Liam Fox, William Hague and Pauline Neville-Jones were all at Chatham House this morning for a speech on NATO from the Tory leader.
Here are the key sections of the speech - Crossroads for NATO:
There are too many caveats governing NATO nations' commitments: "The problem is not with a national caveat per se. The decision to deploy troops in combat is the most important decision a sovereign government can take, and it is inevitable that they should wish – and are sometimes constitutionally obliged – to be able to retain an ultimate say in how their troops are deployed. The problem is with the proliferation of national caveats that started in NATO’s Balkan operations and has got completely out of hand in Afghanistan. Last month the Times reported that examples of national caveats currently range from a ban on deploying out of area, to no night flying, to no flying in poor weather, no involvement in riot control and no venturing from bases without the maximum force protection or too far from the nearest hospital. This is no way to fight a war. Decisions in NATO are unanimous. No enterprise can be undertaken unless every member agrees. But once a government has agreed to send troops on an agreed enterprise, there has got to be a basic doctrine, that if you’re in, you’re in."
All NATO countries should help pay the costs of those who do the fighting for NATO: "When Article 5 was invoked in the wake of 9/11, all NATO members agreed that international terrorism did not just threaten some of us, but all of us. And we all agreed to stand together in confronting that threat. Can it be right in an alliance which is underpinned by the principle of collective defence – all for one and one for all – that there can be such wide differences in how the costs for the funding of that protection fall? Or that those nations that make the biggest investment in modernising their capabilities and as a result deploy most frequently should end up carrying the greatest financial load? We need to look, as Lord Inge and others have argued, to abandon the current arrangement – known as ‘costs lie where they fall’ – and replace it with a common cost sharing formula for operations, to which all Allies contribute. Surely the time has come to set up a Common Operational Fund for expeditionary operations." This might be David Cameron's answer to calls for higher defence spending.
Coolness towards the European Security and Defence Policy: "As far as the development of ESDP is concerned, I think we need to look very hard at what has actually occurred in the last 10 years since St Malo, and apply the lessons as we go forward from here. A Conservative Government would have three key principles that would govern our approach. First, what matters is that European nations that are members of NATO should make a greater military contribution to European and global security. That requires greater military capability, not new pillars or elaborate wiring diagrams in Brussels. Second, we must at all costs avoid the development of separate chains of command. But there is a real danger of that happening. Third, what we need in Brussels and in theatre is good and close working relations between the EU and NATO, and indeed between NATO and other players like the UN. ESDP to date has not produced a close and harmonious relationship between the two organisations. It has not delivered greater military capability. Part of the reason for that is a pre-occupation with process over substance, which has contributed to a feeling that the EU is more interested in bureaucratic empire building and less in making the hard choices – like spending more money – that would actually deliver greater military clout. At the same time, the friction it has engendered has made it more difficult for the EU and NATO to work together in those areas where the EU can deliver crucial contributions to operations on the ground, through the provision of development aid, police trainers, and so on."
During the Q&A ConservativeHome asked David Cameron if he thought that it was credible for Britain's armed forces to be sat outside Basra while Iraq's security forces struggled to break the criminal groups' control of the city. At the weekend the Director of the CIA said that criminal elements controlled 70% of Basra. The Tory leader replied by saying that the credibility of Britain's armed forces remained high in the eyes of the USA. Dr Liam Fox said that he would be pressing the Defence Secretary for clarification of what is meant by the British military's "overwatch" role in southern Iraq. He'll have an opportunity at 3.30pm today when Des Browne is expected to tell the Commons that UK troop withdrawals will be delayed.
I agree totally with David Cameron. Why should the British taxpayer keep paying for British troops to fight other people`s wars for them.
Posted by: Jack Stone | April 01, 2008 at 13:13
I agree that other NATO members must shoulder more of every burden but the Tories cannot use this as an excuse to not correct the underfunding of the British armed forces. We must FIRST say that we'll deliver a big increase and THEN work for other NATO member states to help pay for it.
Posted by: Umbrella man | April 01, 2008 at 13:49
The priority of any incoming Conservative government should be the NHS, schools and the police not pumping money into the armed forces so they can go and fight in wars we have no business being involved in.
Posted by: Jack Stone | April 01, 2008 at 14:07
Brought to mind the Delian league where increasingly more and more states contributed money instead of ships and it ended up a de facto Athenian empire as all the rest paid Athens money which paid for the fleet Athens controlled.
Also should so much pressure be being put on the Germans for who involvement in more active fighting is controversial for deeper reasons than just avoiding danger?
Posted by: F | April 01, 2008 at 14:15
"...whose involvement in more active fighting is controversial..."
It should not be controversial for Germany to be involved in more active fighting. There is no reason to forget Germany's past misdemeanours, but some might say that involvement in military actions of good cause would be positively redemptive for the country.
As Field-Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck wrote in his foreword to Desmond Young's well-known biography of Rommel, "it is not [Germany's] soldierly qualities which we dislike, but only the repeated misuse of them by their leaders". If there is no such "misuse", there should not be a problem.
Posted by: IRJMilne | April 01, 2008 at 15:51
Jack Stone,is wrong,we must invest heavily in our Armed Forces at the soonest opportunity because the way we are at the moment,the Isle of Wight could succesfully invade us,without breaking into a sweat.
We must always have the ability to robustly defend ourselves if attacked,always.
Posted by: R.Baker. | April 01, 2008 at 15:53
Jack Stone,is wrong,we must invest heavily in our Armed Forces at the soonest opportunity because the way we are at the moment,the Isle of Wight could succesfully invade us,without breaking into a sweat.
We must always have the ability to robustly defend ourselves if attacked,always.
Posted by: R.Baker. | April 01, 2008 at 15:55
Good speech from David Cameron. A pity it wasn't made a year ago.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | April 01, 2008 at 16:19
Not only commonsensical but also very reasonable and authoritative.
Posted by: David Belchamber | April 01, 2008 at 16:37
The problem, Malcolm, from my perspective is that Cameron came out with so much tosh from the outset that I have little desire to take him seriously now that the caravan has moved on and life has become more hard-edged.
PS
Nice to see Cameron taking a back seat ride in the RAF flypast.
Posted by: Bill | April 01, 2008 at 18:09
I agree completey with what Cameron is saying . My only worry is practicality. Iraq and Afghanistan has been a hard enough sell , in rters of sendig troops , and thus spending money. Is it realistic to expect that Foreign governments are to turn around and say to their electorate " we are going to give the British money to bomb people"? . Unfornutaley, the ludicurous "illegal war" argument against Iraq might cause a problem. That said, i do not know enough about how NATO works to stress the above strongly at all. just see it as a possible problem and would be grateful for anybody's thoughts.
Thanks
Posted by: Matthew Barker | April 01, 2008 at 22:13