Monday

18th Dec 2017

Opinion

Nato needs a European 2%

  • Nato leaders inspect new HQ in Brussels on Thursday (Photo: nato.int)

Nato’s summit in Brussels yesterday, the first for US president Donald Trump, was intended as a fresh start, a chance for him to distance himself from previous comments in which he called Nato obsolete, and to reassure allies of the steadfastness of the American security guarantee that is at the core of the alliance.

Instead, he chose to berate European allies for their failure to spend enough money on defence, and kept silent over his commitment to Article 5, Nato’s mutual defence clause.

Thank you for reading EUobserver!

Subscribe now for a 30 day free trial.

  1. €150 per year
  2. or €15 per month
  3. Cancel anytime

EUobserver is an independent, not-for-profit news organization that publishes daily news reports, analysis, and investigations from Brussels and the EU member states. We are an indispensable news source for anyone who wants to know what is going on in the EU.

We are mainly funded by advertising and subscription revenues. As advertising revenues are falling fast, we depend on subscription revenues to support our journalism.

For group, corporate or student subscriptions, please contact us. See also our full Terms of Use.

If you already have an account click here to login.

  • Trump defied expectation on Article 5 (Photo: nato.int)

In his remarks, Trump once more demonstrated a muddled understanding of Nato’s financing arrangements, wrongly accusing allies of “owing” money for previous years, failing to acknowledge that the alliance’s target to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defence is not a debt to be paid, but rather based on a pledge signed by all members in 2014 and to be achieved by 2024.

The 2 percent target has been at the centre of discussions over trans-atlantic burden sharing between Europe and North America for years, and yet, debate is stuck.

Two points most people can agree on: first, European allies need to spend more money on defence and step up to their responsibilities within NATO. Second, the 2 percent metric is fundamentally flawed.

Defence spending means little unless it translates into improved military means. The combat readiness of European militaries is fairly low, and they lack the right capabilities, while greater spending does not always amount to greater efficiency.

Greece, which meets the 2 percent guideline, spends over 70 percent of its defence budget on personnel costs, wages and pensions. By reducing it to an input metric, EU governments can also easily dismiss the target as promoting spending for spending’ sake.

Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s foreign minister, recently quipped that he would “honestly not even know where to put all the aircraft carriers” Germany could buy with €70 billion, which would equal 2 percent of German GDP.

The reason the 2 percent metric is still in use, despite its flaws, lies in its power as a political message: the simple target serves as a standard to measure the military value of European Nato allies, particularly to the US administration.

But with the new US president, the political value of the 2 percent is decreasing.

There is some discomfort in Europe at the protection racket approach Trump is applying to Nato, and the idea of increasing military spending to please him is playing out to the detriment of European defence.

Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said recently that “increased military spending isn't about pleasing the United States. It is about investing more in European security, because it is important to Europe.”

So, how can the defence spending debate move forward?

Moving forward

Would it not be possible to come up with a European metric that looks to European aims and interests, is forward looking, output-focused and creates consensus on both side of the Rhine?

By setting their own targets and indicators, European leaders might help curtail anti-American sentiments, not to mention the suspicion they are feeding into American industrial interests.

A European metric would give Europe some leg-room to build a narrative that is in line with its own world view, one that thinks of security as more than a military matter, and would help to make the case for spending more on security and defence.

Firstly, the EU should compile current levels of defence spending according to a common EU methodology, built for the purpose of comparing like to like.

Surprisingly, this does not exist, despite being the basis for a co-ordinated approach to European defence spending.

It should complete the picture with some easy wins: usability, projection power, sustainability, planned defence spending over the next five years by European states, operational readiness rates for major platforms, deployability of land forces and top ten planned procurements by value.

Notably, the mooted Coordinated Annual Defence Review to be run by the EU’s defence agency, the EDA in Brussels, will be a handy way of furnishing such standardised data.

This should feed into the work already undertaken by the European Commission, which wants to include a sizeable pot of money for defence in the next multi-annual financial framework, to fund collaborative research in innovative defence technologies, and support the development of high-tech military prototypes.

Cuts to stop

All these efforts stem from the root consensus of the last two years that in the face of Europe’s security challenges, defence cuts need to stop.

Germany’s Gabriel has spoken to the doubts of some when he said that a sensible security policy should not just be “buying tanks, driving defence spending to insane heights and escalating the arms race”.

He wants to broaden the debate to include crisis-prevention, stabilisation of weak states, economic development and the fight against hunger, climate change and water scarcity.

Italian Foreign Minister Angelino Alfano has noted that operational contributions, such as Italian search-and-rescue operations for migrants in the Mediterranean, should also be factored in.

EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker has gone so far as to say that the EU’s development and humanitarian aid spending made up for any shortfalls in military funds, although it helps to recall that in 2016, only five EU member states reached the UN goal of spending 0.7 percent or more of their Gross National Income on development assistance.

Wolfgang Ischinger, the Chairman of the Munich Security Conference has recently proposed that instead of the 2 percent, Europeans should aim to spend 3 percent of GDP, incorporating development spending and diplomatic and humanitarian assistance into the budget.

This year could be the year to kick off a European debate that goes beyond the 2 percent and looks to European priorities.

It might trigger a broader rethink about different European national security identities: countries with conventional conflict at their borders could spend more on territorial defence, countries that are particularly affected by the refugee crisis could include their contributions, countries with interests abroad might want to focus on peacekeeping missions.

The European External Action Service and the European Defence Agency would be well placed to coordinate such an effort.

Tanks are important

Two important caveats: first, European efforts to emancipate its defence spending debate from the United States should not be an excuse for the EU to forget once more that hard power is useful in a chaotic neighbourhood - as a way to protect Europe from threats, as a diplomatic lingua franca, and simply as a tool of statecraft.

Central and Eastern European states that face the threat of a belligerent Russia on their borders are likely to disagree with Gabriel about the importance of tanks.

Second, European leaders hedging their bets against the risk of weakened American security guarantees in Nato should not fall into the trap of merely creating parallel structures in the EU.

On the contrary: this is an opportunity for them to take ownership of Nato’s defence policy and push for European priorities in the alliance, one of the being better co-operation between Nato and the EU.

The security challenges of the last two years have led European leaders to acknowledge the need to take responsibility for their own security.

Yesterday’s Nato summit should motivate them further. Europe deserves a political debate on what it would and should be able to achieve on its own terms.

Olivier de France is research director at the French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs, a think tank in Paris. Sophia Besch is a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform, a think tank in London

Nato head defends 'blunt' US leader

Nato chief Stoltenberg defended Trump’s behaviour at Thursday’s summit. The prime minister of Montenegro also apologised for him.

Trump lukewarm on Nato joint defence

Trump voiced half-hearted support for Nato and reprimanded allies over what he called unpaid debts on his maiden trip to Europe.

Will Nato become a transatlantic Frontex?

In his recent speech at Nato, US president Trump seemed to envisage a new role for the transatlantic alliance – one that could see it more involved with controlling migration.

EU must help independent media in Ukraine

Some seven journalists have been killed in Ukraine since the pro-EU uprising of 2014 - with elections looming in 2019, next year looks like another dangerous year for reporters covering Kiev.

Iceland: further from EU membership than ever

With fewer pro-EU MPs in the Iceland parliament than ever before, any plans to resume 'candidate' membership of the bloc are likely to remain on ice, as the country prioritises national sovereignty and a more left-wing path.

News in Brief

  1. EU-UK Brexit trade deal by January 2021, official says
  2. Bitcoin is 'deadly', Danish central bank warns
  3. EU Commission wants to ban 'legal weed'
  4. France files €10m complaint against Amazon
  5. EU negotiators reach deal on 'circular economy'
  6. Poll: Tight race in Catalonia days before elections
  7. EU: Israel built 8,000 settler homes in six months
  8. China agrees to promote London as centre for yuan

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Counter BalanceA New Study Challenges the Infrastructure Mega Corridors Agenda
  2. Dialogue PlatformThe Gülen Community: Who to Believe - Politicians or Actions?" by Thomas Michel
  3. Plastics Recyclers Europe65% plastics recycling rate attainable by 2025 new study shows
  4. European Heart NetworkCommissioner Andriukaitis' Address to EHN on the Occasion of Its 25th Anniversary
  5. ACCACFOs Risk Losing Relevance If They Do Not Embrace Technology
  6. UNICEFMake the Digital World Safer for Children & Increase Access for the Most Disadvantaged
  7. European Jewish CongressWelcomes Recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel and Calls on EU States to Follow Suit
  8. Mission of China to the EUChina and EU Boost Innovation Cooperation Under Horizon 2020
  9. European Gaming & Betting AssociationJuncker’s "Political" Commission Leaves Gambling Reforms to the Court
  10. AJC Transatlantic InstituteAJC Applauds U.S. Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital City
  11. EU2017EEEU Telecom Ministers Reached an Agreement on the 5G Roadmap
  12. European Friends of ArmeniaEU-Armenia Relations in the CEPA Era: What's Next?

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Mission of China to the EU16+1 Cooperation Injects New Vigour Into China-EU Ties
  2. EPSUEU Blacklist of Tax Havens Is a Sham
  3. EU2017EERole of Culture in Building Cohesive Societies in Europe
  4. ILGA EuropeCongratulations to Austria - Court Overturns Barriers to Equal Marriage
  5. Centre Maurits CoppietersCelebrating Diversity, Citizenship and the European Project With Fundació Josep Irla
  6. European Healthy Lifestyle AllianceUnderstanding the Social Consequences of Obesity
  7. Union for the MediterraneanMediterranean Countries Commit to Strengthening Women's Role in Region
  8. Bio-Based IndustriesRegistration for BBI JU Stakeholder Forum about to close. Last chance to register!
  9. European Heart NetworkThe Time Is Ripe for Simplified Front-Of-Pack Nutrition Labelling
  10. Counter BalanceNew EU External Investment Plan Risks Sidelining Development Objectives
  11. EU2017EEEAS Calls for Eastern Partnership Countries to Enter EU Market Through Estonia
  12. Dialogue PlatformThe Turkey I No Longer Know

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. World Vision7 Million Children at Risk in the DRC: Donor Meeting to Focus on Saving More Lives
  2. EPSU-Eurelectric-IndustriAllElectricity European Social Partners Stand up for Just Energy Transition
  3. European Friends of ArmeniaSignature of CEPA Marks a Fresh Start for EU-Armenia Relations
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Energy Ministers Pledge to Work More Closely at Nordic and EU Level
  5. European Friends of ArmeniaPresident Sargsyan Joined EuFoA Honorary Council Inaugural Meeting
  6. International Partnership for Human RightsEU Leaders Should Press Azerbaijan President to End the Detention of Critics
  7. CECEKey Stakeholders to Jointly Tackle the Skills Issue in the Construction Sector
  8. European Friends of ArmeniaLaunch of Honorary Council on the Occasion of the Eastern Partnership Summit and CEPA
  9. EPSUStudy Finds TUNED and Employers in Central Governments Most Representative
  10. Mission of China to the EUAmbassador Zhang Ming Received by Tusk; Bright Future for EU-China Relations
  11. EU2017EEEstonia, With the ECHAlliance, Introduces the Digital Health Society Declaration
  12. European Jewish CongressEJC to French President Macron: We Oppose All Contact With Far-Right & Far-Left