‘Europe can do more’ to help Ukraine, says a former defence secretary

We spoke to the former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace who stood down last summer, and left the Commons after the election last week.

Matt Frei: You heard the new prime minister say 2.5% of GDP on defence, but no date. Should there be a date attached to that number?

Ben Wallace: Yeah, there has to be a date, because if there isn’t, what will happen is the Treasury, the officials and the associated organisations such as the OBR, and other areas like the IFS, they will just simply ignore the rhetoric. They’ll put it down to political rhetoric. They did that under our time. Because ultimately there are two things that the prime minister needs to indicate if he’s to be taken serious on this pledge, which is – one – that he believes a greater share of the public sector spend needs to be spent on defence going forward. Jeremy Hunt said that in his first autumn statement. And then – second most important thing – as Gary Gibbon was, in his interview, getting absolutely right in his questioning – that the sequencing is right and that you have the defence review. I’m not there to tell them to have it in three months or ten months or six months. But whatever it is, the review should report before the comprehensive spending review e.g. the Treasury sets the overall government envelope of spending for the next three to four years. If that is out of sequence, and it has happened in 1998 – it’s happened many times before under Labour and Conservative governments – then what happens is it becomes a Treasury-led defence review, not a threat-led, and defence doesn’t get the correct amount of money it needs.

Matt Frei: Okay, now 2.5% sounds quite ambitious. But of course if Trump becomes president and goes wobbly on Nato – he might even threaten yet again to withdraw from it altogether – with the Americans spending more than two thirds of the money on Nato in their coffers, then 2.5% is ridiculous. This needs to be much higher than that.

Ben Wallace: I think what needs to define whatever we spend is the threat. And it’s a worrying phrase that the prime minister went from – if you remember – ‘economic conditions allow’ to ‘our fiscal rules’. We’re already seeing a bit of a change there. But it is low compared to what the Americans spend. To be fair to Donald Trump – he is the same as Obama – who both said – they both set the 2% originally, Obama set it in 2014 – that it’s time Europe lifted some of the responsibility. 83% of the Nato defence spending is done by countries outside the EU. 83%. All Trump is saying and all Obama said was, ‘Hang on, guys, we’re on the hook to send 340,000 United States servicemen and women to defend Europe. We’re forgoing health or transport’ – whatever else they’re doing – ‘You guys are having a very nice time selling gas to Russia’. At the time that’s what Trump said to Merkel. ‘You should spend more on defence.’ There’s no harm in that and I think it’s the right thing to do. And since then, Putin has become far more dangerous and direct towards Europe and countries in Europe. So therefore, I’m afraid, just like parts of the Cold War, we’re going to have to stand up, man up, be honest – we might have to cut other parts of government to fund our defence, our deterrent.

Matt Frei: But if the Americans spend a lot less on Nato because they’re more interested in China, or if indeed they withdrew all together, which is possible, but not inevitable, then for instance, Ukraine, which is a cause that you care very deeply about, they’ll be thrown under the bus, won’t they? We can’t defend Ukraine without the Americans.

Ben Wallace: First of all, the good news story on Ukraine is that Europe has already contributed collectively more to Ukraine than the United States. So it is not entirely impossible that if America froze out Ukraine, that Europe couldn’t stand up and contribute more assistance to Ukraine. I think that’s really important. What Putin fears the most is actually a united international community. And by the way, that actually costs nothing. The best thing that the next United States president could do is say he supports the cause, that he believes Ukraine was illegally invaded and Russia should get out. But the actual sums of money and how much they want to put in, he should leave to be ambiguous and keep the international community strong together. But Europe can do more if it wants to. We have some of the biggest economies in the world. It’s whether we really want to.

Matt Frei: Okay, briefly and finally, I’ve got to ask you. I know you’re not in parliament anymore, but you are still a Tory. Where do you see your party heading? And under whose leadership? A name, please.

Ben Wallace: I’m not going to give you a name because the one thing – I’ve been in opposition, I entered parliament in 2005. The time we spend now in taking our time to reflect on what we’ve just been through and make sure that we work out what we need to do next and take our time, and bringing the tribe – the Tory tribe – back together, will be time well spent for the future. I think if we rush into a leadership and we pick a leader at a very quick moment, that will not either produce a good outcome. Indeed, it could just make things worse. So I think the first thing is we need to recognise that Labour are now the government. My point on defence here is actually trying to help the Labour frontbench in defence. The Labour ministers in defence, the Labour Ministry of Defence, want more money as well. They’ve said that on a number of occasions. I want good government, so people like you will focus on Keir Starmer. In the meantime the Conservative Party shouldn’t rush. There’s going to be three, four or five years till the next general election. Let’s make sure we get it right.

Matt Frei: Okay. Since you’ve got time and – just a yes or no answer – could one of those names be Wallace? As in you?

Ben Wallace: Wallace is a Mr Wallace now,  I’m not even in parliament.

Matt  Frei: You might get back in again.

Ben Wallace: I took the decision…

Matt Frei: All right, we’re going to leave it there.