Spending on agreed threats

By Ilana Bet-El

Date: 18/05/06

NATO marked an important milestone last week: the Assistant Secretary-General (ASG) for Defence Investment, Marshall Billingslea, signed the NATO Missile Defence Feasibility Study and delivered the final report of NATO's armament directors to the North Atlantic Council.

The 10,000-page study, which took four years to amass, is a detailed assessment of how to defend NATO population centres, forces and territory from all types of ballistic-missile threat. On the basis of this report, NATO will very shortly put out to tender the contracts for constructing the first envisaged phase: a Theatre Missile Defence (TMD) system. Unfortunately for the good citizens of Europe, this may also be the last phase.

The Feasibility Study was created in response to a series of threat scenarios developed by NATO military authorities. There is a difference between scenarios and real threats: a scenario is a possibility while a threat is a probability. This might seem extremely abstract, except that it is on the back of such differences that politicians make decisions to spend money. In this case, the political leaderships of all NATO nations

have decided to spend approximately $1 billion (EUR 777m) on constructing a TMD.

In itself the sum is significant, but the decision to go ahead with a TMD suggests something else: that there was agreement on the probability of threats to NATO forces in theatre, when they are operating, but not on the probability of threats to their population centres or territory. Since most NATO operations, notwithstanding the Balkan conflicts, tend to be outside Europe - and since the US already has its own missile defence system (which can easily encompass Canada), the real meaning of this decision is that there is no agreement on probable threats to the continent and people of Europe.

The creation and success of the EU and the end of the Cold War are the two reasons behind this state of affairs. European defence planners have been left with a multitude of possible threats but no clear probable threat.

The US has always preferred the path of covering the widest possible rather than probable threat, and is providing itself with a ballistic missile shield quite separate from NATO. While the Europeans continue to disagree on their own threats, it is this shield which will have to be stretched to cover our continent.

Once again Europe will be dependent on the US for one of its most basic necessities. For far too long the leaderships of Europe - most of which are members of both the EU and NATO - have side-stepped the problem, avoiding the painful and expensive processes of reforming their individual militaries and creating proper European capabilities.

Each government is committed, by its very being, to the defence of its citizens - yet seemingly finds it impossible to agree and truly implement any system of common European defence. Pouring money into TMD will not resolve this problem; it will simply leave fewer resources to do so.

• Ilana Bet-El is an academic, author and policy adviser based in Brussels.

Major commetnary feature on the completion of NATO's Missile Defence Feasibility Study, a detailed assessment of how to defend NATO population centres, forces and territory from all types of ballistic-missile threat. On the basis of this report, NATO was planning very shortly to put out to tender the contracts for constructing the first envisaged phase: a Theatre Missile Defence (TMD) system. Author suggests that instead of spending enormous sums on a system to fend off assumed threats European governments should concentrate on reforming their individual militaries and on creating proper European capabilities.

NATO: Press Release: (2006)048: NATO Missile Defence Feasibility study results delivered, 10.5.06 http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2006/p06-048e.htm

---