Smart Defence: the parliamentary angle

Smart Defence:

The parliamentary angle

What is Smart Defence?

I suppose Smart Defence

means two things.

One aspect would be mission...

a division of labour in missions,

which means that nations can

mix and match with one another

to pool and share the capabilities

that are available

in the most efficient manner.

And then, further down range

would be an enhanced approach

to defence cooperation

and procurement,

where people are actually buying

the weapon systems cooperatively,

frankly to get the best value

for money that they possibly can.

The simple fact is that we are

facing constrained defence budgets.

And what this is all about

is getting the best value for money

from the resources for defence.

Does Smart Defence

require a new mindset?

If it had been easy,

it would have already been done.

And there are

some very thorny issues.

For example, it's all very well

to say we will all be better off

if we can have a better division

of labour in our defence procurement.

But if you've got a munitions factory

in your constituency,

then you would like to keep that

open.

What we're talking about

with Smart Defence are

pooling capabilities,

pooling resources

and that's going to require,

if you like, a new level of trust.

The buzz phrase is:

guaranteed access.

If I own a certain capability

and I want to do something with it,

nationally, I don't have a problem.

If however I've only got that capability

because I've developed that jointly

with an ally or a collection of allies,

then there has to be some sense...

some rules of the road

about how we all can make use

of that capability when we need it.

Why will Smart Defence

work this time?

The simple fact is, almost

since the Alliance was founded

it's been clear that there have

been many benefits available

if nations could cooperate more

in terms of the coordination in

missions and defence procurement.

But it's always been

extremely difficult to do

because decisions on defence

procurement are taken nationally.

The time has come when,

if you like, now there is no choice.

The situation is getting to the degree

where defence capabilities

you could see a step decrease,

unless more radical action is taken

to get better value for money.

The benefits have always been there,

but now the task is actually urgent.

Is Smart Defence

a make-or-break project for NATO?

The predictions of the Alliance's

demise have been around

for as long as the Alliance.

And I would have to say

that the Alliance's history is littered

with dashed expectations

about capabilities initiatives.

The acronyms go on: CDI, DCI, PCC,

Prague Capabilities Commitment,

the usability goals...

It's not a new story.

And the Alliance is

a remarkably resilient organisation.

So, I would hesitate to describe

any initiative as being

make-or-break.

I do think that it is

extremely important

that NATO grasps the nettle

of getting better value for money

out of its resources collectively.

I do think that what we are seeing,

are some constructive initiatives

that will help NATO do that.

I'd like to think that there'll be

an awful lot of projects emerging

in Chicago and afterwards

that will breathe life

and give life to Smart Defence.

But I don't think

that the Alliance's future, if you like,

would be made or broken on one

particular procurement initiative.