On Tuesday, the Financial Times of London reported on a copy of a 97-page document that "two of NATO's most respected retired generals will make on Wednesday" at a meeting of EU and NATO leaders in Brussels. -- In it, U.S. Gen. Joseph Ralston and German Gen. Klaus Naumann complain that European leaders have "lacked political will" to increase military spending to such an extend that "the viability of NATO as an alliance and the ability of European countries to partner in any meaningful way with the U.S." has been affected, as well as "the ability of European countries to protect their interests." -- The present course is "a recipe for disaster," they warn, calling on European countries to spend at least 25% of their military budgets on research and new weapons, and no more than 40% on personnel. Smaller countries are urged to specialize their forces so that they can make "high-value contributions to collective security." -- The report regards increased attention to national priorities in European countries as an impediment to development of European military capabilities: "Some question whether further defense integration can occur among European nations which value their sovereignty and see the world from diverse perspectives. Although this will be no small challenge, there really is no viable alternative." -- When one examines the quantities of wealth being expended on the world's militaries, it is hard to understand the apocalyptic language of the Ralston-Naumann report. -- The Global Issues web site gives the following estimates for top 2004 national military expenditures: U.S. $399.1b; Russia $65.2b, China $56b; U.K. $49b; Japan $45.1b; France $40b; Germany $29.7b; Saudi Arabia $19.3b; India $19.1b; Italy $17.5b; South Korea $16.4b; Australia $11.7b; Turkey $11.7b; Israel $10.8b; Canada $10.1b; Spain $9.9b; Brazil $9.2b; Netherlands $7.6b; Taiwan $7.5b; Greece $7.2b. -- By way of reference, North Korea spent $5.5b in 2004; Iran spent $3.5b. (Source: U.S. Military Spending vs. the World, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, February 7, 2005.) -- As Global Issues points out, "The U.S. military budget was [in 2004] almost as much as the rest of the worlds. The U.S. military budget was more than 6 times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender. The US military budget was more than 30 times as large as the combined spending of the seven rogue states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $13 billion. It was more than the combined spending of the next fourteen nations. The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea). The seven potential enemies, Russia, and China together spent $134.2 billion, 34% of the U.S. military budget." -- EU military expenditures in 2004 are well over $150b....
World
International Economy
RETIRED NATO GENERALS BLAST EUROPEAN MILITARY
By Peter Spiegel
Financial Times
October 11, 2005
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c2a26982-3a89-11da-b0d3-00000e2511c8.html
Two of NATO's most respected retired generals will on Wednesday issue a stinging indictment of European military capabilities, arguing that unless the continent pools its defense resources it may be unable to meet mounting security risks such as international terrorism.
Gen. Joseph Ralston, the retired U.S. officer who headed NATO until 2003, and retired General Klaus Naumann, Germany's former chief of defense and head of NATO's military committee, argue that European leaders have "lacked the political will" to improve military capabilities. "Failure to meaningfully improve Europe's collective defense capabilities in the coming years would have profoundly negative impacts on the ability of European countries to protect their interests, the viability of NATO as an alliance, and the ability of European countries to partner in any meaningful way with the U.S.," according to the report, a copy of which was obtained by the Financial Times.
The 97-page study, due to be presented on Wednesday to European Union and Nato leaders in Brussels, was a year in the making, involving consultation with former defense chiefs of almost all European powers, including the U.K. and France. The generals will brief European defence officials during the next two weeks and present their findings in Washington next month, in an effort to provoke action by Europe's politicians who have not delivered on past promises to NATO.
The call for greater integration in European military research and procurement is likely to be controversial since France and Britain, in particular, have been at odds over the extent to which a pan-European defense agency should have a say over national budget priorities. Britain has resisted French calls for a more centralized procurement process.
But the report argues that without a more co-ordinated approach, flat or declining defense spending by most European countries will make it impossible for militaries to execute stated security strategies, which include combating terrorism and the proliferation of unconventional weapons, and dealing with failing states.
"Some question whether further defense integration can occur among European nations which value their sovereignty and see the world from diverse perspectives," the report finds. "Although this will be no small challenge, there really is no viable alternative. Staying the course is not an option indeed, it is a recipe for disaster."
The report calls on European powers to re-allocate defense spending so that 25 per cent of budgets are spent on research and acquiring new weapons, while no more than 40 per cent is spent on personnel. For smaller militaries unable to provide a wide-range of capabilities, it calls for increased specialization that can make "high-value contributions to collective security."
The report says such shifts in budget and specialization should be done in close co-ordination with NATO and the EU's new defense agency so that critical shortfalls which include a scarcity of transport aircraft, sophisticated command and control systems, and special operations forces are met and duplication is limited.