A summit had been held in August this year, wherein, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicholas Sarkozy discussed the huge budgetary limitations that both the countries are undergoing presently.
Following this, they have come up with a new plan to share their aircraft carriers. By the next decade, two new carriers will be introduced, as said by the British; whereas, a new modern carrier is to be commissioned by the French: the Charles de Gaulle, in 2001; besides being infected with a blanket of troubles prior to the launch itself.
With this new pact, UK is likely to enter into a ship- sharing agreement with France. To carry on with this deal, Defence Secretary Liam Fox will meet his French counterparts in Paris. But the Unions are of the view that thousands of Clyde shipyard jobs are deliberately being put to risk by this step. UK, with this, is going to downgrade one of its two replacement carriers, worth £5.2 billion, announced in the year 2007.
Of course the British opposition doesn't like it, it's their job to not like whatever the government is doing.
Labour today called for the government to end "damaging speculation" that Britain is considering sharing its aircraft carrier capability with France, a move that could threaten thousands of British jobs.
The plans – reported in the Times today – would signal the creation of a dramatic cooperation pact designed to maintain military power while cutting costs. The Ministry of Defence described the report as "speculation" in the run-up to the publication of the strategic defence and security review, expected next month.
But a source said that ideas for all sorts of cooperation would be "on the table" when the defence secretary, Liam Fox, visits Paris for talks with his French counterparts on Friday, and did not exclude the possibility of the aircraft carriers being discussed.
If the plan went ahead, it could make it easier for the UK to scrap or downgrade one of the two replacement carriers already under construction for the Royal Navy at a cost of £5.2bn.
The National Post has a slightly humorous, and not too inaccurate look at what "sharing" aircraft carriers actually means.
The rumoured plan doesn’t involve jointly constructing or manning vessels, but coordinating the patrol schedules of their respective carriers so that at least one would be at sea at all times. This would give both countries the capability to respond swiftly to threats in their shared North Atlantic area, or to react immediately to crises and disasters around the world (Whether for battle or rescue, few military assets can equal the utility of an aircraft carrier). Whichever carrier was deployed at any given time would remain under the command of its own national government, but there would apparently be contingencies to deal with a purely national military situation.
For instance, while the North Atlantic Treaty requires all NATO allies to respond as one to attacks within North America, Western Europe or the ocean between them, what about an attack on a British or French possession halfway across the world, such as in the Falkland Islands War of 1982? Would France be obligated, in the unlikely event of Falklands II, to battle Argentina until the British could get their own carrier down? That would be plain bizarre for everyone involved. “Pardonez-moi, mes amis … we’re just bombing you until les Anglais arrive.”
Just how seriously do the senior government and military officials of both countries take the concept of pan-European unity? Are they truly willing to place national defence into the hands of another country, especially a traditional enemy, despite the current alliance? In the words of one British veteran, “When push came to shove, France would put its own national interest first. We would lose national independence.” Push may never come to shove. But if it did, the veteran in question — Commander John Muxworthy, (ret’d) — would have a good point. What matters more? Sovereignty or solvency? It is no exaggeration to say that the military history of the next generation may hinge on that question.
By: Brant
No comments:
Post a Comment