For the Tories, the future of defense is with… France!

(BRUSSELS2 in London) Sir Malcolm Rifkind worked yesterday in front of the prestigious RUSSIA, Royal United Services Institute, to expound Tory ideas on defence. Many experts and diplomats in the room - as is the custom - and few journalists. A very interesting presentation on several points: the budget, bilateral cooperation, NATO and Europe.

A member of the Thatcher and Major governments (cabinets) without interruption for 18 years, Rifkind is, in fact, an eminent figure in the Conservative party even if he is no longer on the front line today. He does not appear in the shadow cabinet of the Tory leader, David Cameron. Secretary of Defense to John Major from 1992 to 1995, he was also head of the Foreign Office from 1995 to 1997.

To be or not to be

Rifkind recognizes first of all that defense and foreign affairs are not the primordial subjects during an election (1). However, he identifies three main issues.

First issue: What should the British defense do ? Should it concentrate on what directly threatens the territory or does it want to allow the United Kingdom to be, with diplomacy, a "global power?" It is this second option that Rifkind defends. Among the threats, the conventional attack against the United Kingdom, even if it should not be excluded, is eclipsed by others more present, he specifies: terrorism, first of all (quite logically), a threat that is as much a both internal and external issue ". But also “trade”. “As an island,” freedom of trade, its free access, is something essential for us”.

2nd challenge: the budget. The defense budget will not be reduced (£6 billion). But we have to tackle departmental operational costs. However, according to the Mc Kinsey study (2), these are 20% higher than the costs of other countries, not only the smallest but comparable States: France, Germany in particular ". It is necessary " tackling bureaucracy which, as in any large structure, tends to increase ».

France, I love you...

3rd challenge: bilateral cooperation. Interesting ! " It is important not only for political reasons but to solve the costs » he underlines. " I know: the word European cooperation can provoke emotional reactions in some of us he takes care to specify. But it is useful and necessary, particularly with France ". We can have with others also: the Netherlands or the countries of central Europe. Rifkind did not particularly insist on these points, returning on the other hand, on several occasions, to Franco-British cooperation. For him, the chosen field of this cooperation is the " nuclear deterrence ". Without going as far as merging — he pronounces the word, however — that would be the most logical priority. " We are the only ones at European level (along with Russia) to have nuclear weapons. We are close. And we are not a threat (to each other). “Second field of cooperation: “ joint procurement », for example for the navy. " I believe in it because it can reduce costs. “Still, it has to be on the basis of a “ fair and transparent competition ". " With a monolithic State, which defends its industry, it is not always easy...”, he adds. For example, " we have two navies, each with different specifications. But the real difficulty remains industrial. And to remember the discussion with the French in the 1990s. We had a discussion with Pierre Joxe “then Minister of Defense. And he said to me “please hold on”... As for the nature of this cooperation: is it within a European framework or ad hoc? Rifkind is clearly leaning towards the second option, as he replied to me in a small conversation, off the microphone: " The most important thing is the substance of the cooperation, not the framework”. In other words: bilateral cooperation and not within the European framework. There does not seem to be any question, for him, of strengthening the European Defense Agency.

Reform NATO

In the radius of multilateral cooperation, of course, there is NATO. But that's all...

NATO: reviewing burden sharing. Rifkind believes that the question of “burden sharing” is crucial for the future of the Atlantic Alliance, as well as its decision-making methods. " We must no longer depend on unanimity for certain subjects or equipment. But he also acknowledges that the "coalition of wills" - used by the US and UK in Iraq " is not really the right thing”. Several states took part in the operation but - he admits - it was more to please the United States. To have a real "coalition", you need " a common threat interest, a genuine community of interest »

Cathy Ashton: a goodwill ambassador. I couldn't resist asking Rifkind about the future of Cathy Ashton, the EU's chief diplomat. But that seems to be the least of his worries. He sees no need for change(3). " There is no (European) Foreign Minister because there is no European foreign affairs policy. She is more of an ambassador who can express herself when there is a common position – which does not happen all the time – and defend it. But not more »

Comment: we can see that the European Union, and the ESDP, have little place in this argument by the Tory Defense specialist who always puts the greatness of the United Kingdom and its place in the world as a main objective. and ultimate. In the golden paneling of the RUSI library, history is very present. But the reality of today is also present. Especially budget pressure. Across the Channel, the debate is indeed crucial on this point. A recent report by the National Audit Office shows that the defense deficit will amount to £36 billion over the next ten years. And even ! This is more of a minimum - if military spending remains low - than a maximum... While the country's public debt has reached an unprecedented figure (forecast close to 12% for 2010!). It is therefore understandable that the search for savings is essential. And let pragmatism be essential. If British defense wants to remain at the forefront, it must urgently seek not only industrial cooperation but also synergies. And France remains, in this case, the most "interesting" possibility. The United Kingdom is, here, in the position of requesting cooperation. This is an opportunity to seize...

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

(1) A televised debate brings together the 3 leaders: Labor (Gordon Browne), Tory (David Cameron) and LibDem (Nick Clegg) around this theme in particular.

(2) Produced in the United States by McKinsey in April 2009.

 (3) We remember that this option was raised as a possibility in the event of the arrival of a conservative power in London.