Latest on European Geostrategy

See European Geostrategy for three new articles:

• Thinks tanks and European security strategy

• Time for a European Union grand strategy

• Russia-America relations: the European litmus test?

• Please also sign up for email updates from European Geostrategy!

Emigrating...

As any regular readers will know, I’ve been sharing my thoughts on European foreign policy over the past two years using this forum. Today, however, I decided to take up an offer to write for the new Ideas on Europe initiative—so from now on, my future thoughts will be found there.

The address of my new weblog is: http://europeangeostrategy/ideasoneurope.eu

Please do cross over and take a look! I'll continue to post links to the new site when I publish work over the next few months.

Hats off to the First Sea Lord

Today, the First Sea Lord, Admiral Jonathan Band, had published an article in The Guardian on the ongoing need for a powerful naval fleet. This comes at a time when ‘sea-blindedness’ has risen both in Britain and across much of the rest of the European Union—paradoxically during a time when Europeans are more dependent on the sea than ever before. So Admiral Band is to be congratulated; rarely in a comment piece is strategic thinking expressed so elegantly, crisply and clearly. Here are a few snippets from the article:

Strategy is often misunderstood; it is about consequences and outcomes, the plan by which all the instruments of national power—diplomatic, intellectual military and economic—are to be employed in achieving identified goals in support of the national interest.

[...]

Our focus on enduring campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan should not blind us to the longer-term implications of the U.K.’s geostrategic reality. Our ability to deploy globally and use the seas in support of operations is key to the success of the armed forces in war and time of tension; whether it means dropping Royal Marines into Iraq from carriers in the Gulf, as we did in 2003, or using warships to evacuate U.K. nationals from Lebanon in 2006. The sea can be a barrier or a highway, depending on who controls it, so the Royal Navy can shape future events as well as determine them.

[...]

But, even more fundamentally, the global sea lanes are the arteries along which the economy of this island nation flows. We are increasingly and heavily reliant on imported raw materials, goods, food and especially energy. We live in a “just enough, just in time economy”—if the sea lanes are denied to us, the supermarket shelves fall empty and the lights go out...At the same time, the scramble for resources and valuable raw materials is increasingly being played out at sea: the “cod wars” of the 1970s have given way to disputed maritime boundary claims as states vie to establish their access to the sea and the mineral and food wealth beneath it. In the Pacific and Indian oceans, states are expanding maritime forces and establishing strategically positioned naval bases to promote and protect their growing influence and wealth.

All good stuff! Then he goes in for the crescendo:

In the final analysis, a capable fleet is as much about deterring aggression and influencing friends as it is about delivering combat power at sea or from the sea. While we will always need to fight and win if necessary, when it comes to the future we shouldn’t overlook the value to this country of the wars we won’t have to fight as a result of using the Royal Navy strategically as an instrument of national power.

I couldn’t have put it better myself! Maritime power is a primarily a deterrent and a preventative instrument, which is used to project presence around the world. Naval power makes a community strong by extending its political and economic leverage, while simultaneously contributing to its social cohesion and cultural dynamism. All the great powers of antiquity—Athens, Rome, the Hanseatic League, Ming China, Spain, the Netherlands, and the French and British Empires, and the United States—have been at their strongest when their naval reach was at its greatest. This geopolitical fact will be no different for the twenty-first century’s great powers; indeed, any power risking its naval strength for its short term interests will soon cease to be a power at all.

• Please click here to read the rest of the First Sea Lord’s article.

The rise of the New Old Threats?

Last Wednesday, I went to speak at a seminar on maritime security organised by the Institut des hautes études de défense national (French Institute for Higher Defence Studies or IHEDN) and the new Swedish Presidency of the European Union. I was invited to present my work on the renewed geopolitical competition between the Chinese, Indians, Americans, Japanese, Australians and South Koreans in the Suez-Shanghai zone and its possible implications for the European Union. Please see an electronic version of my presentation below:



Both the Swedish Presidency and the IHEDN should be congratulated for placing renewed emphasis on maritime security during a time when many Europeans are seemingly blinded to the sea. Freedom of manoeuvre on the world’s oceans is absolutely critical to European security, and particularly to European economic prosperity given that over ninety percent of imports and exports reach us and leave us by the sea. And many of these goods flow along the main European-Asian shipping route, through the notorious Red Sea and Indian Ocean.

As a related issue, the European Union’s first naval operation, to repress pirate activity in the Gulf of Aden, has also drawn renewed focus on maritime security—as one of the speakers, Commander Snowy Lintern, the current Liaison Officer to the European Union operation off Somalia’s coast, so aptly pointed out during his presentation to the conference last Tuesday.

As Commander Lintern showed, the European Union has become the leading power in the multinational task force to reduce pirate activity and provide a more secure waterway along the world’s premier sea route. Not only does the European Union now have more warships in the Gulf of Aden than any other power, but it also forms the nexus of an expanding anti-piracy operation involving the United States, India, Japan, China and Russia, as well as a few other smaller countries. As a consequence of these efforts, pirate attacks have dropped. In 2008, one in three pirate attacks was successful; by Spring 2009 only one in six succeeded; and today, only one in ten prevails. This is clearly a significant reduction and the European Union has proved itself as a credible maritime and naval power, while Britain—which provides the operational headquarters for the mission—has learnt that it can achieve far more militarily with its European partners than alone.


Me speaking to the Maritime Security Seminar in Brussels
But what does the return of piracy and the emerging geopolitical struggle in Eurasia represent? In short, I think it may suggest that we are about to enter an age of rising discord and tension, where the so-called ‘new threats’ like failed states and Islamist terrorism become the Old New Threats. Instead, what we may now be witnessing is the rise of the New Old Threats, such as inter-state conflict (think of the Russian invasion of Georgia last year, or the naval arms race in Asia) and piracy on the high seas. Unfortunately, if the world is about to move into a more volatile era—say, akin to the period 1890-1914—Europeans are woefully unprepared. Our security doctrines even state that conflicts and struggles between states are almost a thing of the past—or at least unlikely for at least another fifteen years! But who can say? Who knows what the future holds?

After all, who foresaw World War I in 1899; World War II in 1924; the Vietnam War in 1944; the Falklands War in 1967; the Gulf War in 1976 or the Afghanistan War in 1986, and so on? The answer: very few, if anyone. And even if someone did suspect that troubles were resting over the horizon—as, say, Bismarck did in the 1890s—it was more of an educated guess than an accurate prediction or a prophesy. So where am I going with all this? In short, I am trying to point out that Europeans still need to retain strong armed forces (particularly naval forces), which are able to fight conventional foes, ‘old-fashioned’ challenges, and/or the New Old Threats. For, in comparison to terrorism and failed states, the more conventional challenges would damage the European order in a way that the so-called ‘new threats’ never could...

A recipe for national suicide?

So, yesterday, the Institute for Public Policy Research revealed their long-awaited report on the future of British security strategy. While I have not read the entire report, I have thoroughly reviewed the Executive Summary, which contains a ream of ‘recommendations’. I was expecting some innovative and forward-looking insights on the future of the world system and how the British government should respond to those challenges. Instead, I was deeply disappointed: rather than innovation, I saw a mishmash of runaway internationalism and wishful thinking, combined with outmoded 1990s security thinking, with too much emphasis on failed states and terrorism. It would seem that the Islamist attacks of 11th September 2001, 11th March 2004 and 7th July 2005 have had an even greater impact on British minds than they did on the strategists of the United States!

The respected authors of the report—people like Lord Ashdown and Lord Robertson—tell us that Britain should consider scrapping its nuclear weapons, as well as its aircraft carrier programme, its cruise-missile-firing submarine programme and its brand new ‘Daring’ class air defence destroyers (these are already under construction and some have already been built!). Apparently, these weapons are old fashioned and are no longer required. I can only wonder how such esteemed minds could come to such a conclusion, particularly when they advocate that the United Kingdom should begin thinking more seriously about greater participation in the European Union’s foreign, security and defence policies.

As such, I completely agree that Britain should reduce its reliance on the so-called ‘special relationship’ with the United States. Here, the report’s authors are spot-on and should be highly commended in raising this issue. Not only has the Anglo-American relationship become one-sided, but—as I have already argued elsewhere—Washington’s geostrategic priorities are beginning to shift towards East Asia, especially with the rise of China. As the report asserts, Britain must carefully position itself at the heart of European defence efforts, and work far more closely with France to achieve a stronger European military capability, backed up with an iron will when we are required to use it.

But to do this, Europeans will continue to require expensive and sophisticated technological strategic platforms like aircraft carriers and cruise-missile-firing submarines. These have been used in almost every conflict since the end of the Cold War; indeed, the full-size aircraft carrier is probably more useful now than during that period. France’s nuclear carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, was used to attack Taleban and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, and British aircraft carriers were used extensively in the Balkans wars of the 1990s. Cruise-missile-firing submarines have grown increasingly important too: they allow a government to deliver precise, swift and crushing strikes on a range of targets almost anywhere within 1000 kilometres from the shore.

Europeans will also do well to retain their nuclear weapons, a capability currently provided alone by France and the United Kingdom. We have absolutely no idea how dangerous the world is going to be in ten, let alone twenty years, from now. It’s quite likely that we may be entering a very volatile world (dis)order, underpinned by a number of predatory continental-size Great Powers—such as China, Russia, India and the United States. The report does not seem to see this as a possibility, instead hoping that it is overcome by rising levels of interdependence. Perhaps this will be the case: but what if it isn’t? A naval arms race is already underway in Asia; Russia is claiming large swathes of the Arctic; and China, India, America and Europe are all struggling to gain access to natural resources. Could we rule out even a new nuclear arms race in a few years, especially if smaller countries—such as North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan—increase their own capabilities and stockpiles, in turn leading the bigger powers to enlarge their own arsenals to compensate?

So recommending that the nation sells off its strategic silver is probably misconstrued at best, but then things get really ‘interesting’. The report goes on to stress a number of other British security objectives. One of these is that the United Kingdom should encourage the United States to sign the ‘Covenant on the Rights of the Child’. Maybe I’m missing something, but I fail to see how this will increase British and European security in any way, let alone prepare us for the potential conflicts of tomorrow?

In short, the report strikes me as far too short-term in its orientation, with its authors remaining too mesmerised by the globalisation hysteria of the latter 1990s. Far from having led us to a better world, globalisation’s track record has been very mixed. If the British government implements many of the report’s recommendations—not least the effective scrapping of the Royal Navy and the nuclear deterrent—Britain will almost definitely lose its position as a Great Power. If the authors of the report have this as their secret agenda—robbing the nation of the instruments needed to engage overseas—then I'm almost certain that Moscow and Beijing will be rubbing their hands with glee. But worst of all, the loss of Britain’s military power will also reduce its ability to shape the European Union as a credible military actor.

We may be faced with new challenges like climate change and Islamist terrorism, which in turn my require new instruments and institutions, but reducing our capacity to fight the older threats—like foreign governments, which are potentially more dangerous—is a profound mistake. The answer rests in higher and more efficient defence spending, along with greater British participation and leadership at the European level.

Power and values in European foreign policy

In democratic societies, we often like to think that we use our power for a higher purpose—like making the world a better place. Indeed, this has been an overriding principle of foreign policy for many of the most powerful western societies since the early nineteenth century. Policies aimed at fighting piracy, ending slavery, frustrating the schemes of dictatorships, and supporting democratic leaders, have a long and noble history. American presidents Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, Jonh F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, to varying degrees, all subscribed to the idea. British leaders, like George Canning, Viscount Palmserston, William Gladstone, Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher also thought the idea of an enlightened foreign policy was worth more than a pinch of salt. Tony Blair, the erstwhile British prime minister, possibly took the idea to its logical conclusion. As he told the U.S. Congress:

The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defence and our first line of attack.

A values-based foreign policy has also been at the core of the enterprise of European unification. As early as 1941, one of the grand architects of European integration, Altiero Spinelli, argued in the Ventotene Declaration that a state cannot ignore the political constitution of its neighbours. And the more recent European Security Strategy even uses the phrase ‘A Secure Europe in a better world’ in its subtitle, as if the two automatically run together.

There is certainly a lot of evidence to support the so-called ‘democratic peace theory’. It is the closest thing that we have to an ‘iron law’ in the study of international relations. That is to say, democracies tend not to go to war with one another; no mature democratic state has ever attacked another; and lesser political conflict between democracies is less frequent. In short, the assumption follows that in order to make the world safe for our way of life, we must assertively spread our values as far and wide as we can.

But is this necessarily the case? Can a political community only be safer if the world itself is a better, liberal and more democratic place? Nicholas Spykman, one of my favourite geostrategists, suggests that this liberal approach is wrong. According to him, democracy and moral values do not ultimately matter when statesmen craft and execute foreign policy. Instead, what really matters is power—relative power. This is what he had to say in his magnum opus, America’s Strategy in World Politics, back in 1941:

The statesman who conducts foreign policy can concern himself with values of justice, fairness, and tolerance only to the extent that they contribute to or do not interfere with the power objective. They can be used instrumentally as moral justification for the power quest, but they must be discarded the moment their application brings weakness. The search for power is not made for the achievement of moral values; moral values are used to facilitate the attainment of power.

Let us be clear: Prof. Spykman is not arguing that statesmen should no longer try and make the international system less volatile. He is also not saying that democratic countries should not try to spread their advanced way of life abroad. Nor is he suggesting that governments should not provide aid or military assistance to other countries during times of conflict, tension or natural disaster or manmade difficulty. What he is saying, however, is that statesmen should pursue certain values and principles only if they do not damage the power and position of their own respective political community. States should therefore seek to acquire more power over other states, rather than attempting to diffuse their values overseas. This is because values, unless undergirded with power—like a strong military—cannot be protected if an adversary seeks to usurp them.

We Europeans would do well to bear this in mind today. Some of us are often too keen to forget how important military power actually is—and will remain for the foreseeable future. The current financial crisis may encourage many European governments to cut military spending even further, with the active support of the European people. But what will we do if a predatory regime emerges over the horizon? Point to ‘European values’ and issue a statement—and ask the nasty regime to be nice? In such an instance, as many societies have discovered previously, relying only on one’s values could turn out to be a house of cards.

Addressing the European Parliament

On Monday, 30th March, I found myself speaking at a workshop arranged by the European Parliament’s Sub-Committee on Security and Defence in Brussels. With my colleague, Luis Simón, I was giving a presentation to the Sub-Committee’s MEPs on ‘Geostrategy and the Future of European Security and Defence Policy’. We were focussing on the location and utility of the Member States’ overseas military installations—especially those of France and the United Kingdom—and how they might be used in the coming years to boost the geographical and functional expansion of European foreign, security and defence policy.

You can watch an improved version of the supplementary presentation we gave to enhance the workshop below:



• The workshop was put on to allow us to present our report on European overseas military installations, which was commissioned by the European Parliament in November 2008, directly to the MEPs. Please click here to download and read the PDF version of our report.

Unfortunately, certain elements of the British media picked up on the event, and misrepresented the facts in the pursuit of their usual anti-European agenda. It is fair to say that their reporting, particularly from the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, was very biased and it seemed as if their reporters had not even bothered to read, let alone comprehend, the information contained within our report. Both papers carried an inaccurate headline, stating that the European Union wanted to take over British and French overseas military installations. This is complete nonsense; the European Union wants to do nothing of the sort! Our Briefing Paper was written independently for the European Parliament, and was more of a discussion piece to provoke debate at the Sub-Committee’s final plenary session of the current parliament, than a set of concrete proposals to be put to the vote. And both newspapers carried lots of quotes only from anti-Europeans, thereby failing to provide contending viewpoints, many of which were expressed by other MEPs at the workshop.

Most amusingly, Geoffrey Van Orden MEP asked us during the workshop why we wanted to have European flags hoisted-up over British military bases overseas, seemingly ignorant to the fact that American flags are already raised over at least two of them. Indeed, as Glyn Ford MEP responded in the workshop, Britain seems to have little knowledge of what even goes on in its base at Diego Garcia, which is leased to the United States until at least 2017. It is even suspected of having been involved in the ‘extraordinary renditions’ scandal. We can only wonder why Mr. Van Orden would prefer a foreign power to have control over British territory, but not the European Union, of which Britain is a part—and a very influential part, particularly where security and defence policy are concerned. And much like an airy cherub who pops up at every meeting and whispers ‘NATO, NATO, NATO’ to anyone bored enough to listen, he also failed to understand the central premise of our argument; that is, that as the geopolitical balance of power changes in Eurasia, the United States will no longer be in a position to underpin NATO, meaning that Europeans will have to take care of themselves. Indeed, it is only by strengthening the European Union that the Atlantic Alliance will continue to have relevance for the Americans, who will not want to be holding Europeans’ hands when they have bigger fish to fry elsewhere—like East Asia.

Liam Fox, the Tory shadow defence secretary, also somehow got in on the act and was mentioned in both the reports by the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, even though we did not see him at the workshop. His absense probably explains his misunderstanding over who was responsible for commissioning our report in the first place. According to Liam: ‘This talk of grand strategy betrays the real intentions of the European Commission.’ The European Commission?! Had he bothered to check his facts, the poor Dr. Fox might have realised that the European Commission had absolutely nothing whatsover to do with our report, which—as we pointed out previously—was commissioned by the European Parliament’s Sub-Committee on Security and Defence.

Liam Fox was also quoted in both newspapers as having said: ‘The idea that we might turn our military bases over to the EU, for projects the British people have never given their assent to, is a twisted fantasy.’ This is good as far as it goes, but we can only wonder why, as with Mr. Van Orden, the shadow defence secretary has not raised similar objections as to the existence of United States military facilities on British soil, some of which still remain on the British home islands. Given that the British people have never provided their assent to the stationing of American forces in the United Kingdom, will he, as future defence secretary, order all American forces out of British territory too?

The thoroughly anti-European EU Referendum blog also had to have its own little say, by dismissing our presentation as ‘something and nothing’. And in one of the comment posts, it even dared to produce an extremely useful nugget of information: that Luis Simón—my co-author—was ‘a real person.’ Go figure!

On the other hand, the prestigious Jane’s International Defence Digest provided a much more accurate and thoughtful piece on the content of both our presentation and our report, with thoroughly precise reporting, good background context, and a wide range of viewpoints expressed with regards to our proposals. The reporter, Brooks Tigner, was even present on the day of the workshop itself. Unfortunately, however, the report is only available by subscription, although the introduction can be read by non-subscribers as well.

• You can also watch the entire workshop—please click here.