Britain should spend more on defence
On her visit to Washington last month Theresa May won an important acknowledgement from Donald Trump: he was “100 per cent behind Nato”. This was seen as something of a coup given the new president’s apparent indifference towards the 70-yearold alliance. His principal objection was not so much to its existence as to the disproportionate contribution made by the Americans to its upkeep. By some measures, the US pays 75 per cent of the total of Nato spending, most of which provides for the defence of Europe. Mr Trump’s views – and, indeed, that of President Obama before him – is that Europe should shoulder a bigger share of that burden. A conference in Cardiff a few years ago proposed a minimum standard: all Nato members should spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence.
This suited the UK because we were meeting the 2 per cent commitment. According to the Government and Nato we continue to do so. But a think-tank report has caused consternation in Whitehall by suggesting all is not as it seems. The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) put last year’s figure at 1.98 per cent. This report claimed that in Europe, only Greece and Estonia met the 2 per cent target in 2016. The UK dipped slightly below the target because the economy grew faster that expected. The cash shortfall was estimated at around £380 million.
The Government has responded by denouncing the calculation as “wrong” and pointing to official Nato statistics from last July which put UK defence spending for 2016 at 2.21 per cent of GDP. The MoD blamed exchange rate fluctuations caused by the drop in the value of sterling for the IISS “miscalculation”. But this argument is largely specious. What matters is not smoke and mirrors played with statistics but the provision of an adequate defence for Europe, largely paid for by the countries of Europe. Mr Trump is right to ask serious questions about the budgetary imbalance.
The recent revelations that the Royal Navy’s entire fleet of seven attack submarines was out of action indicates that this is more than about massaging budgetary details; what matters is having the military capability to defend the nation and contribute to the requirements of the alliance whenever necessary. The politics are secondary to the provision of effective defence systems; and the UK – and Europe – need to pay their proper share towards them.