Further supplementary memorandum from
the Ministry of Defence
1. This memorandum is provided by the Ministry
of Defence as written evidence for the House of Commons Defence
Committee Inquiry: The Future of NATO and European Defence. It
seeks to answer questions asked by the Committee in the second
section of its letter of 11 January (in italics in the text),
which requested further information on points that arose during
the Secretary of State's evidence session on 8 January.
A note outlining what the UK would like on the
agenda for the NATO Heads of Government Summit at Bucharest in
April 2008 (Q 218)
2. The UK's priorities for the Bucharest
Summit are:
— a reaffirmation of Allied solidarity
and purpose in current operations;
— giving NATO the tools to work
more effectively as part of a Comprehensive Approach to security
challenges and in operations;
— agreement to press forward in
modernising NATO structures and procedures to manage complex expeditionary
operations and orchestrate the development of Allies' capabilities;
— an invitation to the countries
currently engaged in the Membership Action Plan (MAP) to join
the Alliance, if they are judged to have met the required standards
following the completion of the MAP cycle next month; and
— a commitment to deliver NATO's
most pressing military requirements for operations, notably trainers/mentors
and helicopters (including through the UK-initiated NATO work
to identify and overcome technical/logistical problems currently
inhibiting deployment of some Allies' helicopters).
A note outlining which countries are being considered
for membership of the Alliance at the Bucharest Summit and the
criteria by which countries aspiring to be granted a Membership
Action Plan are assessed (Q 217)
3. Albania, Croatia and Macedonia are due
decisions on their applications to join NATO at the Bucharest
Summit.
4. The 1995 Study on NATO enlargement was
carried out by the Alliance to consider the merits of admitting
new members and how they should be brought in highlighting that
countries seeking membership would have to be able to demonstrate
that they had fulfilled certain requirements. The Intensified
Dialogue process aimed to provide these countries with concrete
information regarding the rights and obligations inherent to NATO
membership. Once admitted, a new member country would enjoy all
of these rights, and assume all of these obligations. According
to the Study, any country seeking to join the Alliance must meet
key requirements, which include:
— functioning democratic political
system based on a market economy;
— treatment of minority populations
in accordance with guidelines established by the Organisation
for Security and Co-operation in Europe;
— commitment to peaceful resolution
of disputes with neighbours;
— the ability and willingness
to make a military contribution to the Alliance and to achieve
interoperability with other members' forces; and
— commitment to democratic civil-military
relations and institutional structures.
5. The Membership Action Plan (MAP) gives
substance to NATO's commitment to keep its door open and is a
programme of advice, assistance and practical support designed
to help countries wishing to join the Alliance in their preparations
for potential membership and in their drive to meet NATO standards.
The main features are:
— the submission by aspiring members
of individual annual national programmes on their preparations
for possible future membership, covering political, economic,
defence, resource, security and legal aspects;
— a focused and candid feedback
mechanism on aspirant countries' progress on their programmes
that includes both political and technical advice;
— a clearing-house to help co-ordinate
assistance by NATO and by member states to aspirant countries
in the defence/military field; and
— a defence planning approach
for aspirants which includes elaboration and review of agreed
planning targets.
6. MAP is guided by the principle of self-differentiation:
aspirant countries are free to choose the elements of the MAP
best suited to their own national priorities and circumstances.
All aspirants submit an Annual National Programme on preparations
for possible membership, covering five Chapters: political and
economic, defence/military, resource, security and legal issues.
They set their own objectives, targets and work schedules. These
programmes are expected to be updated each year by aspirant countries.
Throughout the year, meetings and workshops with NATO civilian
and military experts in various fields allow for discussion of
the entire spectrum of issues relevant to membership. An annual
consolidated progress report on activities under the MAP is presented
to NATO Foreign and Defence ministers.
7. Aspirant countries are expected to achieve
certain goals in the political and economic fields. These include
settling any international, ethnic or external territorial disputes
by peaceful means; demonstrating a commitment to the rule of law
and human rights; establishing democratic control of their armed
forces; and promoting stability and well-being through economic
liberty, social justice and environmental responsibility. Defence
and military issues focus on the ability of the country to contribute
to collective defence and to the Alliance's new missions. Full
participation in Partnership for Peace (PfP) is an essential component.
Through their individual PfP programmes, aspirants can focus on
essential membership related issues.
8. Partnership Goals for aspirants include
planning targets which are covering those areas which are most
directly relevant for nations aspiring NATO membership. Resource
issues focus on the need for any aspirant country to commit sufficient
resources to defence to allow them to meet the commitments that
future membership would bring in terms of collective NATO undertakings.
Security issues centre on the need for aspirant countries to make
sure that procedures are in place to ensure the security of sensitive
information. Legal aspects address the need for aspirants to ensure
that legal arrangements and agreements which govern co-operation
within NATO are compatible with domestic legislation.
The UK's attitude to those countries currently
aspiring to NATO membership[143]
9. Albania and Macedonia have been part
of NATO's Membership Action Plan (MAP) since 1999, Croatia have
been part of NATO's MAP since 2002. All three are looking for
a positive invitation by Allies to join NATO as full members at
the Bucharest Summit in April 2008. At the Riga Summit in 2006,
Allies commended the progress made by the three countries, saying
that they intended to extend invitations in 2008 to those that
had met NATO standards. We will be waiting to see the results
of their annual MAP assessments before making any commitment of
support a membership application. The UK wants all three countries
to join NATO when they are ready as part of a wider attempt to
enhance regional security in the Balkans and promote democratic,
economic and human rights reform. If all three countries meet
the standards and continue with their reforms, thereby receiving
positive NATO assessments in February, we would support their
accession.
10. Albania: NATO enjoys a high level of
public support in Albania and membership is a stated political
goal. The Riga Summit declaration stated that it was critical
that Albania made sustained progress against organised crime and
corruption.
11. Croatia is in a strong position, and
remains on course to meet the requirements for NATO membership,
with public opinion now around the 50% mark in favour of joining
NATO.
12. Allies will want to see sustained progress
by Macedonia on reform up until the Summit. Discussions continue
under UN negotiator Matthew Nimetz over the country's constitutional
name.
13. Ukraine and Georgia are taking part
in an Intensified Dialogue on their aspirations for NATO membership.
14. Ukraine: The Ukrainian Government has
written to the NATO Secretary-General requesting "positive
decisions" on a Membership Action Plan (MAP) by Bucharest.
The UK continues to support Ukraine's progression on the path
towards eventual membership.
15. Georgia: President Saakashvili has made
Georgia's deepening relationship with NATO a top foreign policy
priority. The UK continues to supports Georgia's long-term Euro-Atlantic
aspirations.
A note outlining the Government's assessment of
the success and shortcomings of the last NATO Heads of Government
Summit in Riga in November 2006 (Q 219)
16. A detailed assessment of the NATO Summit
at Riga was provided by the Secretary of State for Defence in
his statement to the House on 30 November 2006 (Official Report,
30 November 2006, columns 1239—1251).
A note outlining the progress achieved in improving
Alliance burden-sharing arrangements for the ISAF mission in Afghanistan
(including the removal or revision of national caveats and the
level of troop commitments) since the beginning of that mission
(Q220-226)
17. NATO and Non-NATO nations are contributing
a great deal towards, and engaging in, the ISAF Military effort
in Afghanistan. In addition to the UK, there are 39 nations in
Afghanistan, including all the 26 NATO nations.
18. A number of countries have removed some
or all of the caveats they began with. More importantly NATO is
aware of any restrictions and COMISAF is fully aware of any remaining
national caveats and can plan around them. There has been agreement
from all nations to extend their operations in the case of a requirement
to provide in-extremis support.
19. There has been a substantial increase
in troop levels since NATO started operating in southern and eastern
Afghanistan in 2006. A number of force increases and pledges to
the ISAF mission have been made recently including agreement from
the Czech Republic to deploy two Weapon Locating Radars to Kandahar
airfield in April 2009. Turkey has pledged to provide two additional
Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams (OMLT) to help train the
Afghan National Army. Poland has recently announced they will
increase their contribution by eight Helicopters, a mobile training
team and additional support to the Regional Command (E) Provincial
Reconstruction Team. Germany will provide additional training
teams for the Afghan National Army. President Sarkozy of France
announced an additional deployment of an OMLT team in southern
Afghanistan and has increased their Close Air Support contribution.
The USA is the single largest troop contributor and amongst their
force increases is the recent announcement of a seven month deployment
of approximately 3,000 marines predominantly to the south. In
addition to these contributions some countries offer assistance
despite not having forces deployed in Afghanistan; Iceland who
has paid for some for strategic airlift used by NATO allies, is
one example.
20. A number of countries have also recently
renewed their parliamentary mandates to deploy forces to Afghanistan
these include The Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark.
21. We continue to urge other nations in bilateral
meetings and international fora to keep Afghanistan at the forefront
of discussions, and we will continue to work with our ISAF partners
to ensure that national caveats are kept to a minimum.
A note outlining the UK's priorities for the reform
of NATO's organisation; what it would expect an internal reform
process to achieve (Q 246)
22. For the UK, the aim of reform is to
enhance NATO's ability to manage complex operations like that
in Afghanistan; to drive the development of new capabilities;
build a network of partnerships; and communicate what it is doing
to the public and to the wider world.
23. We would expect a reform process to
achieve a stronger focus in the North Atlantic Council on giving
greater strategic direction; swifter decision-making; better management
of common resources; more effective working within and between
each element of the NATO HQ and command structure, including greater
integration between military and civilian staffs, and a command
structure that is more affordable and better meets the priorities
identified in NATO's Comprehensive Political Guidance; stronger
relations with other international organisations, including the
UN and EU and institutions such as the World Bank; and a fresh
approach to new partners, engaging with Japan, Australia, New
Zealand and others.
A note outlining in the ways in which the UK believes
the European Defence Agency has "lacked structure and orientation"—as
the Secretary of State suggested—what the Government is
doing to improve the performance of the EDA, and what it believes
the EDA's key priorities should be (Q 335)
24. The lack of structure and orientation
in the EDA is primarily a result of a lack of a clear understanding
of collective priorities. The initial emphasis was on pursuing
activity in all four areas of the Agency: armaments, industry
and markets, capabilities and research and technology, but this
was perhaps at the expense of a coherent process across the Agency.
25. This lack of structure and orientation
is being resolved with the development of a number of key strategies
and initiatives within the Agency. The EDA Capability Development
Plan has been devised to make the EU Long Term Vision (an assessment
of the challenges that the EU may face in 2030) more practical
and usable by Member States for long term capability planning
and by the Agency to prioritise its future work programme. The
European Defence Technical and Industrial Base (EDTIB) Strategy
aims to define the industrial base needed to support European
defence. The European Defence Research and Technology (EDRT) Strategy
aims to identify key technologies that need to be maintained and
the mechanisms that could be used to ensure they are.
26. Without prejudicing the results of the
work on the Capability Development Plan the UK believes that the
first priority of the Agency should be to address interoperability.
If EU Member States are to work alongside each other on operations
then being able to operate together is essential. We believe that
the second priority should be deployability, both tactical and
strategic. Any Member State involved in operations should be able
to get their forces and equipment to the theatre of operation,
sustain them in place and manoeuvre around the theatre of operations.
A table providing details of the expenditure on
defence of each member of the NATO Alliance over the past five
years, expressed in real terms and as a percentage of GDP
27. UK Defence Statistics 2007 provides
details of the defence spending of NATO Allies expressed both
in national currencies at 2000 prices and exchange rates and as
percentage of GDP, and can be found at:
A table providing details of the contribution
of each member of NATO to the collective budgets of the Alliance,
including the civil, military and NSIP budgets
MILITARY BUDGET (ALL AMOUNTS IN MILLION EUR)
| Total paid
2002-06
| 2002 | 2003 |
2004 | 2005 | 2006
|
| Belgium | 139.7 | 26.0
| 28.5 | 27.5 | 30.0
| 27.8 |
| Bulgaria | 7.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 2.2 | 2.4
| 2.3 |
| Canada | 256.3 | 55.1
| 46.2 | 48.4 | 51.8
| 54.8 |
| Czech Republic | 28.3 | 5.8
| 5.0 | 5.4 | 6.0
| 6.0 |
| Denmark | 92.4 | 15.5
| 20.1 | 18.3 | 20.1
| 18.3 |
| Estonia | 2.2 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.8
| 0.7 |
| France | 226.1 | 39.7
| 32.6 | 34.0 | 62.3
| 57.6 |
| Germany | 915.3 | 166.0
| 181.5 | 184.6 | 196.0
| 187.2 |
| Greece | 22.4 | 3.9
| 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.7
| 5.0 |
| Hungary | 21.5 | 4.2
| 3.6 | 3.9 | 4.5
| 5.2 |
| Iceland | 1.3 | 0.3
| 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3
| 0.3 |
| Italy | 306.6 | 55.5
| 58.5 | 59.2 | 66.2
| 67.1 |
| Latvia | 2.8 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.9 | 1.0
| 0.9 |
| Lithuania | 4.2 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 1.3 | 1.5
| 1.4 |
| Luxembourg | 5.5 | 0.8
| 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.2
| 1.3 |
| Netherlands | 155.4 | 27.0
| 31.3 | 30.8 | 33.8
| 32.5 |
| Norway | 72.4 | 11.0
| 15.9 | 14.4 | 16.0
| 15.0 |
| Poland | 77.9 | 16.1
| 13.7 | 15.0 | 16.5
| 16.6 |
| Portugal | 25.0 | 5.7
| 4.3 | 4.6 | 5.0
| 5.5 |
| Romania | 22.7 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 7.3 | 8.0
| 7.4 |
| Slovakia | 9.2 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 3.0 | 3.2
| 3.0 |
| Slovenia | 5.2 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 1.7 | 1.8
| 1.7 |
| Spain | 157.4 | 31.4
| 28.4 | 29.5 | 32.5
| 35.5 |
| Turkey | 56.0 | 12.2
| 9.2 | 10.3 | 11.5
| 12.9 |
| United Kingdom | 417.6 | 103.7
| 69.3 | 76.9 | 84.7
| 83.0 |
| United States | 1,242.8 | 246.8
| 239.0 | 239.9 | 258.7
| 258.4 |
| unfunded | 7.9 | 1.9
| 2.1 | 1.8 | 1.3
| 0.7 |
| Total | 4,281.0
| 828.7 | 794.8 |
827.5 | 921.9 | 908.2
|
| | |
| | | |
CIVIL BUDGET
| Total paid
2002-06
| 2002 | 2003 |
2004 | 2005 | 2006
|
| Belgium | 19.0 | 4.1
| 3.4 | 4.0 | 3.7
| 3.9 |
| Bulgaria | 1.6 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.5
| 0.5 |
| Canada | 39.1 | 8.0
| 6.5 | 8.0 | 7.8
| 8.8 |
| Czech Republic | 6.4 | 1.3
| 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.3
| 1.4 |
| Denmark | 10.2 | 2.2
| 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.0
| 2.1 |
| Estonia | 0.5 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2
| 0.2 |
| France | 104.9 | 22.9
| 18.7 | 21.7 | 20.4
| 21.3 |
| Germany | 111.7 | 23.2
| 19.0 | 23.2 | 22.2
| 24.1 |
| Greece | 3.0 | 0.6
| 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6
| 0.8 |
| Hungary | 4.7 | 1.0
| 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.9
| 1.0 |
| Iceland | 0.4 | 0.1
| 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1
| 0.1 |
| Italy | 43.1 | 8.6
| 7.0 | 8.6 | 8.7
| 10.2 |
| Latvia | 0.7 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2
| 0.2 |
| Lithuania | 1.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.3
| 0.3 |
| Luxembourg | 0.6 | 0.1
| 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1
| 0.2 |
| Netherlands | 20.4 | 4.1
| 3.4 | 4.1 | 4.1
| 4.7 |
| Norway | 8.2 | 1.7
| 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.6
| 1.9 |
| Poland | 17.8 | 3.7
| 3.0 | 3.7 | 3.5
| 3.8 |
| Portugal | 4.7 | 0.9
| 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.9
| 1.1 |
| Romania | 5.3 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 1.9 | 1.7
| 1.7 |
| Slovakia | 2.2 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.7
| 0.7 |
| Slovenia | 1.2 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.4
| 0.4 |
| Spain | 26.3 | 5.2
| 4.3 | 5.2 | 5.3
| 6.3 |
| Turkey | 11.9 | 2.4
| 1.9 | 2.4 | 2.4
| 2.8 |
| United Kingdom | 116.3 | 25.7
| 21.1 | 23.9 | 22.4
| 23.2 |
| United States | 158.4 | 33.4
| 27.4 | 32.5 | 31.2
| 33.9 |
| Total | 719.7 |
149.1 | 122.1 | 149.6
| 143.2 | 155.6 |
| | |
| | | |
NSIP
| Total paid
2002-06
| 2002 | 2003 |
2004 | 2005 | 2006
|
| Belgium | 113.6 | 25.7
| 24.2 | 23.3 | 22.1
| 18.3 |
| Bulgaria | 2.4 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.3 | 1.2
| 1.0 |
| Canada | 138.0 | 24.0
| 30.0 | 30.3 | 28.8
| 24.8 |
| Czech Republic | 24.8 | 4.4
| 5.1 | 5.2 | 5.5
| 4.5 |
| Denmark | 84.3 | 20.8
| 18.0 | 16.7 | 15.8
| 13.0 |
| Estonia | 0.8 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.4
| 0.3 |
| France | 201.8 | 35.9
| 44.0 | 41.8 | 47.1
| 33.0 |
| Germany | 629.8 | 141.6
| 132.8 | 128.6 | 123.6
| 103.2 |
| Greece | 30.8 | 6.2
| 6.5 | 6.4 | 6.4
| 5.3 |
| Hungary | 17.9 | 3.2
| 3.7 | 3.7 | 4.0
| 3.3 |
| Iceland | 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 |
| Italy | 246.8 | 52.5
| 51.6 | 50.7 | 49.8
| 42.2 |
| Latvia | 1.5 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.7
| 0.6 |
| Lithuania | 5.0 | 1.2
| 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.9
| 0.8 |
| Luxembourg | 1.0 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.5
| 0.4 |
| Netherlands | 124.2 | 28.8
| 26.1 | 25.0 | 24.2
| 20.2 |
| Norway | 69.3 | 17.8
| 14.7 | 13.5 | 12.8
| 10.6 |
| Poland | 68.2 | 12.2
| 14.2 | 14.2 | 15.3
| 12.4 |
| Portugal | 14.6 | 2.2
| 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.2
| 2.7 |
| Romania | 7.9 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 1.1 | 3.7
| 3.1 |
| Slovakia | 3.2 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.4 | 1.5
| 1.3 |
| Slovenia | 94.6 | 16.1
| 20.2 | 19.6 | 21.1
| 17.6 |
| Spain | 1.8 | 0.0
| 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.9
| 0.7 |
| Turkey | 40.3 | 6.6
| 8.8 | 8.8 | 8.7
| 7.4 |
| United Kingdom | 410.0 | 69.4
| 90.8 | 90.2 | 86.8
| 72.8 |
| United States | 742.0 | 153.5
| 157.0 | 155.5 | 150.1
| 125.8 |
| Total | 3,074.6
| 622.1 | 652.0 |
640.3 | 634.9 | 525.2
|
| | |
| | | |
Maps showing the current membership of the Alliance, Membership
Action Plan countries, Partnership for Peace countries, and Intensified
Dialogue countries
28. The "NATO Member and Partner Countries"
map, available on the NATO website (http://www.nato.int/icons/map/0706memb-part-e.pdf),
shows the 26 members of NATO and the 23 members of Partnership
for Peace. Of the Partnership for Peace countries, three (Albania,
Croatia and Macedonia) have Membership Action Plans and two (Georgia
and Ukraine) have an Intensified Dialogue.
12 February 2008
143
This additional note was requested at a closed HCDC session
with Mr Jon Day and Lt Gen Peter Well on Iraq and Afghanistan,
held on 22 January 2008. Back
| 
