TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 8 °C Tuesday 21 May, 2013

US budget woes could threaten European missile defence plans

A slice of the US defence budget is expected to be cut following a breakdown in talks in the US.

Sen. Patrick Toomey arrives for a meeting with bi-partisan members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
Sen. Patrick Toomey arrives for a meeting with bi-partisan members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
Image: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

A BREAKDOWN IN high-stakes budget talks in US Congress could threaten plans for a missile defence shield in Europe.

Congressional negotiators have shown little sign they will be able to meet Wednesday’s deadline for reducing the deficit by $1.2 trillion over 10 years. If they fail to agree, a new law mandates cuts throughout the federal government, including a big slice of the defence budget.

While it is not known what military spending would be cut, an expensive program aimed primarily at defending Europe is unlikely to be spared.

The U.S. sees the missile defence system, aimed at countering a threat from Iran, as part of its contribution to the NATO military alliance. With the United States often complaining that it makes a disproportionately large contribution to NATO, missile defence could be especially vulnerable to budget-cutters.

“A missile defence system for NATO? It’s going to be hard to keep people committed if they think the U.S. is picking up the tab for Europe,” says Kurt Volker, who was ambassador to NATO at the end of the George W. Bush administration.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned that the European missile defence program could be threatened if the special deficit reduction committee should fail to work out a deal. That suggestion, though, may have been intended mostly to nudge lawmakers to resolve their differences and avoid the automatic cuts to one of their favourite programs.

It is still possible that committee members could set aside intense partisan differences and reach a deal by Wednesday. If they do not, Congress might find a way to cancel the cuts before they take effect in 2013.

That may only delay the scaling back of the U.S. military role in Europe. A decade-long expansion of military spending appears to be coming to an end, and the Obama administration has indicated it is shifting its foreign policy toward Asia, where it sees the greatest opportunities and threats of coming decades.

“Where does that leave Europe? Lower down the list,” says Todd Harrison, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Beyond missile defense, the automatic cuts could prompt the U.S. to save money by shifting some warships away from Europe but probably would not lead to fewer U.S. troops there.

The United States has already reduced its presence in Europe from more than 200,000 in 1989 to slightly more than 40,000 today. It has plans for a further pullback by 2015 but is unlikely to accelerate that simply because there are no short-term savings to be had from moving troops out of their European bases.

“We can’t take the remaining bases with us,” says Christopher Wiley, an analyst with the trans-Atlantic relations program at the Bertelsmann Foundation who is preparing a report on the impact of budget cuts on U.S. policy in Europe. “It’s not a good place to save cash.”

In September the US and Romania agreed on the construction of a missile defence shield to be built in Romania as part of a wider NATO project to bolster defence in Europe.

NATO “has no intention of intervening in Iran”

US signs missile defence deal with Romania

Read next:

Comments (10 Comments)

  • What a pity for all the little boys with their big toys. Wish they could ALL grow up!

    Reply
  • Wow. Just wow. The world is in an economical crisis, famine ravaging the world and a greater divide between rich and the poor and they want a missle defence system in Europe tp “protect” us against Iran. Sick of these made up wars and propaganda to scare the masses and to keep us quiet and meek.

    Reply
  • Now that really is a shame

    Reply
  • RDX862 19/11/11 #

    Health care 7.09% GDP, Education 6.12% GDP, Defense 5.85% GDP, Welfare 5.01% GDP.

    Defense spending is only part of the problem, even the two wars have cost less than $2 trillion which is not much if you compare it to the $15 trillion deficit. It has more to do with wanting to maintain a low tax environment with low income taxes on rich people, no federal VAT, tax subsidies for oil companies, low gasoline tax, tax rebates for large corporations, tax loopholes, etc.

    Reply
    • RDX862 19/11/11 #

      “Seventy-eight of the 280 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2010. Twenty-five of these companies enjoyed multiple no-tax years, bringing the total number of no-tax years to 108. In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $156 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $55 billion in income taxes as the 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they reported negative taxes (often receiving outright taxrebate checks from the U.S.Treasury), totaling $21.8 billion.”

      http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf

      Reply
    • random 20/11/11 #

      One of these things is not like the others…

      Reply
  • For many years now the USA has prioritised defence and missile spending, far outweighing what it spends on welfare, education, health etc. Obsession with military and warfare has resulted in their deficit in trillions. The first cuts should be there and maybe the less well off might finally be looked after.

    Reply
  • One area vested interests rule….arms manufacturers have a right hand seat in the Oval office.

    Reply
  • When did Europe as a block ask for this missile defense? They might be going along with it, but its my understanding that its the USA’s baby!

    Reply

Add New Comment