Minister Hutton (UK) supports European Defense. By reason?

(B2) The idea of ​​a Saint-Malo bis - toyed with by some French officials - is no longer quite a dream. In a long interview, published today in the Sunday Times, the new Minister of Defence, John Hutton, takes up the defense of... the Europe of defence. A new British plea that comes after others (read here), but this time with government backing.

Great Britain must reintegrate the heart of European defense
Commenting on French plans to strengthen the EU military headquarters or the rapid reaction force, he explains: "I think we have to be pragmatic about this stuff. Where it helps, we have to be part of it." And to add: "France is one of our closest allies, militarily. The French believe very strongly in this type of role. If we can support them, we should." And if we had to be more clear: "I'm not one of those haters of the European Union (who think) that anything to do with the European Union by definition has to be terrible. There are a lot of them around (us). Frankly, I find this kind of point of view, pathetic".

A strategic necessity. For Hutton, this is a strategic necessity. "Being part of alliances is the best way to project power, strength and belief around the world. People who don't understand that can't understand the nature of the modern world"... We are very close to Sarkozy's discourse on rupture and the "new world". Concretely, the Minister does not plan to participate in all EU operations. It's not about "compromising other missions". But he cited the counter-piracy operation off Somalia, as the "good example" how forces can be used.

Comments : a serious development without a doubt.
This position is inconstantly important. Failing to constitute a total reversal (we have already heard this type of remark in the past not followed automatically by effects), it constitutes, in my opinion, a serious evolution which will have to be followed carefully. And in any case more than a simple statement of circumstance. An observation that must be placed in a context that can be summarized in a few points.

1° The British position vis-à-vis the ESDP is to be compared to its traditional position on European construction, which can be summarized as follows: firstly mistrust or reluctance, even opposition to new projects. Then, when there is success, attachment to European policy. The United Kingdom has thus always navigated between the temptation of isolation, the fear of seeing progress made without it and a real desire to participate.

2° The balance of forces existing within the European Union - created in the aftermath of the American intervention in Iraq - is tipping in favor of the ESDP. The operation in Chad was (a) revealer(s) of the erosion of the British position. And the enlargement of Europe has - unexpected effect - demonstrated that the EU was capable of mounting a major operation without British support.

3° The American position - itself - has evolved, G. Bush's gesture in Bucharest in April welcoming the ESDP forced the United Kingdom to evolve.

4° The return of France to NATO may cause the United Kingdom to lose (a little) its privileged position. Concretely, it will be necessary (also) to share certain positions in the planning commands. It also removes a weighty argument: the "Psd seen as a Trojan horse to undermine NATO" - a criticism that is certainly unfounded but very present in certain speeches and which nourished strong mistrust on both sides.

5° The weight of economic reality. The conjunction of the cost of the operations in progress, especially in Afghanistan, heavy from a structural and budgetary point of view, like the seriousness of the financial crisis (and the economic crisis to come) obliges to rapid adjustments and certain choices. The United Kingdom needs Europe now to safeguard its financial center (just as Europe needs the United Kingdom to safeguard its economic position). It is out of proportion with some considerations, after all ideological, on the Europe of defence. The sharing of certain costs or investments will have to be considered.

6° The ESDP does not really threaten NATO. Neither the UK/USA link. These fears seem unfounded. Provided that the United Kingdom is in
heart of this new policy and not at the margins. The conclusion is therefore obvious: it is as much to be at the heart of the ESDP as on its margins, it is better controlled. As Hutton says, the United Kingdom can only maintain its position of strength at the cost of strengthened "alliances".

7. Hutton's personality. One cannot deny J. Hutton's "non-aligned" position on the present Prime Minister's lack of European enthusiasm. A Blairist, Hutton - who had said worse than hanging from Gordon Brown - thus undoubtedly goes further than his father on European defense and thus finds the original accents of his mentor, during the Saint-Malo meeting in 1998 .

8° In internal policy. Although I am not an expert on the matter, one can see an advantage to this position, at first glance. It drives a wedge in the camp of the British Conservatives, who with the financial crisis, can appear a little "old fashion". To be modern is not to be against Defense Europe, it is to be for it. The Minister says it several times...