The Cohen Group: News: Op-Eds: SOLUTIONS/FATA: What should Obama do about missile defense?


	Archives
	Op-eds

Op-eds

The Financial Times

April 2, 2009

Obama’s message on security should be candid
By George Robertson

President Barack Obama will this weekend head to the 60th anniversary summit of Nato, held symbolically on the borders of Germany and France. His visit comes a week after the 10th anniversary of the Nato assault on the former Yugoslavia over Kosovo. The week also marks the re-integration of France into the Nato military command that it left 43 years ago. But amid all these military anniversaries what should Mr Obama’s message be for the Europeans and what will he get in response?

He should ask the Europeans to do more in terms of security in return for a grand bargain – the US will remain connected to Europe’s security and prosperity. Europe’s part should be to step up to the plate on guaranteeing our collective safety from the new global risks. We have seen the chaos inflicted by the flutter of a butterfly wing in subprime housing loans. The fallout could be just as severe from problems such as disease, climate change, resource wars and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

With the rare backdrop of European goodwill that has been largely absent for a US president since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Mr Obama’s message to Europe should be candid and sharp. The first priority is Afghanistan, where Europe’s safety from infectious chaos is on the line. Mr Obama can underline with force that failure will hit hardest in Europe’s backyard and Europeans are not doing enough. Afghanistan may be the front line for Europe’s defence but we seem to lack the political will and modern capabilities to deal with enemies to our democratic way of life.

Second, Mr Obama, while taking a radical knife to his own defence budget and reaching out to Russia as a pragmatic ally (just as the Europeans asked), can look with dismay at the state of Europe’s defence capabilities. The vast money that Europe spends on defence translates into so little. We are still largely configured, with some honourable exceptions, for a cold war that is long gone. Europe is pathetically ill-equipped for the world we foresee.

Today, Europe’s usable deployable troops amount to just 2 per cent of the 2.5m who are in uniform. It has little or no airlift means to get troops to where they need to be. It has only a fraction of the helicopters that are urgently needed in battle zones, but thousands suited only for recreational flying. There is a scandalous shortage of crucial enablers – the logistical staff, engineers, cooks and medics. Without them no soldiers can be deployed. This lak makes a mockery of the ambition for a European pillar in the alliance.

So, Mr Obama should not ask for European defence budgets to be increased. That is not going to happen. Instead he should demand that existing budgets be redirected towards the threats of today. The millions in military budgets should be spent on 21st-century capabilities, not on cold war museum armies. He should point out that the newly re-integrated France will be taking over Nato’s transformation command based in Norfolk, Virginia. This is where a massive transformation of European forces and capabilities should start immediately.

I hope Mr Obama will also tell us what is staring us in the face – that a European Security and Defence Policy is good for the US as well as Europe but that it must not be about glitzy headquarters and flags on posts, but about a real ability to act in a crisis. That depends on tackling issues, such as why the European Rapid Reaction Force still only exists on paper, and why 10 years on only a fraction of the headline goals on capabilities have been achieved. Too many people in Europe cling to the notion that if there is trouble in its backyard they need only call Washington, as they did for Kosovo and Bosnia. Mr Obama should tell them that the line will be busy.

Europe’s leaders are far too silent, culpably so, about our new vulnerabilities. Just as Mr Obama tells Americans the hard truth about what faces them, it is time Europe’s politicians got the message over what needs to be done. I give this solemn warning to Europe’s political leadership. If you do not use budgets on real defence needs, you will risk some of the anger that is focused on bankers. Spending scarce taxpayers’ money on heavy metal armies, undeployable troops or the wrong helicopters is a potentially blood-boiling scandal. Nato, as President Nicolas Sarkozy has said, is an alliance of European states as well as of North American and European nations. It is time for Europe to wake up if it is to show up on the day. Only then can it face the new president with its head held high.

Lord Robertson was secretary-general of Nato from 1999-2003 and British defence secretary from 1997-1999
Copyright http://www.ft.com/servicestools/help/copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

Top