Sikorski set out a slightly distopian vision of the future in which:
"Tired by parsimony on defence budgets and Europe's general inefficiency, the US leaves Nato. The post-Western vacuum is filled by Russia in the east and by China in Asia. Transformational crises continue in the Arab world [but] Europe no longer sets a good example. And where is Poland in this black vision? Left to its own devices, on the periphery of a Europe mired in lethargy. Struggling with unfinished modernisation and deprived of a solid basis for national security."However, actions speak larger than words, and it worth pointing out that Poland’s record on defence spending falls short of Sikorski’s rhetoric; 1.9% of GDP - below the 2% recommended minimum set by NATO. Moreover, when offered an opportunity to cooperate with other European and NATO countries in last years’ Libyan operation it decided to not to get involved, despite being pressed to do so by NATO leaders (although the government did volunteer logistical support).
Sikorski is however right about one thing – Europe’s unwillingness to shoulder the burden of its own defence. The Libyan operation exposed this on a grand scale; although on paper it was an impressive show of European (and non European) cooperation, with states such as France, the UK, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden all sending planes to enforce to no-fly zone. Bulgaria, Romania, Italy, Spain and Turkey also helped to some extent and Estonia and Croatian said they would also help if need be, but Poland and Germany did not help and Cyprus was actively opposed.
Furthermore, the operation exposed Europe’s continued reliance on the US. France and the UK were for instance unable to operate independently, having to rely on US command and control, logistics and assets, with the strains on their forces quickly exposed.
So why has Sikorski decided to attack the UK for preventing the EU having a larger role in defence? Most likely it is a form of political displacement activity: Sikorski knows EU defence budgets are under pressure and there is no real prospect of EU states increasing their capabilities. He knows this structural problem would not be alleviated by more EU structures or headquarters duplicating those that already exist in NATO, but by blaming Europe’s defence failings on the UK he is at least fuelling a debate over the future of Europe’s defensive structures.
In our view, if Poland and other European states want to be serious on defence (if they don't that's a national democratic choice which others have to accept) then they should actually stick to the 2% of GDP NATO minimum guideline. Ironically the only EU member states to comfortably exceed it at the moment (apart from the UK at 2.7%) is Greece (2.9%) – the one country that should cut its defence budget. The USA by contrast to the EU average of 1.7% spends a staggering 5.4% of its GDP on defence. EU countries should also reform their defence capabilities by investing in deployable modern forces. In the modern world cooperation will, as seen in Libya, be via variable alliances and groupings, in that the breath of NATO is indispensable. It is not only Poland that fears a defenceless Europe beholden to Russia, but if it is going to lead on this issue it will have to pulls its own weight first.
2 comments:
1. European defence is a basically a joke. As we have seen with Libya. Even the only 2 countries with a more or less serious army were hardly able to defeat Khadaffi.
Especially when you look at it from the financial side. Countries that 'charge' their population almost half of their income are not able to spend more on one of the basic tasks of government: defence. Not even to mention the mismanagement in a lot of countries in this area and defence is often one of the first to receive cuts in times of stress.
2. The US spending 5.4% and Europe say 2.0%, simply means that this is not the major cause for deficits. The major costs are basically those for the extended welfarestate (including cheaper than at marketrates healthcare and nearly free education).
3. The Euro crisis gave a good example how decisionmaking would go in a stressed situation on a security issue if you let everything be coordinated partly or totally via the EU. In a nutshell something you donot want to happen.
4. Integration therefor will not work. In defence issues you need one command and not split leadership like basically is the rule in the EU and would be the rule for defence issues. Probably indefinitely as it is hard to imagine the EU standing for the defence of the Falklands or for military actions in former French colonies.
NATO decisionmaking is already sometimes problematic, the EU's would be considerably worse.
Simply something you donot want to rely on for your national security.
5. As further integration would go step by step the first period of likely decades (at least) would see this problem. Reason a) not to step into it and b) be very careful with future developments not make a next step till the one before properly works and when it is sure that national security will not be jeopardised by possible miscommunication or mismanagement. Not typical EU, who like to explore unknown lands.
6. Re the UK it has hardly anything to gain. Its standard partner is the US which is not in another league it is in another universe as far as reliability and firingpower and decisionmaking are concerned. Why partly exchange that for a bunch of cripples.
7. So the EU itself is basically to blaim the UK donot want further cooperation, it is simply not credible and therefor not a serious alternative on such serious issues like national security.
8. Also the UK is imho moving in a totally wrong direction anyway. It simply needs a proper army that can be sent to any part of the world when necessary. All its recent conflicts were far from home. Something like Libya should not be allowed to happen. It should eg have at least 1 proper working carrier group preferably 2.
9. Looking at the budget. Imho nearly all European governments are letting the taxpayers down. Not Not taxpayer as a synonime for voter but the people that actually come up with the money. So the businesses and higher incomes. These companies and people simply get a very lousy deal for their money. They can pay for the major part of the welfarestate but hardly use it and the basic government services (army, foreign affairs, police and alike) are often very poor.
Poland has a fine record of co-operating with the Germans, and before them the Russians, in matters of defence. But we should not choose the routes they adopted.
Post a Comment