I honestly cannot think of a single example in recent years where EU diplomacy let alone an EU coordinated defence force has had any discernible effect at all.
The only armies worth a damn in the EU are ours and the French.The French do not do anything that is not directly in their own national interest.I believe that credible EU defence force is a pipe dream.
Having said that I think Fox has more important matters to deal with.Now the Italians are shortly going to quit Iraq who is going to replace them?In Afghanistan our troops task of 'nation building' has turned to ashes and we are being sucked into a 'fighting war' which history tells us that if it lasts any significant length of time we will lose.The silence from the Conservative party on both these issues is deafening.

[Richard North]

Malcolm is quite right - the problem is here and now. We have situations current in Iraq and Afghanistan, either or both of which could go seriously belly-up with the real prospect of unsustainable casualties and mission failure.

We have to decide whether we are going support our military fully in these theatres or whether the cost is too high.

If we are, then spending has to be redirected, in which case we cannot also support the EU/Nato ambitions to develop an expeditionary force. If we want to go down this latter route, and are thus not preapred to devote the spending to current campaigns, then we have to pull out from both Afghanistan and Iraq, to avoid the risk of our troops being slaughtered.

[William]

It seems to me that we need more options.

If we invest all our defence dollars in the US camp, we end up feeling obliged to fight American wars. Likewise if we were to throw all our lot in with the EDA and the fantasy European Army, we will no doubt in future get dragged into wars chosen by the EU.

At least the Americans have their own forces. The EU might commit our military resources to their ends, in the absence of having enough of their own.

If we were half in and half out of both the EU and the US camps, maintaining our indpendent sovereignty but committed to NATO, we would surely keep our options open, while strengthening potential international alliances.

I doubt our casualties will be unsustainable in Iraq and Afghanistan in the military sense. Maybe in the news management sense. Fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq makes our armed forces some of the most battle experienced in the world, which must add greatly overall to our security.

Summing up, spend what we can. Commit to NATO. Keep all other defence options open.

That I believe is what Liam Fox is advocating. So far he's only parking think tanks rather than real ones on the EDA's lawn. He is right to be building alliances with other EU countries that like us don't want all their defence eggs locked away in the EU/EDA basket.

[roger helmer]

Valerie is a bit confused. The EU is not simply getting well-coordinated so that it can better cooperate with the US within NATO. It is rather seeking to distance itself from the USA, to provide a "counterbalance" to US power (but without comparable capability). This is therefore a wholly negative development.

All that Liam Fox says is wise and encouraging. But being in opposition is frustrating. I yearn to see positive steps to start to distance the UK from the EU's headlong rush to political (and military) union.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"I yearn to see positive steps to start to distance the UK from the EU's headlong rush to political (and military) union".

Posted by: roger helmer | June 20, 2006 at 17:07

Would n't we all, but under Cameron and Hague it would n't be wise to hold your breath. The cornerstone of our defence is built around Nato and the US - the EU defence project is a fantasy and strickly for the birds.

[Richard North]

William - we are "committed" to Nato, but the action is not where Nato is. The organisation is struggling to find a role, and is looking to create a rapid reaction force structure in the same way that the EU is doing.

What we have to consider is whether we support the expensive Nato/EU route of equipping an expeditionary force or whether we concentrate our resources where our troops are already committed - Afghanistan and Iraq.

Basically, therefore, we have THREE main choices, not two. 1. "War on terror"; 2. Nato-centric expeditionary forces; 3. EU expeditionary force. Fox has focused on 2 and 3, rightly coming down on the side of 2, but he did not address the "war on terror"

This cannot be ignored because the counter-insurgency operations involved in 1. require different equipment, force structures and tactics. If we cannot afford this, then we shouldn't be doing it at all as the consequences of a "spend what we can" argument is that troops die unnecessarily.

[Valerie]

The US saved the EU's bacon in Yugoslavia Valerie.
I completely agree.

I honestly cannot think of a single example in recent years where EU diplomacy let alone an EU coordinated defence force has had any discernible effect at all.
I was talking about the need for EU to act together with the US - not the EU alone. You were reading things into my post that I didn't say.

[Yet Another Anon]

we will no doubt in future get dragged into wars chosen by the EU.
The EU couldn't deal with a riot let alone fight a full scale war - the whole notion of a common EU Foreign, Defence & Security Policies is a joke.

The UK should double it's Defence Spending and both maintain a strong international commitment through NATO and otherwise and also build up domestic defences - rely less on the US militarily, Britain should have it's own nuclear weapons systems missiles and all and far more armed with warheads including far more on permanent standby than currently, one submarine on standby at any one time just isn't enough, there needs to be enough firepower on standby to eliminate any country in the world.

[Yet Another Anon]

We have situations current in Iraq and Afghanistan
The UK is already preparing to pull troops out of areas of Iraq as the Iraqi Armed Forces and Security Services take control in those areas starting from next month and by the end of the year 2 or 3 areas of Iraq will be entirely under the control of the Iraqi authorities, Japan is pulling out completely with Iraqi Forces taking over from them.

[Richard North]

"...by the end of the year 2 or 3 areas of Iraq will be entirely under the control of the Iraqi authorities"

And you source for this?

[Mark Fulford]

It is rather seeking to distance itself from the USA, to provide a "counterbalance" to US power (but without comparable capability). This is therefore a wholly negative development.

A multilateral force that defends the interests of the EU and that doesn't depend upon USA support seems a sensible objective. We're currently in a position where no major undertaking can happen without US support, which means that our foreign policy = American foreign policy.

[Yet Another Anon]

Japanese troops are pulling out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5097148.stm

British Troops are to be redeployed next month from the province of Maysan, I probably slightly exageratted the position but other parts but al-Muthanna is to be taken over by the local authorities and there are a couple of other areas that are progressing towards Iraqi Forces taking control, there will be a tipping point at some point when Iraqi forces are in total control in more than half the country and then they will get permanence and quickly be able to establish control over the rest of Iraq as their strength grows, clearly though in Afghanistan the Taliban will remain a major force and may well re-emerge in future to take control of Afghanistan again although hopefully without the avowedly internationalist Al Qaeda:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5099202.stm

[Richard North]

"...A multilateral force that defends the interests of the EU and that doesn't depend upon USA support seems a sensible objective."

Er? What are the interests of the EU? Are they out interests ... are they anybody's interests?

[Mark Fulford]

What are the interests of the EU?

The countries of the EU are our geographical neighbours. It is highly possible that we will collectively perceive a threat that America, for one reason or another, does not. In an uncertain future it would be foolish to assume that America will always be on our side. When oil starts running out, would you be happy for America to be the only show in town?

[Lee Williams]

I am sorry for being simplistic, but I have served in the armed forces for the last 20 years and my questions are simple. What cuts are you going to make and in what areas? Plus what are the future projects that are going to be scapped?