From Robert Walter MP

Sir, Philip Stephens' call for Britain and France to do a deal on European defence in their own self-interest is both timely and obvious ("The pressing logic of Anglo-French defence", July 15). Both nations have aspirations for foreign policy projection and military technology beyond their individual budget capacities.

The environment for the sort of new order Mr Stephens suggests has changed in the last few years. The French commitment to reintegration into Nato command structures and President Nicolas Sarkozy’s renewed call for a Défense Europe should be seen as an opportunity and not a threat by Britain. Within the next few months, during the French presidency of the European Union and with the changing of the guard in Washington, there is a very real opportunity to deliver a genuine strategic gift to the incoming US president.

Sadly, Downing Street and the defence establishment, not just David Cameron's Conservatives as Mr Stephens suggests, still regard the French suggestion of European defence co-operation as some kind of annexation of defence policy to Brussels. Not even the possibly fated Lisbon treaty does that, but leaves defence firmly in the hands of national governments while anticipating enhanced "permanent structured co-operation". The truth is that only two nations in Europe have any prospect of making this work: Britain and France.

Britain and France can afford to buy new aircraft carriers, but sadly have little money left over to upgrade the rest of their navies. Such a capability makes little strategic contribution to the Nato alliance and still leaves us unnecessarily dependent on the US. Most of our European partners cannot afford aircraft carriers, strategic heavy lift, in-flight refuelling tankers and host of other expensive pieces of hardware. But they can afford frigates, tanks and infantry. As the EU battlegroup concept will hopefully prove, with no loss of sovereignty, structured co-operation can be a win-win solution.

This leaves just the thorny question of command and control. Europe lacks an effective forward planning capability that can swing into action at short notice. Nato has that at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE). At present that facility is available to the EU under the “Berlin plus” arrangements, and is currently used for the EU peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. If the US is overstretched elsewhere and Europe is to take greater responsibility for its own defence, French reintegration should be used as the catalyst to reform Nato command structures.

We should end the speculation on creating a new EU command centre in Brussels and locate it just 30km away at SHAPE under European command. This would firmly anchor European defence policy within the alliance and would not change the balance of power up the road at Nato HQ in Brussels.

What it does mean is that European nations must step up to the plate and make a real and effective contribution to the defence of Europe, to the alliance and to world security.

Robert Walter, Chairman, Defence Committee, European Security and Defence Assembly, 75775 Paris, France