Europe’s future military capability depends on Nato
Anthony King
Trident submarines: how useful are they?
In his recent piece for Prospect, Anatol Lieven rightly raises the issue of current British defence policy, questioning current procurement programmes and the strategic concept of global intervention primarily with the US and/or Nato which underpins their development. Eurofighter, designed to interdict hostile jets, seems almost laughably superfluous, while the Royal Navy’s carriers–and especially Trident submarines–are of questionable strategic utility.
In order to escape from the current defence predicament, Professor Lieven logically proposes that Britain return to Europe to develop a more regionally focused defence policy. He articulates a vision of defence which inspired the St Malo agreement in 1998 and which many Europeans today would support.
Yet, the logical proposal of reinvigorated European defence co-operation runs in the face of current developments. The St Malo agreement and the European Security and Defence Policy which developed from it have been extremely disappointing. Europeans have been able to conduct few significant interventions even on their own borders. While neutral countries like Ireland and Sweden have been willing to contribute to these ventures, most of the other European nations have been reluctant to contribute. Germany has been very reticent here while France has typically used European missions to assert itself against the US and to further its own interests in Africa. There is very little appetite in Europe for the kind of European initiative which Lieven proposes.
Read 4 comments »
