You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
End of the Special Relationship
2005-10-14
Link is to a PDF file.
Long, but worthwhile Executive Summary from a much longer and even more depressing paper at the link. At least the Brits can't say they didn't realize what was happening, just like losing the Common Law. The next question is when the special relationship in intelligence sharing should end. It really sickens me to think that the Brits may bind fast to the France-Germany-China axis.

One of the most significant – yet largely unreported – political developments of recent years is the move being made by the United Kingdom to integrate its armed forces with those of the European Union.

  • The nature of this new military relationship with our EU partners will make it increasingly hard for the UK either to fight independently or to co-operate militarily with the US. The “special relationship” which has been the cornerstone of British defence policy from the time of the Second World War will be at an end.

  • What is even more alarming is the extent to which the British Government has been at pains to conceal and even to deny its true military and political agenda in this respect, by insisting that its new relationship with its EU partners does not prejudice its continued participation in Nato.

  • However, the key to appreciating how rapidly the UK and the US are moving apart lies in the pattern of the procurement policy now being followed by the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD).

  • The political cue for this parting of the ways was Tony Blair’s agreement at St Malo in 1998 that Britain’s armed forces should be integrated with those of the EU as part of an autonomous EU defence effort, capable of operating outside Nato. This led the following year to the EU’s decision to establish a multi-national ‘European Rapid Reaction Force’ (ERRF) as the centrepiece of its new military ambitions.

  • The repercussions of this decision are made infinitely greater by the fact that both the US and the EU stand today on the edge of a technical revolution in warfare, centred on satellites, electronics and a new generation of vehicles, unmanned aircraft and weapons systems (“net-centric warfare”). So closely co-ordinated will the forces of the future need to be through their technology that it will be virtually impossible for forces working under different systems to work alongside one another.

  • Until recently the UK and the US were still working in close partnership in developing the technology required to achieve this revolution in the nature of warfare. Most notably they were equal partners in what was known as the Future Scout and Cavalry System project (FSCS), until Britain withdrew, leaving the US to carry on to develop its more advanced Future Combat System (FCS).

  • In the past year or two, the MoD’s procurement policy has shown a similar shift away from co-operation with the US towards closer dependence on Britain’s EU partners. Almost across the board, the MoD is now turning its back on joint defence projects with the US, even where these involve British firms. Instead the MoD is purchasing equipment supplied or developed by firms in France, Germany, Italy and Sweden. The pattern of this dependence implies a state of technical and doctrinal integration with the EU’s defence effort so complete that collaboration with the US will eventually not be feasible.

  • The key to co-ordinating future warfare will lie in satellite systems, such as the US GPS/Navstar system on which Nato currently depends. The cornerstone of the EU’s autonomous defence effort lies in its plans to establish three, largely French-built systems, led by Galileo, set up as a direct rival to the GPS system and due to be in place by 2008, and directed from the EU’s satellite control centre in Spain.

  • From there, almost every aspect of Britain’s future defence planning would rely on equipment supplied or being developed by her EU partners. British troops will no longer be transported by US-built C-130 and C-17 aircraft, but by the A400M ‘Eurolifter’. The UK’s successor to FSCS will rely on armoured fighting vehicles supplied by Sweden, with French guns and ammunition.

  • Joint US-British bids to supply £1.1 billion-worth of sophisticated trucks were in 2004 rejected in favour of trucks built by the German firm MAN Nutzfahrzeuge, adding the name of a former British firm, ERF, to imply some British contribution. US and other non-EU reconnaissance vehicles were rejected in favour of an obsolescent and much more expensive version made by the Italian firm Iveco, although their origin is again to be disguised behind the name of the British firm BAE Land Systems.

  • A joint project with the US to develop a 155mm howitzer has been abandoned in favour of a French gun firing German-designed shells. Battlefield radar systems are being built in Germany and Sweden. Development of unmanned aircraft is being led by France, while the RAF’s main strike aircraft will be the Eurofighter, firing French-made missiles.

  • Three aircraft carriers are to be shared between the Royal Navy and France, with the French firm Thales playing a central part in their design and construction. The UK has even abandoned its capacity to manufacture small arms, so that the British army’s future rifles are likely to be supplied by Belgium.

  • The one consistent pattern in recent MoD procurement policy has been that, wherever possible, US firms are now being excluded, even where this means excluding British firms associated with them.

  • As a result, the MoD is often buying inferior or more costly equipment than that which Anglo-US contractors could supply. The potential cost is estimated at £14 billion.

  • The nature of the equipment now being bought for the UK’s armed forces, and the “European” or “non-Nato” standards now being laid down by the new European Defence Agency in Brussels, imply not just a growing technical divergence between the ERRF and Nato but also a doctrinal conflict with established US and Nato practice. This will make it increasingly difficult for forces on each side of this divide to work together, or even to share the same battlezones.

  • Almost the most startling feature of this immense political and military transformation is the extent to which it is moving ahead behind the scenes without being publicly explained or acknowledged, not least by the British Government. Nor has it yet been effectively challenged by the Opposition.

  • The situation is compounded by the EU’s formal co-operation with China, a strategic rival of the US. This includes the Galileo satellite global positioning system, in which the UK is an equal partner. Because of potential technology leakage from the EU to China, the US is increasingly reluctant to share its technology with Britain. The problems of UK-US cooperation are therefore being exacerbated further.

  • It will shortly be too late to reverse this trend. The Commission is now also proposing to control intra-EU movements of military products, thereby making the actions of the British Army dependent on her EU partners’ consent. The UK would no longer be able to operate alongside the US as a military ally. It would be irreversibly committed to operating within a framework defined by European Union interests. The “special relationship” would be over.
    • Posted by:Hupoter Chaiter7505

    #27  Its still comes down to the Generals, Admirals, and Pols reacting fast enough to any threat, locally or internationally, with decisive-overwhelming force, besides having enough reserves and economies to back up their combined effort. Other than that, can anyone say WW1, 1939-40, and espec DUNKIRK!? Better tell the Generals of the Brit Commandos + SAS, the French Foreign Legion, and Deutsche RR, etal. they and their fellow Euro-Elites just got prioritized.
    Posted by: JosephMendiola   2005-10-15 00:04  

    #26  So have the Poms been cut out of the JSF project yet?
    Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-10-14 23:45  

    #25  ...US with its poverty gap...

    The Specter of Poverty in America
    Tuesday, September 21, 2004
    By Robert Rector

    Last month, the Census Bureau released annual poverty figures showing that the percentage of Americans who are poor rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003.
    It's important to recognize that these figures are a year old. They cover 2003, not the current year. Given current economic conditions, it is extremely likely that poverty fell during 2004, although the official figures won't be available until the fall of next year.
    Poverty is a lagging economic indicator. Formal recessions (when the whole economy is shrinking) usually last less than a year. But the poverty rate almost always continues to rise for several years after the recession ends. The last recession officially ended in November 2001, but the poverty rate continued to rise in 2002 and 2003. This is a normal economic pattern that has occurred in most prior recessions.
    Compared to prior recessions, the recent recession was mild and had a limited impact on poverty. Overall, the increase in poverty resulting from the recent downturn has been half the increase that occurred in the two last recessions that hit the economy in the early 1980s and early 1990s.
    Still, the Census Bureau reports that 35.9 million persons "lived in poverty" in 2003, a number that should cause concern to all. But to really understand poverty in America, it's important to look behind these numbers — to the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems poor.
    For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. Real material hardship certainly does occur, but it's limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago.
    The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
    — Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and porch or patio.
    — Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
    — Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
    — The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
    — Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
    — Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.
    — Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
    — Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
    Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists and politicians.
    Even better news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced, especially among children. Child poverty in the U.S. is caused largely by low levels of parental work and by the absence of fathers from the home. While work and two-parent families are the surest ladders out of poverty, the welfare system continues to reward idleness while failing to provide support to keep families in tact.
    To further reduce poverty, welfare should be overhauled: All able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to work or prepare for work in exchange for the aid they receive. Also, new parents in low-income communities who express interest in marriage (and research tells us there are many) should be equipped with the skills they need to create a healthy marriage, rather than be penalized when they do get married.
    Robert Rector is a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

    Posted by: Shereting Omager3789   2005-10-14 22:13  

    #24  Good night, Norm.
    Posted by: Bobby   2005-10-14 20:57  

    #23  Bwhaaaaaaaaaa more civil bwhaaaaaaaa
    Posted by: djohn66   2005-10-14 20:44  

    #22  Europe is a far more civil place to live than the US with its poverty gap, health credit card care, guns, murder rates, deep racism, greed, the list goes on...

    Hardly, oh trollish one. Our poor are almost as wealthy as your lower middle class; the quality and availability of our health services is sky high; while we don't have a single gun policy, we are comfortable with situational availability; oh, and please, like Europe isn't racist? Haha.

    Greed is good. But you knew that already. Greedy people also give huge amounts to charity, far more than your non-greedy Europeans do. Greedy billionaires create thousands of greedy millionaires, who in turn create vast numbers of people with staggering amounts of disposable income. And all of these greedy people give away so much of their extra wealth that it's not even funny.

    Instead of putting all our immigrants in ghettos like Europe, we put them to work, and surprise, after a generation or two, they are fully employed, middle class and integrated Americans.

    Europe's a mess of their own making.
    Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-10-14 20:40  

    #21  Europe is a far more civil place to live than the US with its poverty gap, health credit card care, guns, murder rates, deep racism, greed, the list goes on...

    Oh, and please don't go quoting anything on Esatern Europe - that's another world.
    Posted by: Norm Coleman   2005-10-14 20:12  

    #20  Missed that Churchillian opportunity for a Union of English Speaking People. Too bad. The Anglosphere would have served the Brits far better in the end. At least their offspring will prosper. Good luck.

    Meanwhile as the US becomes awashing in hispanamericanos, our focus will go south. Adios amigos.
    Posted by: Crack Groling5040   2005-10-14 19:30  

    #19  According to the article, the Brits have 51 C-130's and an undisclosed number of C-17's. That's a fair amount of lift, probably third largest in the world. But they're being replaced by 25 Airbus A400M's, amde in France.
    Posted by: Throgum Elmoluse7582   2005-10-14 16:45  

    #18  "But the point at which British forces cannot fight independently of the EU will soon be here."

    Do they have the current ability to project force as of today? How much airlift and sealift do they have right now? Could the UK carry out an operation like the Falklands War today? How about the entire EU, if they should band together and agree (unlikely)? What would be their force projection capabilities? Near zero, i'd guess..... I think that European militaries are largely emasculated right now, at least in terms of projecting force to troubled areas.
    Posted by: Mark E.   2005-10-14 16:07  

    #17  I'm glad the Japanese never got to India.
    Posted by: Ulavish Themble6245   2005-10-14 14:17  

    #16  Looks like the US and Asia are in it together.
    Erase NATO.
    Erase the UK
    Its HiHo Euarabia in the Old World

    Posted by: 3dc   2005-10-14 14:15  

    #15  Alex, thank you for your service to Queen and Country, and for bringing your insight to Rantburg.
    Posted by: Seafarious   2005-10-14 13:28  

    #14  Anonymoose: "... thus tying them together like the boys of South Park, ..."

    Here's a fun game: associate a character with a country. France is obviously Cartman: crass, scheming, bloated, overbearing, mercenary, delusions of grandeur, ...

    Posted by: Xbalanke   2005-10-14 12:48  

    #13  When the Muzzies are over-running Europe and the remaining non-Muzzies in the U.K. are looking to be saved, they needn't expect the sacrifice of my children to liberate them. Two world wars have gained Europe nothing but arrogant French rulers who had better start studying Arabic soon if they want any status as collaborators.
    Posted by: Darrell   2005-10-14 12:35  

    #12  You might want to read the article, because it is very clear that this reflects an implicit cultural decision to reduce ties with the US and become fully engaged as a European state. So does the gradual abandonment of the Common Law.

    If britian joins the EU and then decides to withdraw they could easily link up with NAFTA and recover, it wouldn't take much to get the US to come back in and defend them. The same cannot be said for the rest of Europe.

    The point of the article is that Britain is becoming sotightly tied to the EU that it is near or past a point of no return. The UK is far more integrated economically with the EU than the US. The circumstances under which the UK would decide to leave the EU for NAFTA would have to be fairly frightening at this point. But the point at which British forces cannot fight independently of the EU will soon be here. The paper reveals that in Gulf War II the Brits had problems because the Belgians would not sell them artillery shells. And they are loosing all ability to survive on the battlefield with American forces.

    We and they need to face the fact that the UK has chosen to be European, not Atlantic. It's time to consider what all the implications are, as in why should they be treated and differently than the French, Germans, Italians or Spanish, because that is who is going to be pulling their strings.
    Posted by: Shamble Cliper7222   2005-10-14 12:22  

    #11  Fog in Channel, Europe cut off is the attitude of Much of the UK.

    It's not shared by our Gramscian ruling clases.
    Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2005-10-14 12:20  

    #10  I haven't read the article but the post has little to do with the title. The special relationship is not a military one but a cultural one. If britian joins the EU and then decides to withdraw they could easily link up with NAFTA and recover, it wouldn't take much to get the US to come back in and defend them. The same cannot be said for the rest of Europe.

    Economists have been predicting the Pacific century for a decade or so now. If Europe is isolating the US, they are also isolating themselves.
    Posted by: rjschwarz   2005-10-14 11:19  

    #9  Sigh. Paying more than twice as much or less capable systems. I guess if the Brits ever run short, they can always borrow from the Belgians. Wait, let me rephrase that.

    Any Brits on this board know if the gov. is going to deactivate the Trident subs as was discussed? Will Paris risk getting Paris nuked in order to protect London?
    Posted by: ed   2005-10-14 11:17  

    #8  Let me re-define what is taking place. The US is leaving Europe, no longer being needed there, and is no longer willing to subsidize European defense. From that point of view, Britain really has no choice but to integrate with the continent. Despite close ties with the US, the continentals are their neighbors, thus tying them together like the boys of South Park, solely because they share a bus stop.

    Practically speaking, England cannot afford, or just isn't willing, to support their own significant standing army beyond infantry. That is, a technologically-based army. France is willing to do so, and unless Poland or some of the Norse countries show a willingness to build up their own armies, France will militarily dominate Europe in the future.

    Ironically, the EU may have dreams of a unified command, but practically speaking, by being in the cat bird's seat, only the military objectives of France will matter. Yet another movement towards the EU becoming like the HRE before it.

    Where does this lead? Eventually, France will have some military objective beyond its resources, and after tapping the meagre ante in the EU pot, it will demand troop and monetary committments from the other EU nations. Call it a "man tax" to further France's ambitions. Englishmen under French command for whatever cannon-fodder purpose.

    And, since few would be willing to volunteer, a draft would be needed. Of course, under the auspices of the de jure EU military command, but for all intents and purposes, because France demands it.
    Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-10-14 11:14  

    #7  Anyone who has ever had the pleasure to participate in an MoD procurement knows that source selection for big ticket items is not decided within the MoD, but rather by the "political masters." This trend has been building for a long time concomitant to the increasing percentage of UK defense firms sold to europeans. I think the Brits are betting on a dead horse in aligning themselves with the EU but then most Brits won't realize what is happening until it is much too late to do anything about it.
    Posted by: RWV   2005-10-14 11:11  

    #6  Now they are facing an invasion from the Middle East and they are spitting in the face of the only ally who will help them

    You miss the point. The ones making the policies expect to be dead, after enjoying their social benefits and perhaps even a special dhimmi privilege, before any really 'bad' things happen to Europe.

    And they will have had the satisfaction of sticking it to the US, which has been an obsession of theirs for years.
    Posted by: lotp   2005-10-14 10:05  

    #5   If one looks at this, Iraq and the Internet issue, it is fairly clear that Europe is isolating the U. S., whether it consciously intends to or not

    Oh, it's intentional all right.
    Posted by: lotp   2005-10-14 10:04  

    #4  As a british soldier I can this is the worst thing that can happen to us the EU armed forces are shakey at their best, the french and danes run away the germans always try to be too diplomatic this means going to war with these fools means that everything will be down to us with no US to back us up if it gets out of hand plus we lose the excellant US logistics. A Very Sad Day
    Posted by: Alex   2005-10-14 09:27  

    #3  If one looks at this, Iraq and the Internet issue, it is fairly clear that Europe is isolating the U. S., whether it consciously intends to or not. (How interesting it would be if they are funding Pat Buchannan.) To them it is just some kind of game for ego satisfaction.

    This is a fairly irrational thing for them to do given that the last 50 years have been the most peaceful in Europe's history. The one exception, of course, demonstrated that the Europeans were willing to sit on their hands while civil war erupted when one country (Germany) formented the dissolution of another (Yugoslavia.

    Europe has, since the fall of the monarchies and empires, bounced form one stupid idea and cause to another. Now they are facing an invasion from the Middle East and they are spitting in the face of the only ally who will help them. Fools. They deserve what they are about to receive and we should waste nothing to stop it.
    Posted by: Theamp Ometing5119   2005-10-14 08:47  

    #2  Europe appears to be in a death spiral. Sad that the Brits are being pulled into it. Wonder if the EUnuchs will collapse before our own tranzis weaken us too far?
    Posted by: SR-71   2005-10-14 08:29  

    #1  "The one consistent pattern in recent MoD procurement policy has been that, wherever possible, US firms are now being excluded, even where this means excluding British firms associated with them.

    As a result, the MoD is often buying inferior or more costly equipment than that which Anglo-US contractors could supply. The potential cost is estimated at £14 billion."

    Worthy. Sigh. We'll miss you gents.

    This is along piece, indeed. And depressing? Very.

    And I thought it was going to be about the Saudis...
    Posted by: .com   2005-10-14 08:06  

    00:00