“…the Americans have not yet reached the stage where they regard themselves as equal partners in the enterprise [NATO]…They still feel that they are in the position of a kind of fairy godmother handing out favours for less fortunate Western European countries – provided always that the latter can justify their claims to such favours…it is up to the European countries to make the running and to provide the administration with the necessary ammunition to enable it to deal with Congress”.
Top Secret Memo from British Ambassador to Washington Sir Oliver
Franks to British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, August 1948.
Ernie’s Vision
July 10th, 2024. Much of the ‘noise’ at the NATO 75
summit in Washington will be rightly about Ukraine at which the Allies will
again commit to keeping Kyiv the fight, but baulk at giving the Ukrainians
anything like enough weapons to kick Putin out.
The real issue will be precisely the three issues that will not be
addressed – the patent lack of strategic direction, the lack of leadership and
Europe’s sad inability to deliver its own defence requirements.
There are many who can claim to be the real founder on NATO but one
who has a real claim is Britain’s Foreign Secretary at the time of the April
1949 Treaty of Washington, Ernest ‘Ernie’ Bevin. He was ably assisted by the then British Ambassador
to Washington, Sir Oliver Franks. Having forged the 1948 Brussels Pact of
European countries in mid July 1948. Bevin came away from a meeting in The Hague
firm in his belief that unless the US committed itself formally to the defence
of Western Europe Europeans would be easy prey to the 350 Red Army divisions
stationed close to the inner-German border. Bevin’s assessment was as much political as
strategic. Germany was still as much the
enemy as the Soviets, France had no government, Britain was broke, President
Harry S. Truman was facing re-election and the rest of Western Europe did not
matter militarily. Today? France has no government, Britain is broke, Germany
only plays at defence, still uses World War Two to avoid responsibility, and just
announced a real terms cut to its defence budget. The only other European of defence note is
Poland, forever brave enough but never big or rich enough of offset the weakness
of its big neighbour. Worse, the Americans face an electoral choice in November
between an increasingly cognitively impaired President Biden who is simply no
longer up to leading the free world, and Donald J. Trump who does not want to
lead the free world.
Plus ca change?
Bevin knew that only a Herculean effort on the part of the British and
other war-devastated Europeans could really convince the Americans to re-commit
to Europe at a time when much of America simply wanted to ‘bring the boys home’. Bevin vision was for the Americans to
guarantee European security through a North Atlantic Pact, in return for
Europeans committing to ‘self-help’. To
that end, London committed to retain British forces in strength in Germany indefinitely
at great cost. This was something which the strategically illiterate Cameron
government did not understand when they withdrew HQ Allied Rapid Reaction Corps
from Rheindahlen in December 2013. HQARRC
was the last vestige of the once mighty British Army of the Rhine. Moscow has
and always will see power in military terms and the withdrawal of HQ ARRC was yet
another symbol Putin understood only too well at a time when much of NATO was also
mired in Afghanistan. At the time, I was associated with HQARRC and made my
concerns clear to London about the dangerous political symbolism of closing
down Rheindahlen. London did not listen. It never does. In February 2014,
Russia seized Crimea.
If the Allies really believe in NATO they will once again have to
make a Herculean effort to convince over-stretched, over-spent, over-wrought America
to continue to guarantee Europe’s security.
THAT is the REAL issue at this Summit in a political vacuum and what
awaits the new NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. He will need to use all his powers of
persuasion because as Dutch prime minister he gutted the Dutch armed forces. The only way the Americans can guarantee the
future of Europe’s defence is if the Europeans bear the increasing burden of
self-help. That will mean many of Western Europe’s political leaders breaking
habits of a political lifetime and end the sad mealy-mouthed nonsense about the
unaffordability of sound defence due to cost of their bloated welfare states. Bevin,
a Labour politician, would be appalled.
NATO 80?
What will Hercules demand of NATO’s European pillar not the mention
the Canadians? The Alphen Group has just
published a new Transatlantic Compact https://thealphengroup.com/2024/07/09/to-their-excellencies-the-permanent-representatives-on-the-north-atlantic-council/
which was superbly led by two American colleagues and NATO experts, Diego Ruiz
Palmer and Stanley Sloan. At its core is
an assessment of the forces and resources Europeans will need to provide as the
minimum political and force requirement.
The Compact acknowledges the new Allied Reaction Force (ARF) is an
important milestone on the road to the vital NATO Force Model, but only if it
is far more than simply re-badging the now defunct NATO Response Force. It also acknowledges the superb work done by
SACEUR and his team to create the ‘Family of Plans’ which provide the bedrock
for a future Allied minimum force requirement.
The ARF is a high readiness, highly mobile and responsive mainly
European force capable of deploying rapidly throughout SACEUR’s Area of
Responsibility to reinforce forward defences, prevent a fait accompli by an adversary, and demonstrate unity.
So far, so good. By 2030, the New
Force Model envisages the NATO Response Force of some 40,000 troops being transformed
into a future force of some 300,000 troops maintained at high alert, with
44,000 kept at high readiness. Whilst the new force will be held at 24 hours
‘Notice to Act’ the bulk of the NATO Force Structure will be held at 15 days
‘Notice to Move’. Given that both air
and naval forces will also need to be included a land force of, say, 200,000
would need at least 50 to 60 European rapid reaction brigades together with all
their supporting elements. There are only 20 at best 30 today.
The Compact is clear: by 2030 European Allies will need to provide collectively two thirds or more of NATO’s
overall required operational capacity as measured
in the rapidly usable forces,
enablers and other
capabilities needed. Moreover, no Ally must be expected to
contribute more than 50% of any individual NATO capability area, as pursued
through the NATO Defence Planning Process, with non-US Allies providing 67% or
more of any given capability area, recognizing that progress will be easier and faster in some areas than in
others.
Deterring is doing!
What NATO plans mean in practice are that NATO Europe plus Canada must
by 2030, no later than 2035, deploy a combined MINIMUM operational land
capacity of four fully-capable, fully-enabled, fully-ready Warfighting Corps (WFC),
together with all the required combat, combat
support and combat service support units. Three fully-capable, fully-enabled,
fully-ready Composite Air Strike Forces (CASF) with the
full complement of defensive and offensive aircraft. Two fully capable,
fully-enabled, fully-ready Non-US Standing Fleets in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean
with sufficient operational capacity to be augmented
at short notice.
By return, and given US commitments world-wide, Washington would
need to permanently station in Europe a fully-capable, fully-enabled and fully-ready
WFC (US Army’s V Corps); a fully-capable, fully-enabled and fully-ready CASF
(US Air Force’s 3rd Air Force); and a fully-capable, fully-enabled and
fully-ready US Navy 6th Fleet and its NATO component (STRIKFORNATO) for Allied multi-carrier operations, and complemented by
US Marine Corps and Special Operations Forces. This force would provide SACEUR with five fully capable war fighting corps, four CASF
air packages and three fleets.
European allies and Canada will also need to take further steps in
every other domain of NATO European military capacity including strengthened missile defences,
nuclear policy and practice and in both the space and cyber domains, as well as supporting civil
measures to reinforce resilience.
Pillar Talk
At a meeting of the GEN 75 committee (aka the atomic bomb committee)
in October 1945 Ernie Bevin famously said “We have to got to have the bloody
Union Jack on top of it (the bomb)”. Prime
Minister Clement Attlee, Churchill’s wartime deputy, and Bevin understood the need
for British power, not just to deter the Soviets, but also to influence the
Americans. Bevin wanted not only to
demonstrate to Stalin that Britain still mattered but to the Americans that
Britain could also add value to American security and defence. It is precisely that which NATO Europe must
again demonstrate to Washington.
In December 1948, Bevin rose in the House to make an impassioned
plea for what he called the North Atlantic Pact. “…I wish to submit to the House a further
consideration in this matter, which is vital. All these instruments which
unfortunately have to be provided to defend ourselves today are tremendously
costly. To try to maintain an adequate Navy, Air Force and Army is almost too
big a burden for any one country to carry by itself, that is if it is to stand
by itself. Once we can, in the West, get this basis of collective security with
the United States and Canada and the Western Powers, and others if they will
come in, it should be possible to work out a rationalised system of defence so
that while we assure our collective defence we shall not be draining off too
much manpower from our economic resources and the development of our economic
requirements”.
THAT was the real reason for NATO 1949. It is the also real reason for NATO 2024
given the need to deter Russian aggression and Chinese expansionism. Peace
through strength.
Julian Lindley-French
