| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Europe must spend more on defense spending |
| 2005-03-03 |
| The diplomat at the centre of the biggest transatlantic dispute in years, over the Iraq war, has hailed improvements in US-European relations, but cast doubt on the prospect of a unified European foreign policy and called on Europe to spend more on defence. Nicholas Burns, who as Washington's ambassador to Nato has been a dominant figure in the US-led alliance in Iraq, is leaving to take up the number three post in the State Department, subject to Senate confirmation. His comments indicate the more conciliatory, but still challenging approach towards European allies of President George W. Bush's second administration. "There is certainly increasing synergy among European countries, but on foreign policy and defence you still see enormous differences among European states," Mr Burns said in an interview with the Financial Times. "We don't wish to perpetuate these differences but they are a reality. "While the Europeans have managed very impressively to devise one trade policy, I don't think there's any inclination by most European governments to devise one policy on each foreign policy issue." He added: "Europe needs to reflect on the low level of defence spending, which has left most European militaries in a state of disrepair." In 2003, Nato's European members spent $221bn (€168bn, £116bn) on defence, or 1.9 per cent of gross domestic product, compared with the US's $405bn, or 3.7 per cent of GDP. The spending gap has increased since, and European forces find it much harder to deploy than their US counterparts. During his four-year tenure at Nato's Brussels headquarters, Mr Burns has been at the centre of the dispute, particularly over the Iraq war. But he said that President Bush's visit to Europe last week was the "public and symbolic event" that brought the transatlantic division over Iraq to an end. He hailed the European Union as "absolutely vital for the modern world and a modern Europe" and Nato as the US's "most important alliance", which managed to "bind one continent to another". The US has been criticised for using Nato as a "toolbox" for military resources and for not responding fully to Nato offers of help in the wake of the September 11 2001 attacks. Mr Burns said the speed of events meant that the US and UK had to act initially against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2001 without the help of other Nato members. He conceded that the US could have "acted more quickly to accept and integrate" Nato partners' offers of assistance made after the conflict had begun. But Mr Burns emphasised that Nato's 2002 decision to reverse half a century of tradition and go "out of area" outside Europe opened the way to the alliance's current peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan. He also identified the clash over the Iraq war in February 2003 as a key moment in Nato history, because the alliance had eventually agreed to supply missile defence to Turkey against a possible attack by Saddam Hussein's regime. At last week's Nato summit, all member countries agreed to support the alliance's small-scale mission in Iraq, which is placing some 160 military trainers in Baghdad. Several countries, led by France and Germany, are making financial contributions to the Nato mission of about €500,000 ($656,000, £343,000) apiece, rather than sending personnel. "If we are going to put the divisions of Iraq behind us . . we would hope that Nato would continue to build that training mission over 2005 and 2006," Mr Burns said. "It must be bigger and better equipped than it currently is." |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |