Angry Lords call for higher defence spending

On Thursday, several prominent cross-bench members of the House of Lords called for Britain to boost its military spending. Admiral The Lord Boyce, the former First Sea Lord and Chief of the Defence Staff, used robust language to describe his disdain for the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence has, since Gordon Brown came to power in June 2007, been merged with the role of Secretary of State for Scotland. Des Browne, the current incumbent, now has to run two large government departments, one of which has long been considered as one of the three great ministries of state, along with the Treasury and Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In order to show the scathing criticism he heaped on the government, it is worth citing Admiral Lord Boyce’s comments at some length:

It is seen as an insult by our sailors, our soldiers and our airmen on the front line. And I know because I have reason to speak to them a lot. And it is certainly a demonstration of the disinterest and some might say contempt that the prime minister and his government has for our armed forces. And it shows an appalling lack of judgement at a time when our people are being killed and they are being maimed.

During the same debate, another former Chief of the Defence Staff, General The Lord Guthrie, stated:

In my experience...he [Gordon Brown] was a most unsympathetic chancellor of the exchequer as far as defence was concerned—and the only senior Cabinet minister who avoided coming to the Ministry of Defence to be briefed by our staff on our problems. And I think really that he must take much of the blame for the very serious situation we find the services in today.

It is clear that these are fierce and pointed words, coming from two high-ranking former officers well accustomed to military life. It is even more astonishing that they should make such remarks given the tradition that military officers tend not to dabble so explicitly and publicly in British political life. And that their remarks come after statements allegedly made by General Sir Richard Dannatt—the current Chief of the General Staff—in a report leaked to the Sunday Telegraph, suggests that something is not right. The general said that under current conditions troops felt ‘devalued, angry and suffering from Iraq fatigue’. Indeed, these sharp remarks come at a time of an almost unrelenting trickle of claims made by serving officers, soldiers, sailors and airmen, that food is poor, housing outdated, dirty or shoddy, and that equipment often does not work—frequently and unnecessarily putting soldiers’ lives in danger.

The key questions to ask here are these: Is this just a bit of in-fighting for resources between the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and British Army, or is it a set of calculated political interventions designed to damage the current Labour government under the premiership of Gordon Brown—or could the claims actually be accurate? It is certainly possible that some criticisms made, particularly in the past, were not for the good of the British Armed Forces, but rather for the scoring of cheap political points. Equally, we have long known that in-fighting for resources within the three services is nothing out of the ordinary. It is also clear that publications often leading the charge against the present government’s military record, like the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail, are positioned to the right of the political spectrum, and are likely drumming-up support for the Tories. Yet it does seem that many serving officers, former officers and service personnel are deeply dissatisfied with current era. Along with their Lordships, it seems clear that many are highlighting a problem in need of urgent attention.

On a broad level, Britain’s Armed Forces have suffered constant cuts since the end of the Cold War. The previous Tory government, under John Major, slashed defence spending and military acquisition ruthlessly. As part of the so-called ‘peace dividend’, military expenditure was reduced almost every year during the 1990s. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, it dropped from 4.1% of the gross domestic product in 1988 to about 2.7% in 1997. Acquisition programmes were halted or put in mothballs and the Armed Forces were moved down the list of priorities. This trend also continued when the New Labour government came to power in 1997 under Tony Blair. By 2001, defence only accounted for 2.4% of national income, lower than at any point since the lofty 1930s. Labour’s record has not been all bad though; the new administration orchestrated a strategic defence review in 1998, which re-calibrated the Armed Forces away from a Eurocentric defensive posture towards one set around expeditionary warfare. Two large new aircraft carriers were called for, as well as enhanced strategic lift and landing platforms to move troops and firepower anywhere in the world. Greater technological capacity was also emphasised.

While the defence review contained the right thinking, it has been neither matched by the spending commitment, nor has it been completed in sufficient time. For example, the British government only ordered the new aircraft carriers in July 2007, almost ten years after they were first planned. And although there have been increases in military spending since 2000—which have ensured that British military spending is the world’s second highest—these have been unable to meet the nation’s needs, especially given the fact of ‘defence inflation’. ‘Defence inflation’ means that the cost of sustaining the Armed Forces grows every year, even if no new equipment is ordered, or personnel recruited. So while defence spending has been increased in real terms from £23.3 billion (€32.5 billion) in 2003 to £33.4 billion (€46.6 billion) in 2006, this only equates to a measly 0.3% rise in spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. And given that Britain has been engaged in two sizeable conflicts during that time (Afghanistan and Iraq), along with one in 1999 (Kosovo) and a number of other small interventions (in places like Sierra Leone), such a small increase seems unacceptable and gives credence to those arguing for higher spending.

While the Conservative Party in Britain has jumped on the bandwagon with the government’s critics, its behaviour seems more like a lot of hot air and political opportunism. After all, it was Conservative policies that reduced Britain’s military might so significantly during the 1990s. And aside the grandstanding of the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, Dr. Liam Fox, the Tories have not made any commitments of their own to bolster military spending should Britons elect their party to power in the next general election.

So, while the current British government’s military spending is not as incoherent or appalling as some critics argue, it does seem that the current levels of expenditure are at best inadequate. If the government sends the military to project power overseas and do its bidding in foreign territories, it must ensure that the necessary resources are made available. After all, crushing the Taleban, putting pressure on the criminals, bandits and terrorists in Iraq, or smiting hand-lopping killers in Sierra Leone is dangerous, difficult and often bloody work. Making sure that the Armed Forces are adequately supplied and funded is not only a national objective but also a moral priority. It requires a four-edged agenda.

First, the government must simply raise annual defence spending to 3% of the gross domestic product, or about £50 billion (€70 billion), as argued by the newly formed National Defence Association. Protecting and extending the national interest requires military power, and history has shown that societies unwilling to do so soon suffer a terrible fate. Should a large regional conflict break out, Britain’s global interests would compel it to be involved. Second, the government must crack down on waste and inefficiency in the Ministry of Defence; the cost of equipment and hardware in acquisition projects often rises dramatically, or is planned, produced and then not needed. Although this problem is often overemphasised, a lid must be placed on it when it does happen. What is needed is a dynamic strategy, which can be modulated very quickly to provide the equipment that British forces require in any given situation. That British soldiers are still driving around in antiquated and insufficiently armoured ‘Snatch’ vehicles in Iraq, for example, is not only shameful but a national disgrace. They should have been provided with armoured vehicles better equipped to provide protection against sophisticated roadside bombs a long while ago.

Third, the government must show and communicate its commitment to the Armed Forces to the general public. Given the reduction in military personnel, the end of National Service, and the claims made by a lot of silly people who think we can achieve perpetual peace by reasoning with our enemies, there is sometimes a tendency to see the military in a less than positive light. Here, a good start would be to ensure that the Defence Secretary is not double-hatted; so, Mr. Brown, remove your Defence Secretary’s other role as Scottish Secretary forthwith. Finally, the government must ensure that defence procurement and operability is compatible with other European Union armed forces, and that pan-European planning takes place to sustain and nourish the capacities of the defence-industrial base. Here, London should agitate for a comprehensive European Union strategic defence review as soon as the Reform Treaty is adopted across the continent.

In this respect, the decision by the European Union’s Defence Ministers on Wednesday to increase resources for the European Defence Agency should be welcomed. They also agreed to adopt a framework for a joint European Strategy in Defence Research and Technology, to help facilitate the development of the European defence-industrial base. Set up in 2004 to help organise more effective European military modernisation and acquisition programmes, the Agency has a potentially productive future. It was a pity, however, that the Defence Ministers agreed only to raise its budget by a woefully small and inadequate €10 million (£7.2 million). If we Europeans want to have any influence in the world of today—let alone tomorrow—we will have to do better than that. In a world of rising powers and growing resource competition, a strong military is essential. And instead of obfuscating, the British government, which commands the most powerful military in Europe, and the second strongest navy in the world, has got to do more to lead the way.

World military spending in 2006[1]



British military spending (percentage of gross domestic product)[2]

[1] Figures converted into euros from United States dollars, using constant prices and exchange rates from 2005. Source of graph statistics: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and European Defence Agency.
[2] Source of graph statistics: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.