While the US remains frustrated at Europe's unwillingness to spend more on its own defense and contribute more to NATO commitments, it faces the opposite problem at home: a ballooning defense budget where billions of dollars seem to vanish down black holes of inefficiency and pet projects. The tide is slowly turning however, and the previously politically inviolable US defense budget is coming under increasing scrutiny. As the US Congress eventually confronts how to cut spending and spend more efficiently, they should consider a plan that will solve both problems: direct investment in European militaries.
Put simply, this would involve setting aside a portion of the defense budget in a fund that would be available to NATO countries seeking to improve military infrastructure. These funds would bolster an initial investment from a recipient country that without them would not have enough money to make such an investment. Funds could be awarded in a number of ways, from the US soliciting bids on certain projects to potential recipients submitting proposals independently to access the fund. These proposals would have to emphasize how the investment complements joint defense interests, how they would directly lead to the recipient committing more resources to the common defense, and commit a certain level of self-funding. Recipient countries would then compete with each other for access to this funding.
At first, this may seem a radical proposal, but when you look at the unique defense situation the US and Europe are in, it makes sense. In this plan, the US would not simply be bankrolling foreign militaries; they would be encouraging the very investment US officials have been repeatedly calling for, as European countries could now commit money to ambitious projects with a much higher payoff and lower costs than funding them alone. For the US, such a fund would divert defense resources from the wasteful Pentagon hierarchy and if implemented correctly, such a multi-billion dollar fund could actually save money by cutting waste and building up allies who could then shoulder more of the burden in operations like Afghanistan and Libya.
This plan has a number of equally appealing side effects. It naturally encourages specialization, as countries will want to focus on what they are best at in order to have the best chance at securing funds, and it lends natural oversight to defense spending, as each side will want to ensure their money is being spent wisely. It would naturally align both logistical and policy cooperation on defense as it would create an even stronger link between American and European defense interests. The US need not be concerned with extreme divestment as many of these projects would presumably be subcontracted back to US defense firms; in fact, it would create (welcome) competition in an industry where it is lacking. In addition, it bypasses many of the political issues that have plagued EU defense cooperation by operating in a NATO framework that is familiar and accepted.
This is not to say it would not require political courage on both sides of the Atlantic to implement. US leaders would have to make the case that they are not simply funneling defense spending out of the country and European leaders would have to demonstrate that they will not be investing primarily for America's benefit. NATO can take the lead in this regard, as well-developed encouragement from the hierarchy would have the best chance at not being perceived as politically one-sided, but it would still require creativity and vision to overcome the entrenched defense establishments.
If ever there is a time for that creativity, it is now. America's wildly high defense spending makes it the only country where such a plan can actually bring down costs; it needs to seize the opportunity to turn what is becoming a budgetary albatross into a positive. European countries are finding after multiple spending cuts there are no more corners to trim, and need such capital to avoid falling further behind in their NATO commitments. Instead of bickering back and forth about what each country expects of one another, we could take a proactive approach to secure a suitable defense capacity for the foreseeable future.
Jason Naselli is a masters student in International Relations at the University of Essex.
Related articles from Atlantic Community's "Security Despite Austerity" theme week:
- Christian Mölling: The Impact of the Financial Crisis on European Defense
- Aleksandr Blagin: Europe's Choice: Diplomacy or War
- Nikolas Gvosdev: A Modest Proposal for Pan-European Defense
- Robert Helbig: Beyond Pooling and Sharing: Open Europe's Markets
- Andrew Dorman: European Defense in an Age of Austerity
- Dmitri A. Titoff: Open Markets, Better Arms
- Christopher M. Schnaubelt: Can Lower Budgets Produce Greater Security Efficiency?
- 6
September 21, 2011
Alexander Michael Shorrock, University of Kent, (7)
I'm not sure any right wing politician would like the sound of either proposal, it all sounds like the DoD getting far too involved.
You are right in the sense that making it easier for EU companies to bolster their militaries could make them more likely to support the US in further conflicts, but wouldn't this pose a threat to the democracy of individual companies and NATO itself? The pressure from the American government, arguing they deserve support for their generous defence fund can only lead to problems. Could the Americans say that funding will go to preferred countries that will always align itself in American's conflicts and those who refuse to assist them will be left to fend for themselves?
Whilst I can see that such a fund may lead to an increase in investment I don't quite understand how it will reduce Pentagon bureaucracy? Surely a whole new floor will need to be added to the Pentagon in order to control the competition and flow of grants, unless of course it will be NATO that undertakes the whole process.
I do agree that creative thinking is important if NATO members' armed forces are to be diversified and, in turn, strengthened.But I see an opportunity for bureaucracy and ill-feeling between competing countries to increase. Finally, the US Gov't would feel pretty sick if, after encouraging the development of foreign defence, everyone went out and spent their money on products by EADS.