“A special relationship for our generation and our times”
The British Prime Minister used these words in his address to both Houses of the United States Congress on 4 March 2009. Mike Maiden, head of the BAB Defence, Aerospace and National Security Forum in London, offers some thoughts on what the words mean in the context of defense and security
Before and after President Obama’s inauguration there was speculation – mainly in the British media – about whether the US-UK relationship would continue to be regarded as “special” by the new Administration. During Prime Minister Brown’s recent visit to Washington, the word “special” was used explicitly by both Gordon Brown and the President and this may be taken as prima facie evidence that the relationship will indeed continue to be special, based as it is on shared history, shared values, shared democratic traditions, shared language, shared global objectives – both political and economic – and a trading and investment relationship that brings together the world’s largest and second largest investors.
These characteristics give US-UK relationship depth and durability but, as Mr Brown’s words imply, for the relationship to remain special it must also remain relevant. The main focus for Mr Brown’s address to Congress was the need for international co-operation in responding to the current financial crisis and the leadership role that only the US is able to play, with the support of countries like the UK, in finding a way through the “economic hurricane”. But the US will also continue to be the de facto Western leader in the area of defense and security, again with the strong support of the UK. Here too, therefore, the relationship needs to remain relevant to “our generation and our times”.
Special or unique?
In some ways, to describe the US-UK defense and security relationship as “special” is to understate it. It is arguable that the defense and security relationship is, in fact, unique. Both the US and the UK enjoy ties with many other countries and international organizations in areas of political, economic, military, social and academic co-operation. But the combination of the closeness of US-UK links across their defense and security co-operation, including on nuclear deterrence, intelligence sharing, military operations and training, military acquisition programs and counter-terrorism and law enforcement, and both countries’ readiness to demonstrate global reach, is not currently replicated with any other international partner.
And this depth of co-operation is also reflected at the industry level. American and British defense companies have wellestablished and successful business entities and relationships in each other’s home markets and are increasingly starting to address the global overall defense and security market. Companies such as BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, QinetiQ and Cobham have significant footprints in the US and, altogether, some 100,000 US jobs across 50 states are directly supported by the UK defense sector. In the UK, US majors including Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman are an important part of the industrial landscape and are key members of the Ministry of Defence’s supplier base.
These and the many other companies that form part of the US/UK defense and security industrial base are – at the same time – industrial partners and international competitors. But they have become adept at managing these superficially contradictory realities and at working together in support of our war-fighters, whether on major defense acquisition programs such as the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter or in helping to address the continuously evolving threats our forces face, such as improvised explosive devices.
During the Prime Minister’s visit, the President said the US/UK relationship “is not only special and strong, but will only get stronger as time goes on”. So what role can and should the defense and security industries in the US and UK play in delivering that vision? Three areas occur to me: understanding and helping to define the requirements for the military and security capabilities of the future; addressing and exploiting the continuum between defense and security; and leveraging technology to provide solutions to both.
Future military capability
As the US and British governments determine the steps that need to be taken to weather and then recover from the global down-turn, it is inevitable – and has already been signaled in both countries – that adjustments will need to be made to public spending plans, including for defense and security. At the same time, changes in the scope and nature of current military operations – as exemplified in Iraq and Afghanistan – when compared against the planning assumptions on which our armed forces are largely configured and equipped, mean that there is likely to be a reassessment and rebalancing of the investment in capabilities and technologies.
In the US, these issues may be a focus for the next Quadrennial Review. In the UK it is widely expected that, after the next general election and irrespective of which party forms the next government, there will be a defense review to inform decisions about future investment in defense forces and capability. In both cases, companies in the sector with their expert knowledge of the potential of emerging technology and how to exploit it cost-effectively have much to offer to the debate, both in terms of understanding what capabilities the future defense and security environment will require and how they can be provided efficiently.
The defense and security continuum
As the name of the BAB forum I chair evidences, in today’s and probably tomorrow’s world of asymmetric threats and the need to have appropriately flexible and scaleable responses to them, the boundary between defense and security is not only becoming blurred but it is important that we do not allow traditional distinctions to get in the way of learning from and exploiting experience and ideas.
We have already seen moves towards developing overarching strategies for national security that embrace traditional defense and security domains – for example France’s 2008 White Paper on Defense and National Security – and it would not be surprising to see similar approaches being taken in the US and the UK. The industry that spans the defense and security space has a valuable role to play in exploiting the synergies and complementary capabilities in military, paramilitary, intelligence and law and order forces, and enabling them to work more effectively together both within and across national borders.
Leveraging technology
The key to addressing both challenges is technology. The US and the UK – at both government and industry levels – already work closely together to leverage technology in order to deliver “battle-winning” capabilities to our armed forces and intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. But that is an unending challenge as the threats we face continue to evolve, and it is important that we are able to share information and technology as effectively and efficiently as possible. It is therefore welcome that there are ongoing attempts to improve the ability of our governments and industries to do so.
In 2007, recognizing the closeness of the bilateral relationship in so many other areas, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair signed the US-UK Defense Trade Co-operation Treaty which, once implemented, will establish an approved community within which, subject to a range of prescribed parameters and safeguards, the US and UK governments and their defense and security industries will be able to share information and technology more easily and more effectively. The Treaty was ratified by the British government last year and now awaits the approval of the US Senate, which both governments and the transatlantic industry hope will be given early in the new Presidency.
Implementation of the arrangements provided for in the Treaty
would in itself be tangible evidence of the strength of the bilateral
defense and security relationship and a powerful example of “a
special relationship for our generation and our times”. 
back
