MR MARTIN WOLF CBE

19 JUNE 2007

  Q20  Mr Holloway: But is greater co-operation possible, or do the two things contradict each other?

  Mr Wolf: I think it is perfectly possible. I am neutral on this matter. I can well envisage a more effective European security identity that is supportive of the Atlantic Alliance because it leads to greater commitments by all member countries to participate seriously in security activities. I can also perfectly well imagine a greater European security and foreign policy presence that is divisive of the Alliance, and at this stage I do not know which of the two it would be.

  Q21  John Smith: Do you think we can expect to see greater transatlantic co-operation in the military defence industry between the Americans and key NATO allies? Might that be an indication of their thinking in terms of foreign policy and re-engagement?

  Mr Wolf: There has obviously been a very big effort, whose details I do not know, to make our defence industry integrate with the American's. That seems to have been a deliberate decision by BAE, and it seems to have been moderately successful. But I suspect that, first, the Americans do not take the defence industries of Europe seriously and so their interest in co-operation is rather modest; they think they are decades behind. Second, they do not trust them. In this case at least there is a choice. We have to make a choice as a country—I suspect because it is so politicised—whether we want our defence industry to be part of the American system or a nascent European one. Since I am a completely pragmatic human being, I go with the Americans for the obvious reason that they know what they are doing in this field.

  Q22  Chairman: Do you think there is any prospect of further enlargement of NATO?

  Mr Wolf: There must be given the history. Certainly, there are countries that would not mind being members. I have no problem with it in principle, but I am a bit concerned about adding countries that increase obligations but not capacities. I do not object to enlargement in central and Eastern Europe. In principle, we had to make clear that the cold war had ended in the way it did, but there is no doubt it has created problems with Russia, however much one objects to it. Further extension—fairly obviously, Ukraine or something like it—would bring capacity and so would not be unimportant, but it would also raise huge difficulties. It could well happen, but we have to be very careful about it. I do not envisage an extension of NATO into the Middle East, although Israel would bring capacity.

  Q23  Chairman: To paraphrase your evidence, probably incorrectly, you said that if organisations were formed to do something and that activity became irrelevant they should be scrapped, and if an altogether different function needed to be done a new institution should be created. NATO's main activity at the moment is in Afghanistan, which is a long way from the North Atlantic. Do you suggest that that principle should be applied to NATO and a new organisation should be formed to carry out that activity?

  Mr Wolf: On this one I have an open mind. It depends on the effectiveness of NATO as an organisation in this sort of context. It seemed to me that the extension of NATO as a security organisation to deal with security concerns in areas outside Europe after the end of the cold war was not an unreasonable extension of its original mission since it still relied on its essential military capacity. Whether or not it is effective in that regard is precisely what Afghanistan will show. The conclusion may well be that many of the members of NATO are so irrelevant to such activities that their presence is merely a nuisance and it is more sensible to have some other structure. But the question to which I was responding, if I understood it correct, was whether or not NATO should in addition become an institution for security and political integration at a high political level between Europe and the United States. That seems to me to go well beyond its original defensive functions. A modest extension of out-of-area missions is perfectly reasonable if it can be made to work, but I believe that is open to question at the moment. If Afghanistan is seen as a failure I think this is over. If there is an extension to a bigger political stage that seems to me to require a decision essentially to create a transatlantic political community. That is not an insane idea but it will involve much more than NATO.

  Chairman: You may not have been entirely clear as to why you were invited this morning, but, having listened to you for the past half-hour, we are. We are most grateful to you for coming to give such clear, incisive answers to our questions.