Richard Rose emphasises that Starmer’s photo-ops at the NATO and European Policy Community summits mask the serious European security challenges the new government must face, UK in a Changing Europe reports.
As the European Policy Community (EPC) meeting takes place at Blenheim Palace this week, following the NATO summit in Washington, we are beginning to get used to the image of new Prime Minister Keir Starmer representing Britain on the world stage. The media have published many pictures of Starmer shaking hands with leaders of various countries. But the most important security discussions are taking place behind the scenes, both in Washington and in Europe. What contribution can London make to Europe’s military defence?
Britain’s special relationship with Washington is becoming increasingly transactional. The White House is pressuring NATO members to spend more on defence rather than relying on the US taxpayer. Starmer’s government inherited the Conservatives’ policy of spending 2.3% of GDP on defence this year, a third less than the US. The Conservatives were committed to increasing this to 2.5 per cent by 2030.
With the war in Ukraine showing the need for an immediate increase in defence spending, US officials meeting with Starmer’s top security officials wanted to know: how soon would a new Labour government deliver the promised increase in defence spending? The unconvincing answer – as soon as economic conditions permit – implies that defence is a secondary priority for the new government.
For NATO’s military mission, it is more important what money buys than how it is spent. In May, the US military chief of staff said Britain lacked enough ammunition, transport and electronic equipment to sustain the fight against aggression for more than a month. And in carefully calibrated public statements made shortly before Starmer’s trip to Washington, recently retired British military leaders backed the US general’s criticism. Britain is overspending on military purchases and maintenance of aircraft carriers and aircraft, reducing the money available to keep up-to-date on equipment needed to respond to the Ukraine conflict in Eastern Europe, according to UK in a Changing Europe.
While in Washington, the main subject of Starmer’s private conversations with European allies was the likely prospect of a deterioration in US commitments to European defence if Donald Trump wins the November election.
Trump has said that if he becomes president again, he will allow Russia to do ‘whatever it wants’ with European countries that will not spend more on collective defence. As President Biden’s difficulties in getting Congress to approve military aid to Ukraine show, there is widespread resistance to US funding for European security. This prospect gives European countries reason to follow Benjamin Franklin’s advice to the American colonies in 1776:
“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
The European Policy Community meeting of more than 45 European governments at Blenheim Palace this week gives Starmer the opportunity to take the lead in developing a European defence strategy in the face of a potential weakening of America’s commitment to European defence, UK in a Changing Europe reports.
Starmer will be the only leader of a major European country to hold office with confidence for the next five years. President Macron failed to win control of the French assembly in snap legislative elections, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s three-party coalition is currently low in the polls and internally divided on defence issues.
However, Starmer faces serious obstacles. Firstly, he has little international experience and little time to play an active role in foreign affairs, as this is not one of his five key missions. David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, is well connected to the US Democrats but has previously labelled Donald Trump a sociopath and an idiot. John Healey, the defence secretary, has considerable experience in the home departments but, as shadow minister, has been unable to get Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves to accept the Conservatives’ pledge to increase UK defence spending by 2030.
The government’s first cautious move was to commission a strategic review of defence policy with six ambitious and costly targets. Its budget demands will have to compete with Labour’s domestic priorities when it reports back in the first half of next year.
Labour’s main aim in Europe is to improve economic relations with the European Union. Although the EU has a vice-president for foreign affairs and defence policy, he cannot lead the European defence community because he does not have the power to build an army. Thus, the money the EU gives to Ukraine is for financial and humanitarian purposes, while military equipment is provided by national governments such as the UK and Germany, according to UK in a Changing Europe.
The EPC conference at Blenheim Palace will focus on a Europe defined by geography rather than EU treaties. It may be attended by senior government representatives from strategically important countries such as Turkey and Norway. As host, Starmer could authorise an expert committee to make recommendations on security cooperation that the EPC could adopt in light of the results of the US presidential election. The report could lay the foundations for a new institution independent of the EU and complementary to, rather than challenging, NATO.
As a nuclear power with robust military and intelligence ties to Washington, the UK is certain to take a leading role in any European defence community that is formed in response to developments in Washington. The actions of the defence community could be protected from a single country veto by turning it into a coalition of the willing.
But if this path is not chosen, there is already an institution that facilitates military co-operation against Russia – the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF). They coordinate military mutual defence activities at a regional level. The UK is the most populous of the 10 participating countries and the OEF is headquartered in the UK. Sweden and Finland are best placed to counter any military aggression on the ground without waiting for a decision from the White House.
Co-operation with states that are much smaller in population but have more incentive to resist increasing Russian influence gives the UK the opportunity to emerge as a leading medium-sized power in a world in which the UK is no longer a superpower.
