Not only is this a tipping point in Europe’s story but also in NATO’s story. The American re-balancing is a grand strategic, geopolitical fact just as is Europe’s unbalancing. As events in the Eurozone and our wider strategic region demonstrate, we Europeans are under-thinking security and defence and in my brief remarks I want to explain why by putting NATO 2020 in a global context and then briefly taking each element of NATO 2020 to size the challenge.
First, the facts and what they imply:
- Over 2001-2008 period the US increased its defence expenditure by 109%, China by 247% and Russia by 67% and Australia by 56%.
- Russia aims to inject about $775 billion by 2022 for new armaments and a more professional military. That will be a heavy burden for the Russian economy to bear but the intent is clear.
- Beijing grew the Chinese defence budget by 11.2% in 2012 (although slightly lower than the 12.7% in 2011) is but the latest double digit increase. Indeed, China has been growing its military at that rate since 1989 and the official figures are probably ‘conservative’.
- The combined 2011 defence budgets of NATO Europe totaled €180bn compared with the 2009 U.S. defence budget of €503bn. NATO Europe thus spends some 37% of the U.S. expenditure on defence.
- Of that €188bn France and the UK together represent 49% whilst the so-called ‘big three’ spend 88% of all defence research and development in NATO Europe.
Sixteen of the twenty-six NATO Europe members spend less than €4 bn per annum and much of it inefficiently. - Between 2001 and 2008 NATO Europe spending on defence fell from €255bn to €223bn (not adjusted for defence cost inflation) and since 2008 most small European countries have cut defence budgets by 30%. Medium- sized states by 10-15%, Britain, France and Germany by 8%.
- The message from the stats: The European defence effort is woefully inadequate and can only resolved by either structural increases in defence expenditure (unlikely), much greater unity of strategic effort and purpose leading to deep defence synergy (necessary) and for some of the smaller NATO and EU members defence integration beginning in the tail but reaching towards the teeth (desperate).
That is the true strategic context of NATO 2020. Now, let me set NATO 2020 against that by considering each facet. “NATO 2020: Assured Security: Dynamic Engagement” of 17 May, 2010 set as its mission as follows: “Between now and 2020 it [NATO] will be tested by the emergence of new dangers, the many-sided demands of complex operations, and the challenge of organising itself efficiently in an era where rapid responses are vital, versatility critical and resources tight”.
- Reaffirming NATO’s Core Commitment – Collective Defence. 21st century Collective Defence will require the modernisation of architectures to include advanced deployable forces, cyber-defence and resiliency and missile defence.
- Establishing Guidelines for Operations Outside Alliance Borders: NATO will leave AFG December 2014 if the corporate memory gained in over a decade of operations through real exercising, education and training it will be lost.
- Creating the Conditions for Success in Afghanistan: This is easy as we are all in the process of re-defining success to justify the NEXIT – NATO’s exit.
- Consultations to Prevent or Manage Crises: Article 4 of the Atlantic treaty is the defining treaty instrument but without greater unity of effort and purpose in the early phases of conflict NATO will continue to be seen as an inadequate fire brigade. The better sharing of critical information is critical.
- A New Era of Partnerships: NATO needs to better enunciate and exploit its two types of partnership – stability partnerships such as EAPC, IAI, Med Dialogue and strategic partnerships with states the world over who will influence the strategic environment.
- Participate in a Comprehensive Approach to Complex Problems: Operationalising the Comprehensive Approach has become part of the problem not the solution. Agree on a definition and build on the relationships built in theatre.
- Engaging with Russia: Yes, engage with Russia but make it clear Russia has no veto over NATO defence or partnerships. Do not appease Russia.
- Maintain the Open Door: The Open Door is an engine towards a Europe Whole and Free which is incomplete. However, the age of enlargement is over. We are entering the new age of engagement and enlargement must be seen in that light.
- New Capabilities for a New Ear (Military Transformation and Reform: the matching of capabilities and commitments is critical but that will only be possible through the radical re-structuring the NATO force base. That could in time lead to an Anglosphere and a Eurosphere within NATO.
- Nuclear Weapons Policy: Solidarity in Pursuit of Peace. Leave that to the three NATO nuclear powers and continue efforts at non and counter proliferation.
- The New Mission of Missile Defence: The development of MD should not simply be seen as state-specific but simply part of the modernisation of Article 5 architectures. Russia is welcome to be part of that or not as Moscow decides.
- Responding to the Rising Danger of Cyber-Attacks: Again, cyber defence is simply part of the modernisation of Article 5.
- Implementing Reforms to Create a More Agile Alliance: Face facts- the Alliance of today is first and foremost a coalition force generator and manager, military and civil, member nation and partner and must be seen as such and all aspects of the Alliance must be reformed to such an end with SHAPE once again the tip of a credible spear and base of a sound shield.
NATO 2020 should thus represent the steady and consistent reform of an Alliance that needs to be rendered fit for purpose for the twenty-first century both as a regional-strategic hub and an enabler of global stability. Succeed and the world will be more secure place. Fail and it will not. NATO 2020 is this critical for the new NATO I believe just as vital to world peace today as in the past.