News
UK Defence talk
UK Security in NATO after Trump election
Mike Martin, the new M.P. for Tunbridge Wells (LibDem), was invited to give this talk because as an ex-soldier (veteran of Afghanistan) he specialises in defence matters.
He began the talk by referring to Article 5 of the NATO agreement of 1949, which obliges signatory nations to come to the aid of any other signatory nation which is attacked. Thus, NATO is not a supranational body with its own decision-making, but is dependent on the decisions of the nations that have signed up to it.
In fact, since 1949, the USA has supplied the major part of the military defence for Europe, while European nations have contributed much less, in some cases, nothing. Obama was right to declare that each should contribute at least 2% of GDP towards defence. In September Trump declared that each NATO country should be spending 3% on defence. For the House of Lords debate on defence spending , it was stated that the UK on course to spend 2.33% of GDP on defence, with the Labour manifesto stating an aim of 2.5%.
Mike Martin argues that the aim should be 3%, with a focus on Euro-Atlantic defence. Notably this would mean dropping any pretence of global outreach,as this over-stretches the resources. He gave an example of British destroyers. The argument that not so many are needed because each one is so much more powerful is true. But this means that these fewer more powerful destroyers cannot be in as many places as the older more numerous war-ships of the Royal Navy.
A Euro-Atlantic defence policy would entail these steps:
- Increase UK defence capability
- Lead other European nations to do the same
- Work closely with European allies
Increased defence spending across allied European nations needs to be strategic. The big ticket items like an entire new nuclear submarine would be commissioned by UK government to be built in the UK. But for other items there is military sense in ensuring the kit used by allies is made up of parts with the same specifications, which makes manufacture and repair much easier. Rifles and vehicle chassis should be uniform across the European allies. The top part of a military vehicle contains much more crypto kit that is specific to the national armed forces, for example drone-jamming, communications etc. This would be specific to each allied nation.
Above all, UK needs to define the MISSION for the armed forces. Military planning has these three aspects: GOAL,PLAN,RESOURCES. With such clarity about military processes, it is pleasing that this new Kent MP is now a participant in the UK Parliamentary decision-making about defence.
His most recent book is ‘How to fight a War’ is now available in paperback.