Most of us who are old enough will remember where we were when the Berlin Wall came down. President Reagan had urged the Russians to ‘tear down that wall’, wanting the Iron Curtain to be confined to the dustbin of history, and for the rights, privileges and liberties of humanity to ascend across the Eastern Bloc. From 1945 to 1989 there had been the Cold War: two European world views living cheek by jowl, each defending itself in an arms race which had the ultimate deterrent of mutual destruction. It was costly. It was often nerve-wracking. It somehow worked.
However, when the Wall came down, though moral victory was celebrated, a ‘Peace Dividend’ was also declared.
NATO remained a living instrument of Western defence, and Russia ‘retreated’ to manage the breakup of her empire as other powers had done in previous decades.
The people to breathe most easily (apart from those freed from the yoke of heavy-handed communism) were the treasuries of the west. Governments of all stripes believed that cash previously used for defence could now be repurposed for other, more popular (read vote-winning), things – schools, hospitals, infrastructure. Reductions in certain taxes and allowances, or a generous social security system. All paid for by money that had previously been invested in defence.
Governments recognised that the first duty of the State was to protect its citizen: it was just that there was no identifiable enemy to defend against. Governments concluded there was no longer an immediate conventional threat to Europe, allowing defence spending to fall while NATO and, ultimately, the United States, underpinned Western security. These basic assumptions only worked if
a) Russia remained content not to flex her muscles and
b) the US continued to be prepared to fill the Western defence funding gap. Both assumptions were wrong – perhaps proving the oft-told armed forces quip that ‘military intelligence’ is an oxymoron.
The further problem is that the politicians believed that the Peace Dividend was the golden goose that kept paying out annually. It also helped governments get re-elected as the public’s taste for domestic spending grew unsated.
So it came as a bit of a jolt when Russia sought to expand and America decided to retreat.
And we cannot just blame Trump for this: successive Presidents have warned NATO to up domestic spending on defence. NATO members decided to call America’s bluff, and we are now discovering it is no bluff and Europe feels somewhat exposed. We are also somewhat imperilled.
Unwilling and unable
Recent global events and the growing isolationism of the US have served as a chill early wake-up call that if the first duty of the state is to defend its citizens then it needs something meaningful and at scale to do the defending. Our armed forces now face difficult questions about capability, from the use of massively inflexible Gordon Brown-commissioned aircraft carriers to the growing importance of drones and unmanned systems.
With all of the above in mind I find it brain-fryingly unconscionable that the Government has delayed for so long the Defence Investment Plan (PID). It is over a year late – and it is not as if it has been a quiet year in international relations terms. A much-liked and respected Secretary of State (John Healey) for Defence has resigned, as has the Minister for the Armed Forces. The most chilling sentiment in Healey’s resignation letter was that the ‘Treasury was unwilling and the Prime Minister unable’ to provide the funding needed for defence. The Treasury can tell us the predictions for spending on welfare up to the early 2030s – yet they cannot do the same for defence spending?
That is a dereliction of duty. It is the sign of a hollowed out Prime Minister, and it is the sign of an overmighty Treasury.
Let us hope Mr Burnham has more clout and muscle. Let us hope that the new Chancellor understands a few things:
a) That the Peace Dividend has stopped paying out;
b) That difficult public spending choices are going to have to be made, especially – but not exclusively – in the field of welfare and;
c) That time is not on our side. Simon Hoare MP for North Dorset
