|
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Many European leaders
want a European army. Britain says it doesn't - but we are prepared to
contribute to a European rapid reaction force capable of keeping the peace
in situations such as Kosovo. This week European leaders are meeting to
agree on who is prepared to contribute what. It's been reported that we
are prepared to commit a quarter of the British Army, half the Navy. Critics
say it makes no sense because Britain's forces are already stretched too
thinly. It would cost too much money and we simply couldn't afford to meet
that sort of commitment. Well the Defence Secretary, is Geoff Hoon and
he's in our Nottingham studio.
Good afternoon, Mr Hoon.
GEOFF HOON MP: Good afternoon.
HUMPHRYS: It is going to be a big
commitment this isn't it, roughly what sort of numbers are we talking about
here?
HOON: Well I will announce the
precise numbers to Parliament in answer to a question tomorrow...
HUMPHRYS: ..been announced already...
HOON: ..as I go to the European
Conference where each country will make known its own contribution. But
can I emphasise that this is a planning progress, this is not a standing
European Army, I've made it quite clear this is not a European Army. What
we are seeking to do is to prepare our forces for the kind of role that
they will require as they operate alongside the forces of our partners
and allies, something that we have always done and something that we continue
to need to be able to do.
HUMPHRYS: Let me return to the
question of numbers because your officials have been busy briefing the
newspapers over the weekend, telling them how many, we have got precisely
this twenty-four thousand fighting forces and all the rest of it. Why can't
you tell us, in the way that the Germans have told their people, I mean
you know how many it is, why can't you tell us?
HOON: Well I will tell you, but
I think it's right that I tell Parliament first and there is a parliamentary
question tabled for answer tomorrow and I intend to answer it in the proper
Parliamentary way.
HUMPHRYS: Why didn't you tell your
officials not to leak it then?
HOON: This hasn't been leaked and
I make it clear that whatever speculation appears in the newspapers over
the weekend is mere speculation, I will confirm the figures at the appropriate
time in an answer to Parliament.
HUMPHRYS: Right, so long as you
are going to confirm them, I'm going to operate in the assumption that
they are more of less right, that's to say twenty-four thousand people,
seventy-two combat aircraft, eighteen warships, a quarter of our Army and
Air Force strength and half the Navy. Now, are they going to be full time
serving military people or are they going to be TA, Territorial Army people?
HOON: Well obviously, when we deploy,
as we deploy in the Balkans, there is a mixture, predominately they are
regular forces but we do have a number of full time reservists who do a
marvellous job, I've seen for myself in Kosovo, the tremendous role that
they can play, I'm confident that there will be a handful of TA, of full
time reservists who will compliment this force but it will be no more than
a handful.
HUMPHRYS: Right, okay. And they
will operate, and I use the word operate as opposed to fight or whatever,
under some sort of European insignia, you told me there wouldn't be a European
cap badge, won't be fighting under a European flag, but there will be some
sort of European insignia involved here?
HOON: Well that hasn't be confirmed
yet, it's the kind of detailed discussion that we have to have. But certainly,
there is not going to be a European Army, there is not going to be a European
cap badge, British Forces will participate at the decision of the British
Prime Minister, who will be answerable to Parliament. That is always the
case when British Forces deploy and it will continue to be the case.
HUMPHRYS: Exactly, if we are involved
in the United Nations, they wear some sort of UN insignia to identify themselves,
that's bound to be the same here isn't it?
HOON: Well it's the kind of detailed
issue that frankly has yet to be resolved.
HUMPHYRS: Why are you so cautious
about saying yes in answer to that, I mean it's perfectly clear isn't it?
HOON: The reality is that those
kinds of practical day to day decisions will come once a deployment is
taken, it's a military matter in terms of identifying the forces. I don't
believe at this stage that it is necessary to go into those kinds of details,
when frankly there are much more important issues to resolve, the precise
numbers that each country will contribute will be determined in the course
of this week.
HUMPHRYS: And a very important
issue here is they will be required within sixty days. I mean the period
of notice says sixty days, if we need to pull them together you've got
sixty days to get them together. Now let's look at the problem that is
involved in that because of course they will be tied up doing other things.
The forces are already over-stretched, look at where they are all over
the world, we cannot do that as things stand, can we, we cannot say: okay
here is our contribution it will be ready in sixty days, can't do it.
HOON: That's why it's so important
that we approach this sensibly as a planning process in the way that we
approach the same process within NATO and indeed within the United Nations.
We've made it quite clear as every country makes clear, if there is a threat
to Britain's vital national interest, that will always come first, which
is why it is always for a British Prime Minister to decide when to deploy
British Forces, but if there is not such threat it is important that we
give our forces the opportunity of preparing, of planning, for this kind
of deployment. Again, precisely in the way that we plan for a deployment
under NATO or indeed under the United Nations.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, well, it might
not be a threat to our vital national interest, might it? I mean we might
have people in Sierra Leone, for instance, who might be needed for this
force, so it's a question of who takes precedence, isn't it?
HOON: Well, those are the kinds
of decisions that we have to take at the time whenever a requirement arises,
which is why it's so important to get across the fact that this is not
a standing European army, we only have one set of forces and a British
Prime Minister will have to take a decision at the right time...
HUMPHRYS: ...no I've got that point.
But I mean we're going into this exercise without fundamental, and I stress
fundamental, issues resolved. I mean, things like whether we'd have to
pull forces out of place 'A' in order to go to place 'B', I mean those
are key, we can't say, yeah, we'll go along with it, we'll offer you our
twenty-four-thousand or however many it turns out to be and we don't even
know roughly how they're going to be used, I mean, that's preposterous
isn't it.
HOON: Well I simply don't accept
that as part of the normal planning process that we undertake. As I say,
as far as NATO and the UN is concerned and indeed let me make it quite
clear, the only people who are actually against this are the right-wing
Euro-sceptics and their occasional friends in the British press who keep
going on about this as if there's some fundamental issue involved. The
reality is, the last Conservative government supported this, the United
States' administration supports it and our European partners support it,
the only people who are against it are the right-wing fringe of the Conservative
Party.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I don't know whether
you would describe the Chief of Joint Operations, for instance, as a member
of the right-wing, perhaps he is, I don't know, I don't know the gentleman,
but he has said, if the UK wish to go into a major operation, they could
do that and I quote "but clearly back in the three services, that would
lead to considerable pain" because the fact is, we are over-stretched
at the moment.
HOON: But those are the kinds of
decisions that we always have to take before any kind of deployment. We
have to make a judgement, a British Prime Minister would have to make a
judgement as to what we were able to manage in practice at the time. That's
not anything new....
HUMPHRYS: ...so it's not a commitment
then...
HOON: ...what is important is that
we have the capability of deploying, alongside our partners and allies,
when we need to, and frankly, this is a matter of common sense, and I'm
sorry that so many newspapers, and the Conservative Euro-sceptics are determined
to tell lies about this, determined to play politics, with our soldiers.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I don't know whether
that's what they're doing or whether they're just being sensibly cautious
about this, because unless of course, unless of course what you're saying
to me this morning, is that it isn't a commitment, after all, we're not
making a commitment to Europe, we're saying that it might be, given that
the wind's in the right direction, we haven't got the soldiers here, there
and everywhere, it might be that we would be able to send somebody over
there to fight with this European force wherever it might happen to be,
or to operate with this European force wherever it might, or might not
happen to be. But there's absolutely no commitment. I mean, if that's
what you're saying, I'm quite sure that some of your critics would say,
oh well alright, is that what you're saying?
HOON: What I'm saying is that we
are planning for getting a European force quickly, within sixty days, into
a crisis where it's necessary. And that's precisely the lesson that we
learned from Kosovo, we looked carefully at Kosovo, we came to the conclusion
that it wasn't possible for European nations to participate to the extent
that we wanted, and therefore we want to plan for that eventuality, but
certainly, if there were a threat to Britain's vital national interest
or if we were engaged in a way that made it impossible to commit those
forces, then at the time, a British Prime Minister would be faced by taking
that difficult decision - and I'm absolutely clear in my own mind that
a British Prime Minister would put Britain's vital national interest first.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, well, ok, but we've
dealt with the vital national interest question, I mean Sierre Leone, is
probably not, East Timor's probably not, even Iraq is probably not, but
my point to you is this - that we are told this is a commitment, you will
be going to our European partners tomorrow and saying, this is Britain's
commitment, but in truth it is not a commitment.
HOON: But that's why it's vital
to understand that this is a common-sense planning process. When you talk
about a commitment, we are not committing a large-standing European army
to wait for a crisis to the extent that we cannot use those forces for
other things, those soldiers will be training, preparing, deploying, going
about their normal business. But was is important, is if a crisis develops,
we do have the ability to reorganise those forces and send them rapidly
to that emerging crisis. That's something which everyone agrees on, the
last Conservative government, the United States, our European partners,
all recognise that this is an important quality that we require European
forces to have and the only people who are against it are a handful of
Euro extremists, currently unfortunately leading the Conservative Party.
HUMPHRYS: Well, you keep saying
that, but I'm struggling here to discover what is the real difference between
you and them, because they're saying, as you say, in the past they've said
- yes, of course, you know, if we've got the forces available and if we
can help out, goodness knows, they've done it often enough Conservative
governments of the past sent off our forces to fight with the United Nations
or whatever it happens to be. It seems to me that you are saying precisely
the same as them. Given that there's no other crisis anywhere in the world,
given that our forces aren't needed anywhere else, given that they're sort
of sitting around, you know, buffing their fingernails, or whatever it
happens to be in Catterick or somewhere, we'll send them. However, if
there's a problem, we won't send them.
HOON: Well I assure you our forces
are not sitting around...
HUMPHRYS: ...I'm quite sure they're
not
HOON: ...amongst the busiest of
any forces anywhere in the world...
HUMPHRYS: ...precisely, my point
precisely.
HOON: Can I make it quite clear
that this is a planning process which is why I can say with some confidence
that certain elements of the Conservative Party, the Euro-sceptic element,
are turning this into a political issue, because, they in the past have
been involved in precisely this kind of planning process. We learned lessons
from Kosovo, one of the lessons was, that European nations weren't sufficiently
prepared, sufficiently equipped, to deal with that kind of emerging crisis
sufficiently quickly, and what we're doing is learning those lessons and
implementing the results in the planning as we prepare for a future crisis.
It's common sense. And frankly, as I say, it is only the Euro-sceptics
who are trying to turn this into a political issue, because anything that's
involved with the European Union, they have a knee-jerk reaction against.
HUMPHRYS: Well, let's have a look
at what Lionel Jospin has said. I don't suppose even his worst enemy would
describe him as a rabid right-wing Euro-sceptic, but what he says is that
we're going to have to be equipped, have to be equipped, I quote, "with
our own intelligence command control and logistical capabilities". Now
that kind of thing costs very serious money. That sort of thing sounds
much more than you have been describing this morning, and it's certainly
going to cost.
HOON: We are looking at the ways
in which we can equip a force with the necessary intelligence and other
functions. It's obvious we are not going to deploy British soldiers as
part of a European force unless they have access to appropriate intelligence,
which is why we have emphasised so strongly the importance of resorting
to NATO planning procedures. We don't want to see any kind of duplication,
and again that is precisely what we have agreed. There is an absolute
consistency between what we're proposing in an EU context and what already
happens and will continue to happen in a NATO context.
HUMPHRYS: I'm deeply puzzled by
this absolute consistency then, because we've got William Cohen the American
Defence Secretary talking about it would be a highly ineffective seriously
wasteful of resources if NATO and the European Union had their own commanding
control structures, and yet Lionel Jospin's saying precisely that - we
must have them.
HOON: Well, Bill Cohen came to
Birmingham very recently and said how pleased he was with the progress
that was being made and indeed most recently the US administration have
said how delighted they are with the text that have been worked on, so
there is absolutely no division of opinion in NATO or elsewhere. This
is a good thing. The only ones who want to turn this into a political
football are the Euro-sceptics and the Tory party.
HUMPHRYS: Well, but we'd also have
this extra cost of moving these people around. Rapid deployment means precisely
that doesn't it. We'd have to have lots of aeroplanes and all the rest
of it to move these things around. In the past NATO have done it for us.
The Americans have done it for us within NATO, we'd have to have our own
wouldn't we?
HOON: Well, that is why we have
recognised the importance not only as part of our contribution to our European
force but in the light of Britain's own needs and requirements which is
why this government has invested so substantially in extra lift as far
as aircraft are concerned, in extra lift as far as ships are concerned.
We recognise the importance of getting British forces into a crisis quickly,
that's why this government has provided the necessary investment.
HUMPHRYS: But not enough. I mean
George Robertson, Lord Robertson, I beg his pardon as he is now, who runs
NATO, if the Europeans are going to rise to the challenge of the post cold-war
world then more money will have to be invested. Now, when he says more
money will have to be invested he means precisely that, but in Europe less
money is being invested, not more. Yes, we have increased our defence
spending but only in inflationary terms, not in real terms.
HOON: No, that's not right I'm
afraid John. We've actually increased our defence spending in real terms
as well as to compensate for inflation, so there is a substantial amount
of extra money available to defence, planned, allowed for, over the next
three-year period, so it is real increases in real money available for
investment in defence. But equally we also will want to encourage our
European partners to follow our example, but what's key to this and why
this is so important as a sensible, common-sense planning process, is that
actually those other countries reorganise their forces, actually make sure
that their forces are equipped to do the kind of rapid deployment that
we believe is absolutely the right way forward in a much more complex and
challenging modern world.
HUMPHRYS: But George Robertson
said, static defence budgets, and I emphasis budgets, plural here, will
make a mockery of the ambition to tackle trouble spots before they become
a crisis. Well, Europe's defence budgets across the board are not just
static, they're going to fall by six per cent in real terms by next year.
HOON: Well, I agree with Lord Robertson.
We have to ensure that other countries are able to make this extra contribution,
either in financial terms but more importantly in the way in which they
spend their existing defence budget. There is a change, the change is
from the kind of static forces that existed to deal with a threat from
the Soviet Union, to the more complex world that we now have to deal with,
and that's precisely why this government through its strategic defence
review which of course was led very successfully by Lord Robertson have
reorganised our forces to meet these kinds of new challenges, it's important
that other countries now do the same.
HUMPHRYS: Isn't the truth that
we never really wanted to go down this road. I mean I can understand your
reticence in the early parts of this discussion, because we learn from
the Mail on Sunday this morning, they've got another leak of cabinet minutes,
and George Robertson, when he was Secretary of State for Defence, in your
job, he said: we can stop things we don't want such as a European Defence
policy. We didn't want to do it then, we don't really want to do it now,
but we're having to do it because we want to keep our friends in Europe,
and since we can't join the European monetary union, then let's do this.
HOON: Well, the only thing I recognise
in that story as being accurate is the headline, and there are no plans
for a European army, therefore there is no U-turn. To that extent the
Mail on Sunday did get something right.
HUMPHRYS: Ah, but we are going
to have a European Union defence policy aren't we. That is what it is
all about.
HOON: But that was in the Maastricht
Treaty. It was agreed by John Major's government. He actually promoted
that in the House of Commons, it's set out, it's not anything that until
the present Euro-sceptic leadership of the Conservative party came to power,
was a political issue, which is why I've consistently complained to you
about the Euro-sceptics turning this issue, our armed forces, their training,
the planning, into a political football. That's wrong, it's never happened
before, and it shouldn't happen again.
HUMPHRYS: Geoff Hoon, thanks very
much indeed.
|