In advance of the NATO summit in July, the Defence Committee has
published a report which concludes that only if its Armed Forces
are properly resourced can the UK retain its influence in NATO and
in Washington. In an inquiry begun during the previous Parliament,
the Committee concluded:
• •
The NATO mission has diversified and expanded. It now encompasses
the need for territorial defence of Europe and the protection of
sea lines of communication, as well as the stabilisation of areas
at risk of terrorism in the European neighbourhood.
• •
To support this wider NATO mission, the UK needs to bolster its
anti-submarine warfare capability and increase the overall
readiness of its Armed Forces generally.
• •
The UK must lead by example, filling NATO capability shortfalls
and personnel gaps, where we have expertise available, and
ensuring that decisions taken within the Modernising Defence
Programme are co-ordinated with the NATO Defence Planning
Process.
• •
Just as the UK-US military relationship is vital to the
functioning of NATO, the UK’s leading contribution to NATO helps
to sustain the UK-US relationship. The UK, US and NATO are
interlinked and interdependent.
• •
US military power is vital for the defence of Europe. Were there
to be an attack on a NATO member in Europe, an Article 5 response
would not work in practice without US support and
participation.
• •
However, the US has increasingly been critical of its allies’
(including the UK’s) unwillingness to share the burden
within
• NATO—whether
that be defence spending, the development of capabilities or
contributions to NATO headquarters, missions and
operations.Despite this criticism, in the same period, the US has
recommitted itself to the defence of Europe, both through the
European Deterrence Initiative (which has increased by 40% under
the current US Administration) and by continued contributions to
stabilisation operations.
• •
The UK benefits greatly from the width and depth of the UK-US
defence and security relationship, but such a relationship
requires a degree of interoperability that can be sustained only
through investment in UK Armed Forces. We calculate that, in
order to fill the existing black holes in the equipment plan and
elsewhere, UK defence spending would have to rise to 2.5% of GDP.
However, significantly to improve the
capacity—as well as the
capability—of the UK Armed Forces,
defence spending would need to rise closer to 3% of GDP.
Accordingly, the Defence Committee have recommended that
our future target for defence spending should be 3% of
GDP—a level last achieved in
1995-96.
Rt Hon , Defence Committee
chairman, said:
“Defence spending is an area where a strong message needs
to be sent to our allies and adversaries alike. The Government
has consistently talked about increasing the UK’s commitment to
NATO after our departure from the European Union. An increased
commitment, in the face of new and intensified threats, means
that further investment is essential. Where percentage of GDP for
Defence is concerned, our mantra must be: ‘We need 3, to keep us
free’. Anything less is simply rhetoric which endangers us and
our allies.”
MP, Defence Committee senior
Labour member and former Minister for the Armed Forces,
said:
“This inquiry has underlined the importance of the UK-US
relationship in the area of defence and security and emphasises
the benefit which the UK receives as a result. We have heard that
there are perceptions in the US that the UK’s defence
capabilities have slipped and that concerns have been raised
about the UK’s ability to operate independently. We need to
challenge this perception and the Modernising Defence Programme
is an excellent opportunity to do so.”
