| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the strength of NATO rests in the capability of our
European allies? Does he think that the overriding objective is to achieve that capability, and that a European defence policy will do just that?
Mr. Jenkin: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said until his very last point. The European Union is not increasing defence spending, but continuing to reduce it; and its duplication of NATO assets such as planning and the command structure means that it spends more money on headquarters and structures while taking money out of capabilities. How much more efficient it would be if it stuck to the Berlin plus agreement, which provided for European forces to be separable, but not separate, under the NATO umbrella. That agreement was concluded specifically to allay US fears that the EU had become a wasteful competitor to NATO, needlessly duplicating NATO assets, divisively decoupling US and European security policy, and discriminating unfairly against non-EU members of NATO.
No sooner was the ink dry on the agreement than our own British Prime Minister was colluding with President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder to set up precisely the autonomous military planning capability that the US has set itself against. The German newspaper, Suddeutsche Zei tung,, reported after that meeting that it had obtained a joint paper setting out the agreement made in Berlin, which states:
- "Together, we are convinced that the EU should have a common capability for the planning and leadership of operations independent of NATO means and capabilities."
Mr. Hoon: I have reminded the hon. Gentleman on several occasions not to rely on what he reads in British newspapers. I should also remind him not to rely on what he might read in German newspapers.
Mr. Jenkin: The Secretary of State does not deny that the agreement made between the British, German and French Governments exists. I shall give him another opportunity to do so.
Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman checks the terms of the Berlin plus agreement, which he enthusiastically endorses, he will find that it contains a specific reference to the EU conducting autonomous operations.
Mr. Jenkin: The Secretary of State has not answered the question. This is about conducting operations without the backing of NATO assets and capability.
Mr. Hoon: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to check what "autonomous" means?
Mr. Jenkin: May I ask the Secretary of State why the US ambassador to NATO, Nicholas Burns, said:
- "What we cannot support and will not support is the creation of an alternative EU military headquarters, whether it's in Tervuren or some other place, in Brussels or elsewhere"?
Let us apply three tests to the EU constitution as it applies to security and defence. Is there any increase in qualified majority voting? Does it enable a hard core of member states to accelerate the process of creating an EU defence, effectively negating the UK veto? Does the European Court of Justice acquire ultimate jurisdiction over security and defence policy? The answers are yes, yes, and yes. Moreover, the constitution states, for the first time:
- "This will lead to a common defence."
The Government can no longer accuse Conservative Members of inventing the image of a Euro-army: we can see, on our television screens and in our newspapers, British and other soldiers bearing EU insignia on their uniforms. We just need to listen to Lieutenant-General Rainer Schuwirth, chief of the EU's military staff, who says that a European army would now be possible as the EU's military staff has more than 190 officers and its own secure headquarters.
In December 2000, the Prime Minister promised:
- "European defence cannot be a rival to NATO".
- "no proposal, no desire or decision for a separate European military planning capability".
- "The idea that this will be an independent standing force set aside from NATO is nonsense."—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 365.]
NATO already provides for European defence. Every concession that Labour makes to the EU defence agenda strengthens those who want splits between the US and Europe. EU defence is about not more or better defence, but more structures, more headquarters, more offices and more committees. European nations should certainly share more of the burden of European defence and global security, but since the Prime Minister and President Chirac launched the concept of an EU military force in 1998, EU defence spending has continued to decline.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): I am a little puzzled that although the hon. Gentleman suggests that co-operation over certain Petersberg-type operations would mean the complete loss of our sovereignty, he is perfectly prepared for us to make our defence policy completely subservient to the United States.
Mr. Jenkin: That is a completely inaccurate account of my argument. Of course I am in favour of co-
operation, but the European constitution is not about that: it is about co-ordination, or structured co-operation, which ultimately involves some coercion in the event of unwillingness to agree. That results in erosion of the national veto and, ultimately, the subjection of our defence policy to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
Mr. Jenkin: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again—I want to complete my remarks.
Mr. Ingram: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the successful mission that we completed in Bunia in the Democratic Republic of the Congo—yes or no?
Mr. Jenkin: I am in favour of operations through co-operation between member states. However, the arrangements for which the constitution provides will develop and cease to involve simple, bilateral co-operation. They will lead to the creation of an institutional framework, ultimately overseen by the European Court of Justice, in which the increase in majority voting will progressively erode the veto over European Union policies. The debate is about that, but of course I am delighted with the achievements of British and other armed forces in Bunia. However, that is not a reason to submit European Union defence policy to the European Court of Justice and agree to increase qualified majority voting. Incidentally, the operation was carried out without the European constitution, so why do we need it?
The EU defence policy is simply a platform for the vanity of old Europe. NATO, not the EU, won the cold war; NATO, not the EU, brought peace to the Balkans; NATO is peacekeeping in Kabul and supporting European troops in Iraq. Only NATO can bring the US and Europe closer together. As an increasing number of new NATO and EU members realise, NATO guarantees the independence and national sovereignty of its members whereas the EU constitution tends to undermine that. The constitution should therefore be subject to a referendum.
As the Secretary of State said, yesterday was a historic moment for NATO because of the launch of the 20,000 NATO reaction force, which is capable of deployment at five days' notice. Unlike the ludicrous EU so-called rapid reaction force, it is genuinely operational now. As NATO Supreme Commander General Jones said yesterday:
- "For the first time in its history, the Alliance will have a joint (multi-national) combined air, land, sea and special operations force under a single commander, maintained as a standing rotational force."
Britain's defence policy needs to reflect today's strategic environment and the lessons of recent military operations, especially in Iraq. The Government should have learned that they should be better prepared next time. General Sir John Reith confirmed to the Select Committee on Defence that British forces in Iraq were "perilously close" to not being ready.
It was clear from the shortages of equipment, ammunition, spares and supplies for those on the front line that too much was left to chance. Moreover, the Government do not appear to understand that the success of peacekeeping and peacemaking operations depends not only on the latest technology but, crucially, on the number of boots that can be put on the ground.
The Government's policy is too reliant on the sheer dedication and professionalism of our armed forces. Labour takes them for granted. Our pledge is to fund fully the defence capabilities necessary for our national security and for fulfilling our international obligations. At a time of increased threat and demands on our armed forces, the Conservatives will not let them down.
The other big lesson is strategic: NATO is indispensable. The US is the only nation that has the military capabilities and will to guarantee European and global security. It is monumental folly for a British Government to help the French to undermine NATO and split the alliance.
The difference between Labour and the Conservatives at the next election will be stark and simple. When the Conservatives say that we will back our armed forces and that NATO is and should remain the cornerstone of our security, we are not simply telling another Labour lie.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |