French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Theresa May will discuss their defense relationship, among other things, at a bilateral summit on January 18. Franco-British collaboration is vital for European defense. This is not only because they are the two leading European military powers at NATO, but also because they have the most ambitious bilateral military relationship of any European countries, based on the 2010 Lancaster House treaties.
When Britain and France agree—and act together—it usually leads to significant results. It was their 1998 St. Malo accord, for instance, that brought about the EU’s defense policy in 1999. When they disagree, and work against each other, it hampers cooperation through the EU and NATO. Consider how Anglo-French disagreements over Iraq in 2003 hampered EU-NATO cooperation for some years afterward.
May and Macron will likely discuss the UK’s military cooperation with the EU following Brexit next year. A UK government paper in September 2017 clarified that London would like to keep a close relationship with the EU on foreign and defense policies, including potentially contributing to EU military operations. Macron would also like the UK to join in his European Intervention Initiative, an effort to improve European capacity to carry out military interventions abroad when needed—without the help of the United States.
However, regardless of the warm words that may emerge from the summit, the prospects for significant joint action in the future seem slim. This is not only because of Brexit, although a former UK National Security Adviser, Lord Peter Ricketts, has warned that it “will change the context and create the risk of the two countries drifting apart.” It is also because they have two different strategic visions framing their foreign and defense policies, namely “strategic autonomy” for France and “Global Britain” for the UK.
In his Sorbonne speech in September 2017, Macron asserted, “In the area of defense, our aim needs to be ensuring Europe’s autonomous operating capabilities, in complement to NATO.” The UK foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, told an Australian audience in July 2017 that “we have the chance now as we leave the arrangements of the European Union to become even more global, and when I say more global I do not mean for a minute that we will become less European.”
Both these strategic visions have deep historical roots and domestic political appeal. But the quotes from Macron and Johnson betray the core ambiguities of these two alluring visions.
Beyond a limited level of military operations, France cannot expect to act autonomously from the United States in the future—if needed—without the help of other Europeans. Moreover, not many other Europeans seem interested in developing the will, let alone the capability, to act autonomously. The German foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, recently told Spiegel: “We are pleased that Donald Trump and the U.S. have affirmed Article 5, but we should not test that trust too much. At the same time, Europe could not defend itself without the U.S., even if European structures were strengthened.”
This political reality also explains why a new French defense strategic review, published since Marcon’s Sorbonne speech, suggests that not all aspects of his European Intervention Initiative have to be carried out through the EU (and would ideally involve the UK). As Bruno Tertrais, from the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, has put it: “France has an ambiguous discourse on Europe. While the French complain that they are doing Europe’s dirty work, they appreciate the speed and sovereignty of acting alone. This tension is inherent in French security culture.”
The UK’s dilemma is that cannot afford to become more global at the expense of becoming less European. Despite Brexit, preserving European security should remain the first priority for British defense policy (after protecting national territory). As May has said many times, the UK is leaving the EU but it is not leaving Europe.
A £20 billion hole in the defense budget complicates the UK’s already challenging strategic choices. The UK government plans to carry out another defense review (its last one was published only in late 2015), and the British media is awash with reports of portending cuts to a wide array of capabilities, from amphibious landing logistics to warships to army personnel. No one doubts that the UK should retain its global outlook, but it will be difficult to maintain a global presence in the future because of growing government budgetary pressures.
Furthermore, the UK’s desire to be a global military player will depend on close cooperation with allies in Europe and beyond, especially the United States. But more cuts to British defense capabilities would make the UK a less useful partner for the United States worldwide. Michael Graydon, the former chief of the UK air staff, recently said that British defense capability cuts (both previous and future) are already damaging the UK’s influence with the United States: “Despite polite words from Washington, we are simply not listened to in the same way we once were.”
For all their differences, France and the UK share vital strategic interests in Europe and beyond. Unlike other Europeans, they are both nuclear-armed permanent members of the UN Security Council, with a special sense of responsibility for global security. They remain the most capable European military powers, and are therefore essential contributors to European security, whether defending NATO territory in the East or countering terrorists to the south of Europe.
The good news is that France has deployed soldiers to the UK-led NATO battalion in Estonia, and the UK is expected to announce at the summit that it will send helicopters to support French-led counter-terrorism operations across the Sahel. This is what Europe needs: more joint Franco-British deployments to protect European security, not just bilateral summit declarations.
Daniel Keohane is a senior researcher at the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zürich.
Comments(6)
The ambition to be a global Britain seems inconsistent with membership of the regional NATO. In the UN security Council, China is now the biggest contributor of troops to peacekeeping - with its leadership of global peacekeeping a nearing reality.
Paraphrasing the quotation in the article, “We are pleased that Sigmar Gabriel and the EU NATO members have affirmed Article 5, but we should not test that trust too much. At the same time, Europe could not defend itself without the U.S., even if European structures were strengthened.” This article re-affirms that the EU, the wealthiest, largest entity in human history, with a military budget probably close to half a trillion, can’t protect her border against a country with one tenth military budget and a far smaller economy which can’t sustain a long war (nuclear weapons aside, although France and the UK have a sizeable second strike nuclear force, plus the US nuclear forces and Europe based ABM’s). Regardless of how many troops and hardware the Obama administration sent to Europe, regardless of how much more the Trump administration will spend in Europe, it is never enough. The additional money spent in Europe will come from tax increases on colleges like Julliard, on homeowners in California, from ACA, Medicaid cuts and soon in other badly needed social programs, as well as newly printed money. Meanwhile, the NATO, founding member, fantastically wealthy Norway, just announced that their sovereign fund will not invest anymore in Boeing, BAE and firms involved in Obama’s massive expansion of the nuclear arsenal (upheld by the present administration) – the list of economic sanctions is long. It is also ironic that a Der Spiegel interview is cited, which fortunately, doesn’t have an English printed edition, as it is not very popular in the US in general, South Carolina in particular. The covers especially will have an icy reception. There was a time when there was hope that the EU NATO members can be factors of global stability, enact De Gaulle’s vision of a united Europe from the Gibraltar to the Urals (in economic terms), an EU with geopolitical weight. It was not just that, Europe, her history shows the futility of war, religious, plunder, imperial, any form, peace is always better. War is as old as human civilization, but Europe pushed it in 1914 to planetary level, and invented the nuclear weapons (then US built and deployed them) and the delivery vectors. The EU and the UN were an US idea to build a different world, please judge yourself if it is a success. What Europe in particular and the Western world in general need to realize is that the world has changed, hyperpowers have risen in the East. The EU NATO members should also read the latest US NPR.
It's a PITY To Notice how ambiguous are the sourCRITICISM against FRENCH and BRITISH FORCES To Join In their operational CAPACITY in Europe not obsolutely regarding any of administrative DIFERENCES around: since, Let it be clearly said BREXIT is an administrative European Union and economic Vision of EURO GROUP Failure, not the thorough FAILURE Of EUROPE. As far as DEFENCE Matters are concerned:WHAT OTHER NATION there, Here in Europe would President MACRON Have Recursed To, If it is not GREAT BRITAIN? Other Nations are, probably "RICH",but Have No military MIGHT! Therefore, the UK be it in EU Zone or not, HAVE NoCHOICE but Builda Joint - Force with FRANCE:theOnly Nation which, on continentalEuropehas an ARMY capableofbeing deployed on as many Operation and Fight THEATERS as a financed DEFENCE or even War Plan was to envisage to be complementary to Overall NATO Forces whichare not only composed of Western Europeans and Northern Americans but also some of the former -Soviet Era Eastern Block member States...plus TURKEY! Who Will DEFEND EUROPE, Militarily, if FRANCE and BRITAIN Don'ttake the Leadership in that specified Défense Field?
No Matter what the REFLECTING EFFECTS of a Desarmed European Union show: and HOW WEAK Europe does apear without the Permanent Supply of US Troops on its Soil, be it under NATO Work-and-Alliance Space, EUROPE as aan as HUGE ECONOMY Needs its own DEFENCE. IT WILL BUILD IT OR NOT ... Nine is just a WISH, which I would like to become a REALITY, nonetheless. But, It is too risky to Not EVEN Attempt! What the French President and the British Premier are doing is the RIGHTEST THING over! Just an Opinion!
The PESCO process continues apace, including the UK. Money doesn't come into the equation, just good old fashioned treason. Britain could re-introduce the 1914 Treasury-issued Bradbury Pound (called M0 at 100%), money that is debt-free and interest-free as it is based on the wealth and creativity of the nation. The truth is the 'one per cent' are deliberately destroying national sovereignty in the pursuit of their Orwellian ambitions for global corporate governance.
It's actually a very sensitive ISSUE. but so vital, By the way for EUROPE!
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.