Tory Defence Policy

Thursday, 14th May 2009

What is Britain's role in the world? And what resources will be devoted to sustaining it? These questions, germane for more than 40 years anyway, have an extra urgency in this New Age of Austerity. Liam Fox is addressing the Scottish Tory conference as I write this.

Fox reiterates the urgent need for a post-election Defence Review but says "There is one area however where the basic argument has not changed. There will be a replacement to the submarine-based nuclear deterrent under a future Conservative government." Dr Fox acknowledges that it's impossible to make fim predictions for defence spending, but given that he complains that "despite the two wars [Britain is fighting] this year's defence spending, at 2.2% of GDP, is the lowest since the 1930s" it's reasonable to suppose that he believes significant increases in defence spending are needed, not least to equip the missions that are already being fought, let alone lay contingency plans for future, as yet unknown, operations.

Since Fox expects to be the next Defence Secretary you'd expect him to say that. But actually, judging from this speech, Tory defence policy is pretty similar to the current government's - just with more money being spent. As Fox says, "I can guarantee that a future Conservative government will never under-resource our military operations." That more money needs to be spent is not in doubt. Where that cash comes from is a rather different matter, given that (unless I've missed it) defence spending is not, or not yet, being treated as a "core commitment" as, for instance, the International Development budget is.

On Afghanistan: "Failure... cannot be an option for two reasons. First, it could mean the end of the NATO alliance. What would happen to the credibility and cohesion of NATO if we failed our first major test since the end of the Cold War?" That's a good question, but how credible or cohesive is NATO at the moment? And since Fox acknowledges that "There is not a clear and achievable political mission" to support the military operation in Afghanistan, the relationship between the civil and military objectives remains, shall we say, fuzzy.

As for NATO, the Tories seem to be supporting policies that would increase, not decrease, the strains upon the alliance. Here's Fox again: "Yesterday, I met with the Georgian Prime Minister in London... he asked us not to forget them. Our message to him and the people of Georgia must be very clear - we will not - forget you." I guess that means the Tories still support Georgian membership of NATO, with all the complications and hazards that may cause.

On Iran: a nuclear Iran "is simply not acceptable". Well, there aren't many people who are happy with the idea of Tehran possessing nuclear weapons, but simply saying it's unacceptable scarcely advances matters very far. Vis a vis Persian policy, the What is pretty clear and so is the Why, but the How remains a different matter altogether.

Granted, a party conference is not the best place for nuanced contemplation or exploring the trade-offs that come with complex problems resistant to simple or comprehensive solutions. And granted too, defence has been a traditional Tory stronghold and one area of Tory thinking that has not needed to be "decontaminated".

Nonetheless, the questions surrounding Britain's role in the world and the means of paying for that role remain unaddressed.

The most depressing line in Fox's speech? "We must not make the mistake that everyone who wishes us ill is reconcilable by dialogue and reason. Fantacism is alien to our way of thought but we must not forget that it exists or what it can mean. The 1930s should have taught us that lesson". The first two sentences are unobjectionable (and true!), the third is a horse of a different colour. It is not always 1938 and not every foreign policy problem is a re-run of Munich. Sure, it's just a conference speech and this sort of rhetoric cheers everyone up, but it would be refreshing if we could move beyond the knee-jerk references to the 1930s...

Filed under: Defence (352 more articles) , Tories (273 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

ndm

May 14th, 2009 5:56pm Report this comment

-- What would happen to the credibility and cohesion of NATO if we failed our first major test since the end of the Cold War?

Afghanistan is not a major test of NATO it is a major demonstration of how disastrous a careless American Administration can be. If memory serves, the Bush Administration declined offers to invoke NATO Article 5 in the aftermath of 9/11 and decided to do a half-assed invasion of Afghanistan followed by a major diversion into Iraq. It is somewhat unfair to blame the cook for being unable to make the eggs when someone else dropped the eggs on the way home.

I would have thought Britain's role in the World to be obvious - to provide cover, with the word "joint," whenever the US involved itself in some operation the rest of the civilized world deemed dubious. The sycophancy which led to the US invasion of Iraq being described as a joint US and British operation is merely the latest symptom. And that is the sole reason why Britain is allowed to lease US nuclear weapons - a joint US and British nuclear attack sounds so much more reasoned than a US nuclear attack. It suggests the US was able to convince someone else - even if was a lackey - that a nuclear attack was essential. Britain's nuclear arsenal is a waste of money.

One of the "delights" in reading the comments here at The Spectator is the many comments which argue that Europe hovers once again at the precipice of 1938 and can only be saved by those who use the language of Hitler to defend us from the Muslim hordes massed at the Gates of Vienna. As the response to Geert Wilders shows there remain far too many Europeans (and Americans for that matter) who can be swayed by populist racist demagoguery just as were those in 1930s Germany. Their mind may be on Munich but their heart is in Nuremberg.

euSSR GO HOME

May 14th, 2009 8:40pm Report this comment

The Royal Navy now runs task forces and makes world news statements about it - for the euSSR.

So what Defence Policy are they talking about? They've already participated in the handover of our armed forces to our enemies. Of course, we won't know how advanced the project is until its a fait accompli....

Michael

May 15th, 2009 4:49am Report this comment

Last time around, having deposed Thatcher, the Conservatives took the illusory and hasty 'Peace Dividend' with Options for Change in the early 90s which left the Army with a manning crisis when it the peace did not materialise. Then they sat on their hands while hundreds of thousands died in Bosnia(the grandees Hurd, Hogg, Rifkind being villains of the piece) when a truly just war should have been fought to protect Bosnia from the predations of Tudjman and Milosevic. Not content with that they pushed hard to keep the arms embargo against the Bosnians in place, presumably they thought the Bosnians should have dug a moat to protect themselves. Then Portillo sells off the defence housing stock to Japanese investors, leaving the services with an appalling legacy which to this day saps their morale. I have seen no evidence of recognition by Tories that they made mistakes, so I can only assume they will do it again.
Labour's incompetence needs no rehearsal. All the signs are that whatever the outcome of the election the services can look forward to more of the same. Another few turns of the handle like this and the country will find itself wanting one day when a truly non discretionary storm cloud appears on the horizon. Anyone got any suggestions on who to vote for?