European Defense Spending

The debate on the future of NATO is still running strong. Recently defense spending has been at the fore. The United States spends more than twice the amount of all 18 other NATO allies on defense spending. The fear among NATO supporters is that this huge disparity may eventually weaken the alliance to the point of its dissolution.

As an example of the disparity, in May President George Bush proposed to add an extra $48 billion to America's $331 billion defense budget for next year. This extra $48 billion is more than either Britain or France spends on defense in a year. Some in the US government are beginning to think that its European allies are simply free riders, letting the US do all the expensive and dangerous defense work.

NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson even went to far as to warn, in a radio interview in July on BBC, that unless the European countries begin to invest in the capabilities that allow them to work with the United States, then the United States will simply act on its own, without consulting it allies.

This does not mean that all the allies need to ramp up their defense spending and prepare their militaries to complete any mission. That is simply not a financially feasible goal. The United States has and always will have and advantage because of its physical and economic immensity compared with its allies.

That being said, the Europeans do have about 2 million men and women under arms. This is a very significant number that could be used to promote and protect the interests of the NATO alliance. But very few of them are actually available for deployment outside of their borders. Even now with only the Yugoslav missions plus a few smaller actions around the world European forces are stretched thin.

So is it possible then to refocus NATO's capabilities on the things that are most needed in the post Cold War, post-September 11th world? Of course. Smaller NATO countries can provide assistance by becoming specialists in one or two capabilities. One example given is the Czechs' much-praised biological and chemical response unit. Items and abilities such as compatible and secure communications gear, air- and sea-lift equipment, special- operations forces, precision-guided munitions and the ability to fight together under threat of the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, all are needed and affordable for a nation with limited budgetary means.

Buying a new aircraft carrier or B-2 bomber for may not be feasible for say, Poland, but surely getting radios that work with all the allies' radios and buying biohazard suits and preparing joint action plans in case of a chemical attack are reasonable and affordable. Even military cargo jets are affordable enough for a smaller NATO ally to consider.

Imagine a NATO operation with Norwegian special forces being dropped off and picked up by a Polish airlift team, protected by US satellites, an aircraft carrier and its warplanes. What makes NATO effective is its integrated military structure and its mutual defense pledge. If these become too separate the alliance will unravel. The Europeans and the United States need to sit down and decide who can and will spend on the capabilities that will strengthen the alliance as a whole.

What do you think?

NATO 'Needs Reforms' to Survive

NATO Could Fall Apart If Europe Doesn't Up Spending

NATO's Europeans could say 'No'

European Defence Plans and NATO

A moment of truth