Britain is no longer a superpower (been there and done that) but, militarily, it still packs a hell of a punch.
Only three countries on the planet can deploy any serious military strength to any part of the world - the US, Britain and France (despite the fact it rarely does so).
In Europe only three countries have a global foreign policy and have either the military power or economic strength with which to advance it - Britain (miltary), France (military) and Germany (economy). The other two largest EU nations - Spain and Italy - have neither.
Britain also ranks as the second biggest defence spender in the world, and has more troops in Afghanistan than any nation other than the US.
So what is the future of the British military? Whatever happens, Britain needs to maintain a powerful military and remain a global power.
Britain must be prepared to defend its place in the world
A new defence review must reflect foreign policy, not budgets, says Malcolm Rifkind.
By Malcolm Rifkind
01 Jan 2010
The Telegraph
Sir Malcolm Rifkind was Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary between 1992 and 1997. He is MP for Kensington and Chelsea
Britain has been at war for almost the whole of the past 12 years of Labour government Photo: EPA
It was once remarked that "a diplomat is a person who can be disarming even though his country isn't". While I was serving as minister of defence and then as foreign secretary, I was acutely conscious of this strong and proper relationship between diplomacy and military capability. The Armed Forces do not exist in a vacuum. They are the ultimate means by which, when other methods have failed, a country's vital interests can be protected or enhanced. It was with that in mind that Churchill observed that "jaw-jaw is better than war, war".
Awareness of this relationship is crucial at a time when we are at war in Afghanistan; when the Ministry of Defence budget is in crisis; and when there is all-party agreement on the need for a defence review.
The priority, however, is for a wide-ranging review. Decisions cannot be taken on frigates and aircraft carriers, on fighter aircraft or on infantry regiments without knowing the kinds of wars that we may have to fight. Could they be at sea, like the Falklands; in the air, as with Kosovo; on land, as with the Taliban; or with tanks, as in the Gulf War for the liberation of Kuwait? Will future wars be fought against other states, against insurgents, or terrorist organisations?
No defence review can answer such questions. The chiefs of staff can give their advice to governments only when the Cabinet has decided the foreign policy of the United Kingdom for the years ahead. In particular, we need to determine whether it is to continue to be a global foreign policy or one that confines itself to the defence of our territory and that of our immediate allies.
A Sea King takes from the the Royal Navy's helicopter carrier, the mighty HMS Ocean
Of course, Britain is not a superpower and has no aspirations to be one. That status is reserved for the United States. It will one day include China. The United Kingdom is, however, one of a small number of countries that do have a global foreign policy and have either the military power or economic strength with which to advance it.
In Europe, only France, because of its armed forces, and Germany, because of its economic strength, share that role with Britain. Italy and Spain, though comparable in size, do not. Put simply, the question for the British people, as well as for the politicians, is whether we wish to remain a power like France and Germany, or have a greatly reduced role like Italy and Spain.
I hope, therefore, that the Conservative Party will commit itself to an unprecedented joint foreign and defence policy review to be begun immediatly after the general election. Furthermore, I hope the outcome of that review will be the recognition that we continue to have global interests that need both a diplomatic and defence capability no smaller than we have at present.
Before addressing the affordability of such a policy, one has to justify why it is necessary for Britain to remain a global player. It is not because of nostalgia for our imperial past, when much of the world was coloured pink on the map.
Nor is it a desire, as with Tony Blair, to impose regime change and a so-called ethical foreign policy at the end of the barrel of a gun. Britain has been at war for almost the whole of the past 12 years of Labour government. Two of these wars, in Iraq and in Kosovo, could, and should, have been avoided. Only Afghanistan was forced upon us and the international community by the terrorist attacks of September 11 in the United States.
The reasons why we need to retain a global foreign policy are twofold. First, as a relatively small island trading nation, our security and our prosperity benefit from international stability, the rule of law, open trading markets and democratic accountability.
Deadly: A British Army Apache
Second, our ability to help deliver these objectives is far greater than most other countries around the world. Uniquely, we can help shape events by the combination of our permanent membership of the UN Security Council; our major influence in Nato; our leading role, along with France and Germany, in the European Union; our status in the Commonwealth; our membership of the G8; and our substantial military capability. Indeed, other than the United States, only Britain and France can deploy serious military strength to any part of the world.
Few, if any, other countries combine these major assets, which enhance our ability to determine events. As a stable, democratic nation we would be failing in our duty not only to ourselves and to our own interests, but also our duty to the international community if we did not play our part to the maximum of our capability.
But that brings us to the question of affordability. The objectives may be worthy but can we, in our current straitened financial circumstances, do what we ought and would like to do?
So far as diplomacy is concerned, affordability is not a serious issue. The Foreign Office budget of just over £2 billion is only 0.5 per cent of Government spending.
While the Treasury will, understandably, not exempt the Foreign Office from spending cuts, any savings will make an insignificant contribution to reducing the public deficit.
The Ministry of Defence is another matter. The defence budget can hardly expect to be totally immune when the public finances are in such a mess. But nor can our national interests in a dangerous world be ignored or endangered. Four principles must be rigorously applied.
First, the costs of the Afghan war must not be funded, even in part, from the core defence budget. Bob Ainsworth has been the first defence secretary, Labour or Conservative, in living memory to have failed to block the Treasury's grasping hand in such a situation. He is competent, but politically weak. The Armed Forces are suffering as a result.
Second, the most serious problem has been the inability of the Ministry of Defence to control the escalating costs of procurement. The recent Gray Report has made excellent recommendations which need to be implemented urgently. Procurement decisions and costs must be controlled from the very top of the Ministry of Defence. They cannot continue to be the result of the competing demands and aspirations of the individual Services, who do not have ultimate responsibility for the defence budget.
Gordon Brown has visited the troops in Afghanistan
Third, where reductions in capability may be unavoidable, they should be restricted to low priorities and, in particular, should exclude reductions in our fighting strength, which would be irreversible even when the health of the public finances has been restored.
Fourth, we should recognise that any major military operations will be in alliance with our closest friends in Nato and Europe. There are areas where we do not need each Nato country to duplicate what others already have. This could provide major savings. While the United States will remain our closest ally, we need more substantial partnerships with France and other serious European military states, such as the Dutch, the Poles and the Danes.
For 300 years, the United Kingdom, both as an island state and as the British Empire, has helped shape the world we now live in. The British public continues to have a world view shaped by that accumulated experience. It is a valuable asset, which serves not only our own interests but those of our allies in the United States, in Europe and in the Commonwealth.
So our diplomats should still be disarming when appropriate. But our Armed Forces must not be disarmed unless and until the global lions learn to live with the global lambs.
telegraph.co.uk
Only three countries on the planet can deploy any serious military strength to any part of the world - the US, Britain and France (despite the fact it rarely does so).
In Europe only three countries have a global foreign policy and have either the military power or economic strength with which to advance it - Britain (miltary), France (military) and Germany (economy). The other two largest EU nations - Spain and Italy - have neither.
Britain also ranks as the second biggest defence spender in the world, and has more troops in Afghanistan than any nation other than the US.
So what is the future of the British military? Whatever happens, Britain needs to maintain a powerful military and remain a global power.
Britain must be prepared to defend its place in the world
A new defence review must reflect foreign policy, not budgets, says Malcolm Rifkind.
By Malcolm Rifkind
01 Jan 2010
The Telegraph
Sir Malcolm Rifkind was Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary between 1992 and 1997. He is MP for Kensington and Chelsea
Britain has been at war for almost the whole of the past 12 years of Labour government Photo: EPA
It was once remarked that "a diplomat is a person who can be disarming even though his country isn't". While I was serving as minister of defence and then as foreign secretary, I was acutely conscious of this strong and proper relationship between diplomacy and military capability. The Armed Forces do not exist in a vacuum. They are the ultimate means by which, when other methods have failed, a country's vital interests can be protected or enhanced. It was with that in mind that Churchill observed that "jaw-jaw is better than war, war".
Awareness of this relationship is crucial at a time when we are at war in Afghanistan; when the Ministry of Defence budget is in crisis; and when there is all-party agreement on the need for a defence review.
The priority, however, is for a wide-ranging review. Decisions cannot be taken on frigates and aircraft carriers, on fighter aircraft or on infantry regiments without knowing the kinds of wars that we may have to fight. Could they be at sea, like the Falklands; in the air, as with Kosovo; on land, as with the Taliban; or with tanks, as in the Gulf War for the liberation of Kuwait? Will future wars be fought against other states, against insurgents, or terrorist organisations?
No defence review can answer such questions. The chiefs of staff can give their advice to governments only when the Cabinet has decided the foreign policy of the United Kingdom for the years ahead. In particular, we need to determine whether it is to continue to be a global foreign policy or one that confines itself to the defence of our territory and that of our immediate allies.
A Sea King takes from the the Royal Navy's helicopter carrier, the mighty HMS Ocean
Of course, Britain is not a superpower and has no aspirations to be one. That status is reserved for the United States. It will one day include China. The United Kingdom is, however, one of a small number of countries that do have a global foreign policy and have either the military power or economic strength with which to advance it.
In Europe, only France, because of its armed forces, and Germany, because of its economic strength, share that role with Britain. Italy and Spain, though comparable in size, do not. Put simply, the question for the British people, as well as for the politicians, is whether we wish to remain a power like France and Germany, or have a greatly reduced role like Italy and Spain.
I hope, therefore, that the Conservative Party will commit itself to an unprecedented joint foreign and defence policy review to be begun immediatly after the general election. Furthermore, I hope the outcome of that review will be the recognition that we continue to have global interests that need both a diplomatic and defence capability no smaller than we have at present.
Before addressing the affordability of such a policy, one has to justify why it is necessary for Britain to remain a global player. It is not because of nostalgia for our imperial past, when much of the world was coloured pink on the map.
Nor is it a desire, as with Tony Blair, to impose regime change and a so-called ethical foreign policy at the end of the barrel of a gun. Britain has been at war for almost the whole of the past 12 years of Labour government. Two of these wars, in Iraq and in Kosovo, could, and should, have been avoided. Only Afghanistan was forced upon us and the international community by the terrorist attacks of September 11 in the United States.
The reasons why we need to retain a global foreign policy are twofold. First, as a relatively small island trading nation, our security and our prosperity benefit from international stability, the rule of law, open trading markets and democratic accountability.
Deadly: A British Army Apache
Second, our ability to help deliver these objectives is far greater than most other countries around the world. Uniquely, we can help shape events by the combination of our permanent membership of the UN Security Council; our major influence in Nato; our leading role, along with France and Germany, in the European Union; our status in the Commonwealth; our membership of the G8; and our substantial military capability. Indeed, other than the United States, only Britain and France can deploy serious military strength to any part of the world.
Few, if any, other countries combine these major assets, which enhance our ability to determine events. As a stable, democratic nation we would be failing in our duty not only to ourselves and to our own interests, but also our duty to the international community if we did not play our part to the maximum of our capability.
But that brings us to the question of affordability. The objectives may be worthy but can we, in our current straitened financial circumstances, do what we ought and would like to do?
So far as diplomacy is concerned, affordability is not a serious issue. The Foreign Office budget of just over £2 billion is only 0.5 per cent of Government spending.
While the Treasury will, understandably, not exempt the Foreign Office from spending cuts, any savings will make an insignificant contribution to reducing the public deficit.
The Ministry of Defence is another matter. The defence budget can hardly expect to be totally immune when the public finances are in such a mess. But nor can our national interests in a dangerous world be ignored or endangered. Four principles must be rigorously applied.
First, the costs of the Afghan war must not be funded, even in part, from the core defence budget. Bob Ainsworth has been the first defence secretary, Labour or Conservative, in living memory to have failed to block the Treasury's grasping hand in such a situation. He is competent, but politically weak. The Armed Forces are suffering as a result.
Second, the most serious problem has been the inability of the Ministry of Defence to control the escalating costs of procurement. The recent Gray Report has made excellent recommendations which need to be implemented urgently. Procurement decisions and costs must be controlled from the very top of the Ministry of Defence. They cannot continue to be the result of the competing demands and aspirations of the individual Services, who do not have ultimate responsibility for the defence budget.
Gordon Brown has visited the troops in Afghanistan
Third, where reductions in capability may be unavoidable, they should be restricted to low priorities and, in particular, should exclude reductions in our fighting strength, which would be irreversible even when the health of the public finances has been restored.
Fourth, we should recognise that any major military operations will be in alliance with our closest friends in Nato and Europe. There are areas where we do not need each Nato country to duplicate what others already have. This could provide major savings. While the United States will remain our closest ally, we need more substantial partnerships with France and other serious European military states, such as the Dutch, the Poles and the Danes.
For 300 years, the United Kingdom, both as an island state and as the British Empire, has helped shape the world we now live in. The British public continues to have a world view shaped by that accumulated experience. It is a valuable asset, which serves not only our own interests but those of our allies in the United States, in Europe and in the Commonwealth.
So our diplomats should still be disarming when appropriate. But our Armed Forces must not be disarmed unless and until the global lions learn to live with the global lambs.
telegraph.co.uk
