3 hours ago
4
London: Britain is exposed to a new fight with Donald Trump over the US president’s demand for higher spending on defence – and it could not come at a worse time.
The likely clash is revealed in a UK blueprint that appears to miss a key target agreed with Trump and other NATO leaders a year ago, even though it outlines £15 billion ($29 billion) in new spending on defence over the next four years.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer issued the plan on Tuesday in London with a pledge that it would help the country fend off “bullies and dictators”, such as Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The document features important statements about the UK’s work with Australia on missiles, underwater drones and the new fleet of AUKUS submarines.
But the grand vision falls short of Trump’s demand last year that NATO allies spend 3.5 per cent of their economic output on defence by 2035. It seems to approach about 3 per cent instead, and the shortfall is more than a rounding error.
The document, known as the defence investment plan, was meant to come out last year but was stuck in the destructive vortex of the ruling Labour Party when it was fighting over its policies, its budget and its leadership.
This means there are grave doubts about whether Britain is doing enough to defend itself at a time when Putin presents such a threat to Europe.
The former defence minister, John Healey, who quit the cabinet last month in a dispute over funding the new plan, said on Tuesday that the funding was not enough. Former armed forces minister Al Carns, a former army officer who also quit during last month’s dispute, criticised the plan for not providing enough funding or detail.
The timing is a mess. Firstly, Starmer has issued the document when he has little authority because he is about to step down. Secondly, his likely successor as prime minister, Andy Burnham, is yet to name his team and does not look ready to tackle big decisions on defence.
Thirdly, NATO leaders will gather at a summit in Ankara, in Turkey, next week to confirm a spending boost for defence. This will shine a spotlight on whether the British plan meets the benchmark.
And Trump will be watching. Starmer will attend, but everyone knows he is on the way out.
If the clashes of the past year are any guide, this will be the first big test for Burnham in how he handles Trump. The two will not meet at the NATO gathering because Burnham is not expected to become prime minister for several weeks. In what is now a mere formality, Labour officials have set July 16 as the closing date for candidates to nominate for the leadership.
The usual approach at NATO is to meet the US president’s demand for higher spending. This happened at the summit in The Hague last year, except for one big exception: Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, from the left.
Burnham, whose support on the left of the Labour Party has been vital to his rise as the next prime minister, will have to decide if he plays nice with Trump or sides with Sanchez.
The trap for Burnham is that the new defence document confirms a funding gap. It offers £15 billion more, but would need at least another £5 billion to honour the NATO agreement from last year. This means Burnham and his cabinet ministers would have to find painful budget savings.
Leaders said at the NATO summit in The Hague last year that they would increase defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2035. They said they would deliver another 1.5 per cent on related infrastructure – think airfields, rather than aircraft. The total would be 5 per cent by 2035.
Starmer said on Tuesday that spending on defence was 2.3 per cent of GDP in 2024 and was “on a trajectory” to reach 3 per cent over the next parliament.
Labour MP Tan Dhesi, the chair of the defence committee in the House of Commons, highlighted the problem.
“It is disappointing that we do not have a clear timeline for reaching 3 per cent of GDP, let alone the pathway to 3.5 per cent, which the UK has committed to at NATO,” he said. There is no denying the funding gap.
Beneath the argument about percentages is a sense of alarm about British defence. The new document cites NATO warnings that Russia could be ready to use military force against the allies by 2030. It also notes that the Iran war has highlighted the need for stronger missile defence – a fact obvious to anyone watching the news.
The head of the Royal Navy, Gwyn Jenkins, warned in December that Britain risked losing its edge over Russia in the Atlantic. “We are holding on, but not by much,” he said.
The chief of the defence staff, Richard Knighton, told the BBC in June that the threats were severe. “I’m very clear that this is the most dangerous time I have known in my working life,” he said. This is his third decade in the military.
A former chief of the defence staff, Tony Radakin, offered sobering words of advice for Burnham in The Sunday Times on the weekend: “The depressing truth is you inherit a defence program that is overcommitted.”
This does not mean AUKUS will be unfunded. The submarine program is vital to Britain’s defence because the country needs the new fleet of submarines, in a shared design with Australia, to have an edge against Russia in the Atlantic.
Britain has no Plan B, just as Australia has no Plan B, despite the doubts about the program. The new UK document confirms the Royal Navy will have “up to 12” AUKUS submarines.
The UK defence investment plan outlines other work with Australia. It says underwater drones will be the “signature project” under AUKUS pillar two, emphasising the development of weapons for these uncrewed submarines. It mentions artificial intelligence as a collaboration in the AUKUS alliance. It names the precision strike missile, a ballistic missile fired from the HIMARS launchers, as a key project with the US and Australia.
Britain faces a severe challenge in fixing its defences. You would not know this, however, from the months of fighting within the Labour government over its direction and leadership.
Now the dust is starting to clear on this internal strife, Burnham has to move fast on some very hard decisions. He has to decide where he stands on the £5 billion. And he has to decide where he stands with Trump.
Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.
