Archive for February, 2011

A new engine for European defence? by Ben Jones

Monday, February 28th, 2011

Ben Jones, Senior Defence Consultant, is published this week by the European Institute for Security Studies

In November 2010, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced plans for unprecedented military cooperation between the United Kingdom and France, based on a new Treaty on Defence and Security Cooperation. In the light of the global economic crisis, and coming days after the announcement of cuts to British defence spending, the agreement was immediately dubbed the ‘entente frugale’.

While defence cuts have been less severe in France, officials are apprehensive about the outlook after presidential elections in 2012.Yet it would be wrong to see Franco-British defence cooperation as driven purely by a short-term need to balance the books. A number of the projects announced in November were under consideration long before the economic crisis. Since the 1990s, France and the UK have been working ever more closely on defence matters. The treaty should be seen in the context of three long-term trends that challenge the coherence and sustainability of long-standing French and British assumptions.
Firstly, defence budgets have not been funded to compensate for the rising cost of military capability. Over time this has led to a steady paring back of equipment and personnel numbers. Broadly flat in real terms, most European countries’ defence budgets now struggle to deliver military capability to match their foreign policy aspirations.

Secondly, the relatively benign security situation in Europe leaves it all but impossible to make the political case for more defence spending. Defence, generally ranked low in issue salience polls, is often seen as an easy target for cuts. Finally, flat or lower spending combined with increasingly expensive technology undermines the viability of national, and even multinational, industries. This threatens long-standing preferences for indigenous technological and scientific capability, without which France and the UK fear that they will lose operational autonomy.

These trends have, however, emerged in parallel with a long-term convergence in the interests of France and the UK. Indeed it is this convergence that underpins the unprecedented levels of mutual dependence to which they are now prepared to commit. They have pledged to pool elements of their defence industrial bases, to seek to harmonise requirements and doctrines, to buy equipment together and deploy forces together. Their agreement may pave the way towards a new form of defence cooperation – one that is less opportunistic and more planned, providing deeper interoperability and greater savings.

Yet this is not a merger of the British and French armed forces. On the contrary, the motivation, at least for now, is to retain access to a full range of capabilities to pursue independent foreign policies. They want to remain militarily credible partners of the United States, both bilaterally and through NATO. In stark contrast to the St. Malo agreement, which was motivated by a desire to improve the European Union’s ability to act autonomously, the benefits to European military capability are in this case welcome, but not central. Whereas St. Malo was a new approach for a new goal, Franco-British defence cooperation is a new approach to the status quo, and the maintenance of national foreign and defence policies.

For this reason, the potential impact on wider European defence is not clear. Any agreement leading to the maintenance or improvement of military capabilities available to NATO and the EU is in itself advantageous. But there is no substantive policy linkage. Instead there is a pragmatic assumption that bilateralism between ‘natural partners’ ought to work more effectively than a multilateral approach. Indeed, the assumption in London and Paris is that no other European states can rival the breadth and depth of the relationship that France and the UK have established.

Yet the vital interests shared by the UK and France are not so very different from those shared by most European states. With the US increasingly turning its attention to the Asia-Pacific region, European states must rationalise their increasingly fragmented and inefficient military capabilities. Not only in order to act as credible partners of the US, as their foreign policies tend to dictate, but also to develop the crisis management role of the EU, particularly in the European neighbourhood.

It is therefore in the interests of Britain and France that they remain engaged leaders at the institutional and strategic levels of European defence cooperation. The impatience both countries feel, with some justification perhaps, regarding the lack of progress of the St. Malo era should not foreclose any opportunities to develop military capability through existing multilateral institutions, particularly those of the EU. Neither should it foreclose thinking about the institutional future of European security. It would be a mistake to oppose any particular method of working or institutional format on ideological grounds.

Indeed, what is striking about Franco-British defence cooperation is how successful both countries have been in discarding the ideological baggage of the past. The new pragmatism founded on developing military capabilities through close cooperation should be encouraged and emulated by partners in Europe. But there is a quid pro quo. If there is no credible reciprocation in response to these ambitious plans, then France and the UK can hardly be blamed for retreating into bilateral cooperation.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

George McGregor’s article in PR Week

Thursday, February 3rd, 2011

Neither David Cameron nor Ed Miliband need reminding of Bill Clinton’s mantra that ‘it’s the economy stupid’.  Which is why last week’s economic figures showing a 0.5% contraction in the economy will define politics in 2011.

The gloomy economic news is a sharp reminder to the Coalition Government that the numbers won’t always drive the political agenda in their direction. Cameron and Clegg know that choppy waters lie ahead and are steeling their parties for things to get worse before they get better.In the months ahead George Osborne and Ed Balls will be involved in hand to hand combat not just over deficit reduction but over which party has the right mix of policies to promote economic growth and job creation.

The appointment of Ed Balls is a mixed blessing for the Coalition. It will be easy to paint him as a close confidant of Gordon Brown and as the architect of the UK’s economic woes. But the Treasury team will be acutely aware that Balls is economically literate and one of the few Labour politicians capable of taking scalps.Labour must also be careful. They still have much to do and with Ball’s now in the driving seat on the economy Ed Miliband will find it hard to apologise for Labour’s mistakes, which is what he must do before he can even think about winning back Labour’s own economic  reputation.All eyes will now be fixed on the Budget on 23 March and the next set of GDP figures in April. They will tell us whether the UK has double dipped into recession. Or whether December was just an economic aberration cause by one of the coldest months on record.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Madmanomics

Tuesday, February 1st, 2011

The FT is reporting this morning that another of Steve Hilton’s ideas is hitting opposition from the advertising industry.

Hilton wants media and advertising agencies to donate millions of pounds worth of creativity and advertising space as a contribution to the Big Society as part of the drive to nudge people into different patterns of behaviour rather than legislate for change.

The Advertising Association has said that the idea  ‘could limit real collaboration between government and industry on the development of effective two way communication with the public’ which up until now has been  paid for by the Government, particuarly in DECC, DoH and DWP.

While Departmental spending on advertising has reduced by £100 million since the election last May the Government still remains one of  the advertising world’s most important customers. Applying behavioural economics to marketing is the holy grail for the industry and it will wonder why they should do some of their best thinking for Government for free.

A good barometer of whether or not the Coalition, and its economic strategy,  is succeeding will be the tendency amongst trending obsessive creatives to break ranks over and offer pro-bono work for Government offering offer wise counsel and insight and, by happy coincidence, positioning themselves for fewer but no less lucrative COI contracts in the future.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »