Summary: US can’t be the protector while Europeans cut the bread. Europeans angry but UK agrees. So what say everyone here?
http://beta.news.yahoo.com/gates-nato-alliance-future-could-dim-dismal-205237428.html
Gates: NATO alliance future could be ‘dim, dismal’
APBy DESMOND BUTLER – Associated Press,ROBERT BURNS – Associated Press | AP – 3 hrs ago
BRUSSELS (AP) — In a stern rebuke, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that the future of the NATO military alliance is at risk because of European penny-pinching and distaste for front-line combat. The United States won’t carry the alliance as a charity case, the outgoing Pentagon chief said.
Some NATO countries bristled, but Britain quickly and heartily agreed.
Gates’ assessment Friday that NATO could face “a dim if not dismal” future echoes long-standing concern of U.S. policymakers about European defense spending. But rarely, if ever, has it been stated so directly by such a powerful American figure, widely respected in the United States and internationally.
The remarks, at the close of Gates’ final overseas trip, reflect a new reality of constrained American finances and a smaller global reach.
Earlier in the week Gates played “bad cop” to U.S. President Barack Obama’s good, criticizing Germany’s abstention from the air campaign in Libya two days after Obama lavished an award and fancy White House dinner on visiting Chancellor Angela Merkel.
But Gates spoke for the Obama administration, and his warning Friday was aimed squarely at Europe’s priorities.
“The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress, and in the American body politic writ large, to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense,” he said.
That assessment may cause Europeans to question the future of their defense relationship with the United States, on whom they have counted for a large measure of their security for six decades.
It comes on the heels of the withdrawal of one American combat brigade from Europe as part of a significant reduction of U.S. troops in Europe.
The U.S. has been the brawn behind NATO since its birth in 1949. But the disparity between strength and allies’ investment has only grown wider.
In a question-and-answer session after his speech, Gates, 67, said his generation’s “emotional and historical attachment” to NATO is “aging out.” He noted that he is about 20 years older than Obama, his boss.
For many Americans, NATO is a vague idea tied to a bygone era, a time when the world feared a Soviet land invasion of Europe that could have escalated to nuclear war. But with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO’s reason for being came into question. It has remained intact — and even expanded from 16 members at the conclusion of the Cold War to 28 today — but European reluctance to expand defense budgets has created what amounts to a two-tier alliance: the U.S. military at one level and the rest of NATO on a lower, almost irrelevant plane.
Gates said this presents a problem that could spell the demise of the alliance.
“What I’ve sketched out is the real possibility for a dim if not dismal future for the trans-Atlantic alliance,” Gates said. “Such a future is possible, but not inevitable. The good news is that the members of NATO — individually and collectively — have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends, and instead produce a very different future.”
Without naming names, Gates blasted “nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.”
A German foreign ministry spokeswoman defended that nation’s contribution and noted Obama’s recent praise.
However, defense spending is uneven within Europe.
Liam Fox, defense secretary in Britain, a strong U.S. ally, told NATO Thursday that European governments were undermining military co-operation with the U.S. by failing to spend enough on defense. He also said other European nations should be more willing to send their forces to NATO operations such as Afghanistan.
He praised Gates as a champion of the trans-Atlantic relationship.
“Unless Europe carries more of the share of its own defense, we should not assume his successors will do the same,” Fox said.
Over the past two years, military spending by NATO’s European members has shrunk by about $45 billion — the equivalent of the entire annual defense budget of Germany, one of the alliance’s top-spending members.
As a result, the U.S. defense budget of nearly $700 billion accounts for nearly 75 percent of the total defense spending by NATO members. The combined military spending of all 26 European members is just above $220 billion.
The White House stood by Gates’ comments Friday, though officials emphasized that the outgoing defense secretary was not guaranteeing a dim future for NATO, only saying that the possibility existed if allies cannot provide the resources needed. “I don’t think anyone would argue with that,” said Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council.
Gates has criticized the Europeans before. He bruised feelings at NATO by publicly calling for larger troop contributions in Afghanistan. He has also criticized the heavy restrictions many European governments set for their soldiers, including bans on night patrols that mean many of them rarely leave their bases.
In February 2010 at the National Defense University in Washington he said NATO was in danger of becoming a paper tiger.
“The demilitarization of Europe, where large swaths of the general public and political classes are averse to military force and the risks that go with it, has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st,” he said then.
To illustrate his concerns about Europe’s lack of appetite for defense, Gates pointed to Libya, where France and other NATO nations pushed hard for NATO intervention and where the U.S. insisted on a back seat role.
“While every alliance member voted for the Libya mission, less than half have participated at all, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission,” he said. “Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate but simply because they can’t.”
Such inequality is unacceptable, Gates said, and so is the poor follow-through that occurred once the mission began.
“The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference,” he said.
During his first two years on the job, Gates alternately coaxed and complained, often loudly pressing allies to send more forces and funding to Afghanistan and to lessen their restriction on the troops they had there.
After a while he scaled back his constant hounding, acknowledging that it wasn’t paying off much. And he frequently joked that NATO colleagues weren’t shy about mentioning his “megaphone diplomacy.”
NATO did send more forces over the past two years, and Dutch, British and other European forces have taken heavy losses. But as the Afghan war approaches its 10th anniversary, the U.S. has more than twice as many forces in Afghanistan as all other nations combined. Several NATO nations have withdrawn forces or have announced plans to do so. The U.S. shares the NATO goal of ending combat there by 2015.
Gates offered praise and sympathy along with his chiding, noting that more than 850 troops from non-U.S. NATO members have died in Afghanistan. For many allied nations these were their first military casualties since World War II.
Gates spoke at the Defense and Security Agenda think tank in Brussels, where earlier in the week he attended a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers.
___
By: datafuser - 18th July 2011 at 06:58
Below is part of what Robert Gates said, especially about lack of ISR capabilities.
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4839
” In particular, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets are lacking that would allow more allies to be involved and make an impact. The most advanced fighter aircraft are little use if allies do not have the means to identify, process, and strike targets as part of an integrated campaign. To run the air campaign, the NATO air operations center in Italy required a major augmentation of targeting specialists, mainly from the U.S., to do the job – a just in time infusion of personnel that may not always be available in future contingencies. We have the spectacle of an air operations center designed to handle more than 300 sorties a day struggling to launch about 150. Furthermore, the mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country – yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.
In the past, I’ve worried openly about NATO turning into a two-tiered alliance: Between members who specialize in “soft’ humanitarian, development, peacekeeping, and talking tasks, and those conducting the “hard” combat missions. Between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership – be they security guarantees or headquarters billets – but don’t want to share the risks and the costs. This is no longer a hypothetical worry. We are there today. And it is unacceptable.
Part of this predicament stems from a lack of will, much of it from a lack of resources in an era of austerity. For all but a handful of allies, defense budgets – in absolute terms, as a share of economic output – have been chronically starved for adequate funding for a long time, with the shortfalls compounding on themselves each year. Despite the demands of mission in Afghanistan – the first ‘hot’ ground war fought in NATO history – total European defense spending declined, by one estimate, by nearly 15 percent in the decade following 9/11. Furthermore, rising personnel costs combined with the demands of training and equipping for Afghan deployments has consumed an ever growing share of already meager defense budgets. The result is that investment accounts for future modernization and other capabilities not directly related to Afghanistan are being squeezed out – as we are seeing today over Libya.
I am the latest in a string of U.S. defense secretaries who have urged allies privately and publicly, often with exasperation, to meet agreed-upon NATO benchmarks for defense spending. However, fiscal, political and demographic realities make this unlikely to happen anytime soon, as even military stalwarts like the U.K have been forced to ratchet back with major cuts to force structure. Today, just five of 28 allies – the U.S., U.K., France, Greece, along with Albania – exceed the agreed 2% of GDP spending on defense.
Regrettably, but realistically, this situation is highly unlikely to change. The relevant challenge for us today, therefore, is no longer the total level of defense spending by allies, but how these limited (and dwindling) resources are allocated and for what priorities. For example, though some smaller NATO members have modestly sized and funded militaries that do not meet the 2 percent threshold, several of these allies have managed to punch well above their weight because of the way they use the resources they have.
In the Libya operation, Norway and Denmark, have provided 12 percent of allied strike aircraft yet have struck about one third of the targets. Belgium and Canada are also making major contributions to the strike mission. These countries have, with their constrained resources, found ways to do the training, buy the equipment, and field the platforms necessary to make a credible military contribution.
These examples are the exceptions. Despite the pressing need to spend more on vital equipment and the right personnel to support ongoing missions – needs that have been evident for the past two decades – too many allies been unwilling to fundamentally change how they set priorities and allocate resources. The non-U.S. NATO members collectively spend more than $300 billion U.S. dollars on defense annually which, if allocated wisely and strategically, could buy a significant amount of usable military capability. Instead, the results are significantly less than the sum of the parts. This has both shortchanged current operations but also bodes ill for ensuring NATO has the key common alliance capabilities of the future.”
By: Primate - 3rd July 2011 at 12:31
That may well be true the way I see it. It’s no secret that e.g. Norway relies heavily on its NATO membership and has a need to invest in mutual military bonds with other alliance members.
I don’t know everything, but I think Norway’s strong effort in Libya may also reflect a desire in the government to support the UN and aid the organisation as an important international political body with, among other things, a credible capacity to summon the use of military power by its member states when necessary. The UN needs members which are willing and capable to form the tip of the spear.
By: Flying-A - 3rd July 2011 at 01:19
According to some observers, Canada, Denmark, and Norway have a reason for this participation that’s far removed from the hot sands of Libya.
In the near future, advancing technology and thinning Polar ice will make available huge deposits of mineral wealth in the Arctic where all three countries have extensive territories. However, some of Russia’s claims conflict with some of theirs and the bear is stirring from its two decades of slumber. Having already locked up many of the natural resources of Africa and South America, China may want to cut out a big slice of the Arctic pie as well. To keep their holdings in the Far North, Canada, Denmark, and Norway will need American help, either indirectly through NATO or directly.
But those countries’ governments are undoubtedly aware of the inward turn of American public opinion, which apparently includes much of its future military leadership and, quite possibly, future American Presidents as well. The high costs of being a first tier member of NATO today may be essential in securing American help in the Arctic tomorrow.
By: Primate - 1st July 2011 at 17:12
Maybe a slight but positive input.
The Security and Defense Agenda (Future of NATO)
As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Brussels, Belgium, Friday, June 10, 2011
In the Libya operation, Norway and Denmark, have provided 12 percent of allied strike aircraft yet have struck about one third of the targets. Belgium and Canada are also making major contributions to the strike mission. These countries have, with their constrained resources, found ways to do the training, buy the equipment, and field the platforms necessary to make a credible military contribution.
By: Flying-A - 26th June 2011 at 21:47
From a recent opinion piece in The New York Times:
…..most of America’s next generation of military leaders has lost confidence in NATO. At a recent talk I gave at an elite U.S. military institution, just five participants out of an audience of some 60 raised their hands when asked how many believed NATO ought to continue in business.
That’s among the milder statements I’ve read since Gates’ speech. The complete article is at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/opinion/23iht-edkashmeri23.html?_r=1
By: Primate - 23rd June 2011 at 19:49
With the UK and France as the only nations prepared to put their servicemen on the line, NATO is pretty irrelevant.
In what context? You can hardly be referring to Libya or Afghanistan.
By: Sky High - 21st June 2011 at 17:40
I accept that my phrasing could have been better in the first paragraph. But we will have to agree to differ about your final conclusion, with which I profoundly disagree.
By: jbritchford - 21st June 2011 at 16:58
With regard to the 2nd paragraph, I meant that the tone of the suggestion to ‘renew an economic covenant’ with commonwealth nations isn’t simply trading with them, it implies special trade relationships, and I can’t see why anyone would want to enter into this when they can already trade with us.
By all means trade with whomever you wish anywhere in the world, but to pretend that it would be better to shun the European partners and try to build up new relationships all across the world would not increase our prosperity one bit.
By: Sky High - 21st June 2011 at 13:16
60% of our trade is with EU and we would contibue to trade with the EU just as Norway and Switzerland do.
I don’t share the argument in your second paragraph, although it is frequently trotted out.
Why should any nation “not be interested” in trade. That’s an odd concept. If we want to buy more fromn New Zealand, for example, and they would like more from us, why not? We are already exporting £30 billion or so to China, India, the Middle East and Australasia.
By: jbritchford - 21st June 2011 at 11:45
A rapid exodus from the EU followed by a military covenant with the US and France and an economic covenant with the Commonwealth might be ideal for the UK.
What good would that do us? The vast majority of our trade is with EU nations, pulling out would just mean our businesses have to compete with the tariffs placed on non-EU goods. If you advocate a free trade agreement with the EU, we would be in the position of being along for the ride but not being able to set policy, the same position the French were in with NATO for many years.
While the UK is still a major economy, we simply cannot negotiate from a position of strength with other, larger economies, such as the US, China, and this is only going to get worse as other economies grow. The EU is an economic superpower, and it gives us a chance to achieve some level of economic parity.
I am always intrigued when people mention economic links to the commonwealth, what benefits would this bring; what improvements to our current situation? And what makes you think the commonwealth nations would even be interested? Canada is in NAFTA and is mainly trading with the US, Australia is growing rich from mineral exports, and why would India want to limit themselves in world trade? It seems to me that harking back to our commonwealth links is very outdated thinking.
As for NATO, the UK definitely needs to spend more, I would like to see a return to around 3.5-4% of GDP, but it’s probably wishful thinking.
By: Flying-A - 21st June 2011 at 02:36
A blunt warning from another outgoing U.S. official, this time about Afghanistan:
http://cnsnews.cloud.clearpathhosting.com/news/article/us-ambassador-rebukes-karzai-hurtful-ina
Multiple recent opinion polls show waning public support in the US for the war in Afghanistan.
By: paul178 - 12th June 2011 at 14:44
Lincoln .7
HMS Ocean is worn out as you surmised by looking at her. She was built to Commercial not Warship standards. She has been flogged to death as a necessity as we have nothing left in the pot.
Political spin though,She is an Aircraft Carrier if you count 4 Apache’s so the Royal Nay has a seabourne airstrike capability!
By: Sky High - 12th June 2011 at 14:27
With the UK and France as the only nations prepared to put their servicemen on the line, NATO is pretty irrelevant. A rapid exodus from the EU followed by a military covenant with the US and France and an economic covenant with the Commonwealth might be ideal for the UK.
By: Lincoln 7 - 11th June 2011 at 16:37
Had to laugh at that one…now that we have absolutely no maritime capability whatsoever :rolleyes:
rgds baz
Nail, head, hammer, exactly bazv, although in April, I did see HMS Ocean, whiist on the ferry from Plymouth to the other side, but she did look, bless her as if she had reached her sell by date.And we sit by and wonder when T.S.H.T.F. our lads state their equipment is below par for the job they are desperately trying to do to the best of their abilities, with less than adequate equipment.And what do our M.Ps do?, fiddle their exes.It’s a case of “I’m alright jack”.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: J Boyle - 11th June 2011 at 12:08
No doubt New Zealand also agreed…:D
By: bazv - 11th June 2011 at 08:42
but Britain quickly and heartily agreed.
Had to laugh at that one…now that we have absolutely no maritime capability whatsoever :rolleyes:
rgds baz
By: J Boyle - 11th June 2011 at 06:46
“As a result, the U.S. defense budget of nearly $700 billion accounts for nearly 75 percent of the total defense spending by NATO members. The combined military spending of all 26 European members is just above $220 billion.”
I had no idea of the disparity. The populations of the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain come close to equalling that of the US, so the difference in the amount per taxpayer is rather high.
” ‘While every alliance member voted for the Libya mission, less than half have participated at all, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission,” he said. “Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate but simply because they can’t.’
Such inequality is unacceptable, Gates said, and so is the poor follow-through that occurred once the mission began.”
NATO and other alliances are just that, alliances, not a welfare scheme. Still I feel for cash-strapped European governments, but sooner or later they’l have to realize that the U.S. isn’t in much better financial shape.
Sign In
June 11, 2011 at 4:24 am