Examination of Witnesses (Questions 155-159)
Mr Andrew Mathewson, Mr Bob Regan and Mr Ian Hall
26 JUNE 2008
Q155 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Does the
European Security Strategy's assessment of strategic threats need
revising or updating and to what extent does it mirror the analysis
and recommendations of the UK's National Security Strategy and
NATO's strategic planning documents?
Mr Mathewson: I know the
Minister for Europe wrote to Lord Grenfell on the 26 May setting
out the government's position on the further work on the European
Security Strategy so I would hesitate to elaborate too much on
that but broadly we think the strategy is good and probably needs
to be taken on rather than revised. There are factors now which
did not feature as prominently in 2003 as they might have done
if it was written today, like the security implications of climate
change or development and inequality. We would like to see it
taken forward, taken on and built upon. It is broadly consistent
with the UK Security Strategy and we would expect to make it more
coherent as the work progresses. Certainly we do see that ensuring
maximum coherence with the European Security Strategy and any
revision of the NATO strategic concept will be very important.
There is a slight phasing issue since this work has not been done
at the same time but we will certainly want to make sure that
both are cross-referring and coherent in the way they describe
the security challenges we face and our responses.
Q156 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: That
echoes what has been said to us by many of the witnesses who have
appeared in front of us. They rather admire the existing document.
It is pretty concise, relatively short very clear and the real
problem is that nobody has bothered, amongst the Member States,
to enact it so implication is the big problem. It, therefore,
raises the question whether we should actually do anything to
revise this document which will tie up an awful lot of time. People
are worrying about what should be added and what should not. A
lot of compromises have to be made. It was even suggested that
if we ended up with a new document it might be rather weaker than
the one we already have. Would you agree with that?
Mr Mathewson: That is always the risk.
It is often better to build on what we have. There are issues
which it might be difficult to find consensus on if the document
were reopened at this time and that is a factor which will come
into consideration in NATO's strategic concept as well. I think
it reads very well. It is a coherent document which was clearly
the result of a single author consulting rather than the committee
drafting that you often see so it does come across as a very coherent
document. I think you are probably right that there is a challenge
about implementation but the prescription in there for what European
countries need to do is fairly clear.
Q157 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Would
you agree with me that it is an opportunity to remind Member States
of how little they are doing in terms of the European Security
Strategy in terms of the defence budget and getting their act
together, and it would be a complete distraction from leaning
on them to actually implement what they have already agreed?
Mr Mathewson: I certainly agree with
you that the real challenge is implementation. The real challenge
is getting countries to do what we would think of as an adequate
level in terms of responding to the challenges both in terms of
investment in defence and making sure that investment in defence
delivers the right outcomes: modernising our forces and acquiring
modern relevant capability. If work to take forward the Security
Strategy can increase the incentives and pressure on countries
to do more in this area, then it is worthwhile. From conversations
with French interlocutors, that is certainly what they have in
mind. They want to see a clearer focus on capabilities coming
out of this rather than just a drafting exercise for its own sake.
They will be looking at how to focus on the capability challenges
and to that extent we have the same agenda as they do.
Q158 Lord Crickhowell: The strategy
calls on the EU to be more capable, and we have the French security
proposal for a renewed drive for the deployment of up to 60,000
troops to a distant theatre for the duration of one year, a proposal
strongly urged as being desirable by one of our witnesses last
week. Does the UK government agree with this proposal and what
is the government's position on the French proposal for the establishment
of a permanent military EU headquarters? Can I add on the 60,000
proposal, I know it is an old one and it is being revived, but
when I heard it pressed last week I must say I thought then, and
I thought even more as I heard very senior people at the top of
the military both at present there and those previously there
talking about overstretch and the huge demands on our own forces;
and when I think of the reluctance of other European members to
join fully in some of the combat situations in Afghanistan and
elsewhere, I had a certain scepticism about the practicality of
it. That was merely a personal reaction but what is the view in
government circles?
Mr Mathewson: We think this a very reasonable
aspiration albeit that it should be seen in the longer term. You
clearly recognise that this is an earlier aspiration that was
set out in the Helsinki headline goal and this is our planning
objective. This is not a proposal for a force but is an aspiration
that the EU nations acting together should eventually be able
to deploy 60,000 men for a year at 60 days' notice and we think
that is a very reasonable aspiration. A group of countries as
wealthy as Western European countries in the EU should be able
to do that. I think we should separate that from the challenges
we face now. It is clearly not practical, given what we are going
through in Afghanistan and in Iraq, to think of us contributing
to a European Union force of that scale in the foreseeable future.
Certainly I would acknowledge your reservations and your concerns
about the challenge we face now but with any luck we will not
be in that situation forever and it is a reasonable aspiration,
we think, that Europe as a whole should plan to be able to do
this. This is a reasonable level of ambition for Europe to be
able to take on in the longer term and recognising the other commitments.
There is a point in there that this should not be seen as in addition
to NATO's level of ambition. We need to understand that NATO talks
about its level of ambition in terms of two major operations and
six smaller operations and the EU talks about 60,000 men for a
year. When they are talking about European forces they are talking
about the same pool of forces and we must not allow these to become
competitive levels of ambitions. We certainly would consider that
the 60,000 men for a year is a reasonable challenge for the European
members to aim at delivering, whether in support of NATO or the
European Union.
Q159 Lord Crickhowell: How can it
be a reasonable aspiration when we have heard repeatedly of falling
budgets throughout the European Community and the challenges we
face which, as far as Afghanistan is concerned, are not going
to go away quickly and may be with us for a very long time? Does
it make much sense to be talking in these terms when actually
this is not going to happen. We certainly cannot make a significant
contribution to it in the foreseeable future.
Mr Mathewson: No, and I think that is
where we have to separate the use of this figure as a planning
target from any consideration that we are planning to do this
in the near term. It is reasonable to think that the European
countries in the EU could undertake a mission of this size. We
have, at the moment, 12,000 men in the field between Iraq and
Afghanistan. In a world where we are not contributing at such
a significant scale we nationally could contribute, conceptually
I have to say, at about that scale to distant operations. We ought
to be challenging the other European nations to be doing more
to develop their capacity to contribute at that scale conceptually.
I should stress this is not a near term objective. This is a longer
planning aspiration and we ought to be challenging our partners
to be able to contribute in the same way we could.
| 
