donderdag 25 februari 2016

Higher defence budget for new submarines

“We were waiting for the call to shoot,” an elderly man told me prior to a meeting on the acquisition of new Dutch submarines (Feb 15, 2016). In 1962 he had been embarked on a submarine when the Indonesians transported troops by sea to Papua New Guinea, at that time the last but contested Dutch colony in Asia. The call did not come and thousands of Indonesian troops entered Papua to throw out the colonizer – and become the new colonizer.

The old man told more exciting stories. Sailing near – making close-up pictures - or even just under Russian vessels during the Cold War. They also entered a US carrier battle group – a group of naval vessels organised around an aircraft carrier - without being noticed. Recently the Dutch website marineschepen.nl published a similar story. In 1999 Dutch Walrus submarine was able in an exercise to virtually sink the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt plus 8 escorting vessels. It shows the power and danger of submarines.

The meeting on the Dutch submarine acquisition, organised in The Hague by the Officers Associations (GOV) and the Dutch Atlantic Commission, can bee seen as the start of a public campaign for higher military expenditures to be able to buy new submarines. The attendants at the meeting unanimously agreed that without a budget increase this will be impossible. But for what reason should the Dutch need those expensive invisible boats? How will they find their way on the worldwide, supply-driven market for submarines? Former Secretary of Defence Wim van Eekelen, sitting on the front row, asked how the costs would be kept under control. He had bad memories about his own time in government when costs of a similar project had run out of hand. The Walrus scandal is one of the more well known Dutch political affairs. “We will fence the costs and the general accounting office is already involved,” reassured speaker Commander Niels Woudstra of the Dutch military academia.

The meeting in The Hague was a warming-up for the Parliamentary debates beginning in March 2016 – with a round table, technical briefing and the official start of the acquisition process. The military staff already seems to have made up its mind; research investments in the new boats started years ago. At the Ministry of Defence a staff engineer has been silently working on the development of the new ships. Before now, the MoD had not want the plans for the subs to make headlines while the defence budget was being cut. Engineer Van den Broek-de Bruijn can finally present her work in public. In June 2016, she will speak in Lillestrøm, Norway at the Underwater Defence Technology (UDT) fair on Submarine Performance and Requirement Evaluation Method. After working on her own for many years she is now part of a whole team preparing the acquisition process. Only a nod by the Parliament is needed to get the process in motion.

For years, the Dutch military staff has been preparing the acquisition of new submarines, amidst decreasing defence spendings. Now the time seems to be ripe and the plan has been presented at a meeting in The Hague. During the meeting it became clear what the Ministry of Defence wants. A medium submarine, something between a big nuclear one and the smaller ones used in the littorals for home defence. A submarine which can operate efficiently in the salt water of the Red Sea and the sweeter seawater of the Baltic Sea (both with its own upward pressure, which has big effects on weight needed to submerge and thus the size to trim the submarine) and in deep water and shallow littorals. It must be expeditionary, which means that it can operate robustly in all fields of the spectrum of violence, independent if necessary after it has left the harbour.

Weaponization must be divers and flexible. The current class of Dutch submarines has a torpedo to sink a big ship – last example of big a ship sinking is Argentine cruiser General Belgrano during the Malvina's/Falkland conflict, 1982, with the deaths of 323 Argentine crewmen - but has no weapons for smaller opponents nor for anti-air warfare. The submarines must be future-proof for thirty years; be more silent than the present Walrus-class, able to take more Special Forces (SOF) on board including their equipment; have capabilities for different forms of intelligence gathering, have an air independent propulsion (AIP) system, and large network centric capabilities for communication and coordination. And they must be able to operate with drones; an armed underwater branch of unmanned vehicles (UUV's) is looming over the horizon. This last development makes a future-proof submarine a major challenge. Many of the tasks – intelligence gathering, even shoot to sink operations, find other submarines – will be done in the future by even more silent UUV's with longer endurance capabilities to submerge.

Bigger and more capable, means more expensive, but also raises the question who will built the boats. The big Dutch submarines wharfs are gone, but the Netherlands still has submarine export activities. Every year, a number of arms export licenses are granted for equipment to upgrade or overhaul the Taiwanese submarines, ordered by Tapei at Wilton Feijnoord late 1980 (See table 2010-2014). The technology know-how is still in the country; in the MoD, and in ship-design bureaus Nevesbu and Marin. But the ships will will have to be built elsewhere. Considering the special wishes of the Dutch navy, only few of the international wharfs will be able to build it.

Dutch export licenses for Sea Dragon-class submarines, 2010-2014
Source: Maandrapportages militaire goederen 2010-2014


“It will be the Germans.” my neighbour in the meeting murmurs. But although German HDW/Thyssen wharfs might have a lot of experience, they have only build smaller ships so far. In fact there are only two obvious parties with the required experience, Kockums from Sweden and the Australian Submarine Corp. Together they were the major parties which build the Collins class submarines, based on a Kockums (471) design. In early 2015, the most prominent Dutch conglomerate of ship wharfs Damen preluded on the Dutch acquisition by joining forces with Saab Kockums. Commander Woudstra of the Dutch navy said clearly in The Hague: “We do not know yet where we will buy them. But we will involve the Golden Triangle and international partners, such as Norway and Canada.” Involving the Golden Triangle means the ministry, the defence industry and the knowledge and research institutes, and in fact says that he will try to give the Dutch naval industry part of the job.

Competition on the market for submarines is severe. Asia is potentially the most interesting regions looking for extension of its fleet. “Estimates put the number of modern diesel-electric submarines operating in the Pacific at upwards of 130 by 2020,” states retired naval officer Krokel (Naval Institute Proceedings, February 2016). When the Netherlands – with a third party like Kockums - will enter this competition, it will contribute to the push factors on this market and make it even more supply driven. When you start to invest in the development of a new weapon system, exports can already be anticipated. You cannot blame the shipbuilders for wanting to gain from investments. Damen shipyard wants “to explore future opportunities in the international submarine market,” and ”in addition to this [potential Walrus-class submarine replacement programme] project, Saab and Damen will also explore ways in which they might bid jointly on other submarine procurement programmes.”

While being build, the vessels will already become partly outdated by the UUV revolution. For some tasks however big ships will continue to be indispensable, like for SOF-transport in/out areas where secret operation is desired, or for on the spot translation and analysis of gathered intelligence. (Dutch submarines were used the past decades for intelligence gathering on three continents.) To keep those special 'niches' for the Dutch forces, the defence budget will have to grow. And that will make the Netherlands again a party on the international market for submarines. But however sensational the stories of the military planners are, the acquisition must be regarded on a cost and profit level. The Dutch parliament should consider twice if this very expensive acquisition suites the Netherlands and – first and foremost – if it does contribute to a more secure world.

dinsdag 9 februari 2016

Meer altijd maar meer

De NAVO-budgetten voor wapenaankopen groeien. In het NAVO rapport over het jaar 2015 stelt de militaire verdragsorganisatie dat in 2014 17,4% van de uitgaven van de NAVO-lidstaten werden gebruikt voor materieelaankopen. In 2015 was dit 2 procent meer, namelijk 19,7%. Jane's Defence Weekly (3 februari 2016, blz. 12) schrijft dat bij 23 van de 28 bondgenoten de uitgaven voor nieuw materieel toenamen. De NAVO is nog steeds verantwoordelijk voor meer dan de helft van de wereldwijde militaire uitgaven. Die groei is dan ook goed nieuws voor de wapenindustrie. In absolute cijfers betekent de 2 procent bijna US$ 18 miljard. Om een idee van verhouding te geven: US$ 18 miljard ongeveer de gecombineerde omvang aan wapenimporten door de 14 grootste klanten in 2014.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_127537.htm

Deze voor de wapenindustrie gunstige ontwikkeling wordt veroorzaakt door de perceptie dat de wereld steeds gevaarlijker wordt. Achtereenvolgende Secretaris Generaals van de NAVO hadden allemaal een zin die ze keer op keer herhaalden: NAVO lidstaten moeten meer uitgeven aan defensie. Vaak werden en worden deze woorden begeleid met een bont scala aan dreigingen, zoals ISIS, Rusland, China, Taliban, terrorisme, vuile bommen, migranten, klimaatvluchtelingen, cyberaanvallen, en ook de traditionele klacht over free riding over de rug van Amerikaanse uitgaven. Dat de NAVO meer dan 50% van alle wereldwijde militaire uitgaven voor haar rekening neemt (de VS alleen is al verantwoordelijk voor 35%) wordt nauwelijks genoemd. Rusland, gezien als een grote bedreiging, is verantwoordelijk voor slechts 4,5% van de wereldwijde militaire uitgaven. Het leeuwendeel van de wapenaankopen gaat al ten koste van de westerse belastingbetaler, maar het constante herhalen dat de wereld een gevaarlijke plek is geworden blijkt eindelijk vruchten af te werpen. Een groot aantal NAVO-leden hebben hun militaire budgetten verhoogd, met name voor wapenaankopen.

AntiWar.com, een Amerikaanse website met informatie over en tegen oorlogen, publiceerde onlangs een artikel waarin de de standpunten van de Amerikaanse presidentskandidaten worden vergeleken. De schrijver, Thomas F. Lee, beschrijft hoe alle kandidaten stellen dat de wereld zich in een gevaarlijke situatie bevindt. "Amerika moet een leidende positie nemen in een gevaarlijke wereld," meent Hillary Clinton. Om zich te distanti
ëren van naïef optimisme stelt Bernie Sanders: "We leven in een moeilijke en gevaarlijke wereld, en er zijn geen gemakkelijke of magische oplossingen." (...) Marco Rubio's campagne website dendert binnen met: "De wereld is nog nooit zo gevaarlijk geweest als vandaag."
Lee veronderstelt dat die opmerkingen over toenemend gevaar zullen leiden tot nog hogere militaire uitgaven. Hij adviseert zijn lezers om eerst naar de feiten te kijken. Het is minder beroerd dan veronderstelt. Het aantal slachtoffers van gewapende conflicten daat wereldwijd al jaren, om maar eens iets te noemen. "We moeten bereid zijn om die vooruitgang te benoemen met een geestdrift die betrokkenheid stimuleert. Bevrijd van ongegronde zorgen, kunnen we werken aan een vreedzamer en menswaardige wereld," concludeert Lee.

Het is niet alleen Lee die ons vraagt naar de wereld te kijken op een manier die we niet meer gewend zijn. Het Nederlandse maandblad Militaire Spectator (nr. 1, 2016 blz. 18/04) publiceerde een langartikel over de toenemende veiligheid in de wereld gedurende een lange periode. De auteur, majoor Ducheateau-Polkerman, werkt bij de
Staf van het Commando Landstrijdkrachten (CLAS). Dit terwijl de minister Hennis-Plasschaert van Defensie herhaaldelijk spreekt over een minder veilige wereld. "Politici, hoogwaardigheidsbekleders en 'de gewone burger' lijken ervan overtuigd dat de wereld steeds onveiliger wordt. Ze lijken elkaar bovendien na te praten. Dit “ondanks de geringe harde bewijzen hiervoor. Er is juist des te meer hard bewijs voor het tegendeel." Volgens deze militaire expert wordt het gevoel van gevaar gebruikt om een hoger budget los te weken voor het Ministerie van Defensie. Het aanwakkeren van angst is een effectief instrument om een groter stuk van de taart te krijgen.

Thomas Lee merkt op dat het schilderen van een slechtste situatie ook gebruikt wordt als een mechanisme om aandacht te trekken voor een kwestie. Soms is dit noodzakelijk. Er zijn inderdaad delen van de wereldbevolking die moeten leven in ernstige en gevaarlijke situaties. Zoals de bevolking in Jemen, waar een wrede en in het Westen nauwelijks opgemerkt oorlog gaande is. In 2014 verkocht het Nederland wapens aan zes landen die deelnemen aan de Saoedische geleide coalitie in de oorlog in Jemen, zoals Stop Wapenhandel en Pax onlangs schreef in een brief aan ledenvan de Tweede Kamer. De Tweede Kamer bespreekt eerdaags het Nederlandse wapenexportbeleid van 2014.  

 
Het Nederlandse ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken heeft beloofd te onderzoeken of Nederlandse wapens zijn gebruikt in de oorlog in Jemen, maar waarschuwde in een recente brief aan het Parlement dat dit onderzoek moeilijk zal zijn omdat 1) de Saoedische coalitie tegen externe controles is en 2) het vooral gaat om de verkoop van componenten.

Het eerste argument doet wenkbrauwen fronsen. Nederland levert wapens aan landen die niet bereid zijn om inzicht te geven in het gebruik ervan? Zelfs niet als er bezorgdheid bestaat over schendingen van het internationaal recht en de mensenrechten? Het tweede component-argument is gemakkelijk te weerleggen. Het onderzoeksrapport van Stop Wapenhandel, dat de aanleiding was voor het ministerieel onderzoek, begint met de identificatie van door de coalitie gebruikte houwitsers, F-16 gevechtsvliegtuigen, fregatten, patrouilleboten en tanks van Nederlandse origine of met Nederlandse onderdelen. De Nederlandse overheid hoeft niet te zoeken naar onderdelen, het moet gewoon kijken naar de wapens waarin deze onderdelen worden gebruikt en naar de geweren, kanonnen en tanks die gebruikt zijn voor het afvuren van de geleverde kogels, granaten en raketten.

Het goede nieuws is dat de wereld een veiligere plaats is dan je zou denken op grond van de krantenkoppen. Het slechte nieuws is dat het goede nieuws is wordt overschreeuwd door een sterke en krachtige lobby voor hogere militaire uitgaven en meer wapenhandel.

Martin Broek

Donderdag 11 februari 2016 tussen 15:00-18:00 zal het jaarlijkse wapenhandel debat plaatsvinden. Het is live te volgen op http://www.tweedekamer.nl/vergaderingen/livedebat/thorbeckezaal

More always more

NATO budgets for arms acquisitions are growing. In the NATO report on 2015 the military treaty organisation states that in 2014, 17.4% of NATO members budgets were used for acquisitions. In 2015 this was 2 percent more, namely 19.7%. Jane's Defence Weekly (Feb. 3, 2016, p. 12) writes that 23 of the 28 allies have increased their spending on new equipment. As NATO still counts for over half of world's military expenditures, this is wonderful news for the defence industry. In absolute figures the 2 percent increase means that almost US$ 18 billion is added to the materiel budgets. To give an idea of the size of this figure: this is comparable with the combined budgets of the fourteen highest ranking arms importers of 2014.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_127537.htm


http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/html/export_toplist.php
This rewarding development – for the arms industry, that is - stems from the perception that the world is becoming more dangerous. Successive NATO Secretary Generals have had one line which they repeated over and over: The members need to spent more on defences. Often this was and is accompanied by the mentioning of a wide variation of threats, such as ISIS, Russia, China, Taliban, terrorism, nuclear, migrants, climate refugees, cyber attacks, and also the traditional complaint about free riding on US-expenses. That NATO is already responsible for over 50% of of all global military expenses (US alone is responsible for 35%) is hardly ever mentioned. Russia, considered a major threat, is responsible for only 4.5% of global miliary spending. The lion share of arms purchases is already on the burden of Western tax payers, but the constant repeating that the world has become a dangerous place is at last paying off. A large number of NATO members have increased their military budgets, especially for acquisitions.

AntiWar.com, an American website with information on and against wars, published an article by Thomas F. Lee. Lee writes on the positions of the candidates for the US presidential elections. All candidates state that the world is in a dangerous situation. “America must lead in a dangerous world,” solemnly says Hillary Clinton. Relieving us of naïve optimism, Bernie Sanders advises: “We live in a difficult and dangerous world, and there are no easy or magical solutions.” (…) Marco Rubio’s campaign website thunders: “The world has never been more dangerous than today.”
Lee supposes that those remarks will lead to higher military spending and advises his readers to look at the facts first. Those facts are not as bad as suggested: “We must be willing to tell the truth about continuing human progress in a spirit that encourages excitement and engagement. Freed from unwarranted fear, we can work to accelerate the journey toward an even more peaceful, humane world,” he concludes.

It is not only Lee who asks us to look at the world in a way we are no longer used at. The Dutch monthly Militaire Spectator (no 1, 2016 pp. 4-18) has a long read on the increasing global safety over a long period of time (in Dutch tables in English). The author, Major Ducheateau-Polkerman, works at the Central Staff offices of the Dutch Army (CLAS). She notices that globally the number of victims in conflicts is showing a downward trend over the past decades, although minister of Defence of the Netherlands Hennis-Plasschaert speaks repeatedly about a less secure world. “Politicians, high ranking officials and the 'ordinary citizen', they all seem to think that the world becomes insecure. They also seem to repeat each other.” But “their is no hard evidence for this. On the contrary, there is ample evidence of the opposite.” According to this military expert, the perception of danger is used to get higher budgets for the MoD. Creating fear is a common tool to get a bigger piece of the State's cake.

Thomas Lee noticed that painting the worst situation is used as a mechanism to attract attention to a subject. Sometimes this is inevitable and necessary; some populations are indeed in grave and dangerous situations. Such as the population inYemen where a cruel and in the West hardly noticed war is going on. In 2014 the Netherlands sold arms to six countries participating in the Saudi led coalition in the Yemen war, as Stop Wapenhandel and Pax recently wrote in a letter to Dutch Members of Parliament about to discuss 2014 Dutch arms export policy. The Dutch ministry of Foreign Affairs has promised to investigate if these Dutch weapons have been used in the war in Yemen, but warned in a recent letter to Parliament that that this research will be difficult because 1) the coalition is against external inspections, 2) it is mainly the sale of components.

The first argument should raise eyebrows. The Netherlands delivers weapons to countries who are not prepared to give insight in their use? Even not if there are concerns about human rights and violations of international law? The second components-argument is easy to refute, as is shown in a Stop Wapenhandel research report on which the investigation promise is made. The report starts with the identification of coalition-used howitzers, F-16 fighter aircraft, frigates, patrol vessels and tanks of Dutch origin or containing Dutch components. The Dutch government does not have to look for components, it simply has to look for the weapons in which these components are used and the cannisters, guns, cannons, and tanks which are firing the delivered grenades and missiles.

The good news is that the world is a safer place than one should think when reading the papers. The bad news is that the good news is over-screamed by a strong and powerful lobby for higher military expenses and more arms trade.

Martin Broek
Written for Stop Wapenhandel


Thursday 11 februari 2016 between 15:00 – 18:00 the Dutch annual arms trade debate takes place. It can be watched live at http://www.tweedekamer.nl/vergaderingen/livedebat/thorbeckezaal