Skip to main content
  1. Life
  2. Society & Culture
  3. Social Issues

The British and French Drone Joint Program will Herald the Return of NATO.

See also

Early this year Britain and France agreed Jan. 31 to invest £200 million (US $329 million) for two-year studies on a future combat drone, and signed up for work on an anti-ship missile and an anti-mine system, French government and industry sources said. Defense ministers from the countries signed agreements of commitment at a meeting led by British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President François Hollande, held at the Brize Norton air base in the UK. London and Paris will equally fund a total £120 million over a two-year common feasibility study for the combat drone, dubbed the Future Air Combat System, the French MoD said in a statement. Each country also will fund a total of £80 million for national studies on the unmanned fighter, a defense official and an industry executive said.

International Legal Framework

Carl von Clausewitz theory remain prevalent despite the development of multi polar entities on the international chess board policy instruments like international law create space for soft power and far less aggressive pragmatism. Article 2, Section 1 of the UN Charter states that “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Section 3 states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations.”( Un.org). One has to then inquire as to once warfare has commenced can our warriors be held criminally liable for operations conducted under the command of NATO? Can information gathered by drone surveillance used in international criminal court and what methods are legal to obtain information by drone surveillance? How does this affect the 2009 National Security Strategy and future strategies in the future? And will drone strikes fall under section 3?

Theoretical Framework.

Clausewitz defines war as “…an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will”, specifically defining force as physical force (Clausewitz Chp 1 pg 14). “A struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end.” Clausewitz outlines war as a form of control, and power is necessary to wage war, these factors must be included in a comprehensive description of war. Clausewitz argues that a new proposed comprehensive definition of war follows: War is a deliberate use of power meant to reduce or eliminate an enemy’s source of power in order to produce a favorable change in the opposition’s control structure (governance and policy).

However, political aims, and the actual process of carrying out policies, are a way to govern and therefore control. Clausewitz states that “Strategy is the use of an engagement for the purpose of war. Clausewitz confines his definition of strategy to wars objectives, but does state that “It used to be the custom to settle strategy in the capita and this works only if the government stays close to the army. Clausewitz even describes war as a game of chance, specifically referring to it as a game of cards. Therefore, the dichotomy that Clausewitz’s presents is this: If war is a game of chance. Clausewitz contends that war is merely a continuation of policy by other means. If you consider that policy is the method of control, then his statement is partially correct.

Clausewitz views statecraft as a by product of War he sees war a method or a tool for the initation of statecraft. One can Clausewitz’s trinity as a simplistic relationship between the people, the armed forces and the government, with scant regard for the subtle trinity that lies beneath this. Consequently, he regards ‘trinitarian’ warfare based on his revisionist model as only one type of historical warfare and therefore Clausewitz’s theories are, if not obsolete, then at least incapable of explaining the full spectrum of warfare either past or present. His argument hinges principally on a consideration of ‘low-intensity conflicts’ (LICs), which he believes to constitute the bulk of contemporary conflicts

How are his views applicable today?

When you compare Clausewitz views to EU National Security Goals outlined in the Department of Defense in 2008.

1. Strengthen E.U. security posture in the region.

2. Advance constructive security initiatives and build transnational and partner nation capacity and capabilities in the region.

3. Thwart the emergence of security threats (transnational and HN) in the region.

4. Contribute to E.U. and international initiatives to alleviate the underlying conditions, motivators, and enablers of violent extremism and destabilizing militancy.

5. Enable and improve cooperative security arrangements for improved multinational operating performance.

By applying the concept that that “Strategy is the use of an engagement for the purpose of war. Clausewitz confines his definition of strategy to wars objectives la Clausewitz's establishes three major principles in the first three chapters and throughout his writings. The first being that war should never be seen in what he calls a “Purpose to itself”, rather a way of “physically forcing an entities opposition. To quote Clausewitz directly in chapter one he defines war and says “War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, political commerce”. Clausewitz next principle is war falls into two categories; wars that disarm and wars that achieve limited aims. Clausewitz‘s third principle is that war tends to favor the party employing more force and resources.

Europe Defense Forward

Carl von Clausewitz theory remain prevalent despite the development of multi polar entities on the international chess board policy instruments like international law create space for soft power and far less aggressive pragmatism. Article 2, Section 1 of the UN Charter states that “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Section 3 states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations.”( Un.org). One has to then inquire as to once warfare has commenced can our warriors be held criminally liable for operations conducted under the command of NATO? Can information gathered be legally used in court and what methods are legal in the E.U. and NATO to obtain information? How does this affect the 2014 National Security Strategy and future strategies in the future?

Advertisement