America has more than 75,000 troops in Germany, kept there, as the saying went, to keep the Russians out and the Germans down. The Soviet Union is no more and neither is the threat. There are more than 70,000 US military personnel in Japan and South Korea, a relic of an era when Washington feared the domino-like spread of communism. The redeployment will take up to 10 years but the message is clear; countries have to do more to defend themselves. Japan is responding and gradually bringing its military commitments into line with its economic weight.
In Europe, however, there has been a sorry tale of accepting America’s defence dollars while carping about its foreign policy. During the cold war it was America that ensured Europe’s defence. As soon as the peace dividend cut in, Europe was quick to savage its defence spending. Germany this year announced another round of military cuts, shutting 100 bases and cutting troop numbers by 35,000. The world may have changed but defence is still seen as something to be had on the cheap.
That is also how it looks in Britain. While Gordon Brown trumpeted his real-terms increase in the defence budget when publishing his spending review last month, experts say the reality is very different. The military historian Sir John Keegan last week painted a picture of a government in which the prime minister defers to a chancellor who has little interest in national defence and where the armed forces — represented by Geoff Hoon, the ineffective defence secretary — have to make do with crumbs from the Treasury table. The result is that during a worldwide security crisis, Britain’s defences are being seriously weakened. Labour’s friends would challenge that view. The defence budget is skewed by earlier expensive equipment contracts, notably the little-wanted Eurofighter Typhoon, the plane being built jointly by Germany, Italy, Spain and Britain. But the government appears determined to add to such distortions, proceeding with plans to order two new aircraft carriers while cutting the number of ships needed to support them. Ministers would also argue that the debate over defence “cuts” is essentially one over strategy, with critics unhappy with General Sir Mike Jackson’s blueprint for shaking up the regimental structure in an attempt to create a more flexible and agile army.
Even so the disquiet is genuine and is reflected in public opinion. On both sides of the Atlantic the issues of defence and foreign policy have shot up the agenda. A Mori poll last week showed that 28% of people regard it as the most important issue compared with just 2% at the time of the general election. It now outranks health, education, unemployment and other areas. On the one hand this is good news for the government, showing that issues related to the economy and public services concern voters less than they did. But it also suggests that there will be a shade of khaki about the coming general election, with the focus remaining firmly on Iraq and terrorism rather than reverting to a domestic agenda.
The first duty of political leaders is to provide for the security of their nations. In America, the belief that Mr Bush is stronger than John Kerry on fighting terrorism is just keeping him in the presidential race. European countries, too, must persuade their electorates that they take defence and national security seriously. If that means rerouting cash from other areas, then so be it. Decisions taken now will decide security for years ahead. Tony Blair keeps our armed forces busier than ever abroad. Now he must will the means. European governments whine that Washington fails to take them seriously. Unless they spend blood and treasure they will deserve to be ignored.