The United States has threatened to oppose Britain’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands if Andy Burnham does not increase defence spending, The Telegraph can reveal.
The proposal is among measures being drawn up by senior defence officials at the Pentagon as an incentive to hit Nato’s 5 per cent spending pledge.
A senior US official told The Telegraph that Britain was likely to receive “special attention” in Washington’s review of its allies’ commitment to Nato, which will examine whether member nations have credible paths toward the target.
Officials in Washington believe that while Britain has the potential to be a leading defence partner, the defence investment plan, announced by Sir Keir Starmer in June, was not enough of a “step in the right direction”.
“I would expect the UK to receive special attention because it has so much potential,” the official said of the review. “We will therefore continue efforts to incentivise and enable the UK to step up in a major way.”
Asked about the prospect of the US changing its position on the Falklands, they added: “I can say that they [conversations] are candid and nothing is being ruled out as far as options for encouraging the sort of burden-sharing that we seek.”
The discourse from Washington will concern Mr Burnham and John Healey, his Chancellor, whose first Budget will fail to commit to spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence by 2030.
Andy Burnham with John Healey, whose Budget will not make any commitments towards spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence – Annabel Lee-Ellis/PA Wire
When he quit as defence secretary in June, Mr Healey claimed that Sir Keir was “unable” and the Treasury “unwilling” to spend the money needed to defend the country.
However, government sources told the Financial Times that the Chancellor would not make any commitments relating to the 3 per cent figure in his Budget on Oct 28.
‘We need the UK to step up’
Donald Trump’s administration is pushing Nato into what officials are describing as a new era of the alliance, dubbed Nato 3.0. This would require European countries and Canada to take primary responsibility for the conventional defence of Europe.
“We’ve seen the defence investment plan, and it is a step in the right direction. But a step in the right direction isn’t enough. Given the scale of challenges facing us and our allies, we need allies like the United Kingdom to step up in major, fundamental ways. Fortunately, some already are. We strongly encourage the UK to do likewise,” the official added.
The US officially adopts a position of neutrality over who holds sovereignty over the Falklands, while recognising the United Kingdom’s administration of the islands. Argentina also lays claim to the islands, but Sir Keir’s spokesman reiterated earlier this year that the UK Government could “not be clearer” that the islands were a sovereign British Overseas Territory.
An internal Pentagon memo leaked in April first suggested that the US may use a potential review of its Falklands stance as diplomatic leverage against Nato allies. Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, played down the leak as a minor internal decision.
However, The Telegraph understands the discussion about using the Falklands as leverage is ongoing in the Pentagon.
On Thursday, Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s top policy official, held talks with Nato allies in Brussels over the extent and speed of the US military withdrawal from Europe.
He warned that some member states had to move faster to replace weapons systems that had long been provided by Washington to keep Europe secure.
“We hope to see more from countries like the United Kingdom,” Mr Colby told reporters after the meeting, while praising Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries for their progress in plugging the gaps.
He said that the Pentagon needed to see “major efforts to step up” from Continental allies to “put Europe in a lasting position where it’s going to be able to lead its own defence”.
During closed-door talks with Nato ambassadors, Mr Colby warned that countries which were “behind” would continue feeling pressure from Washington to increase their military expenditure, a source said.
Nato countries have committed to spending 3.5 per cent of their GDP on defence, and a further 1.5 per cent of GDP on security-related infrastructure, by 2035.
This is partly to fill gaps left behind as the US moves its focus away from Europe towards the Indo-Pacific.
A recent US intelligence assessment suggested that Russia could strike Nato’s eastern flank within weeks to test the alliance’s resolve.
Western officials warned on Friday that Vladimir Putin’s campaign of sabotage in Europe risked provoking a “miscalculation” that could accidentally trigger a confrontation with Nato.
Intelligence sources believe the Russian leader does not want a direct military clash with Nato, but does have an “appetite” to conduct “hybrid operations” against the alliance.
Earlier this week John Ratcliffe, the head of the CIA, travelled to Moscow, where he reportedly delivered a bleak assessment of Putin’s war against Ukraine.
Before his talks with Mr Colby on Thursday, Mark Rutte, Nato’s secretary-general, said there was “still much more to be done”.
“We will get there,” he added.
As part of the review, the US has circulated a questionnaire to Nato ambassadors, quizzing them on plans to buy American-made weapons, whether their governments had restricted US use of military bases and whether they had supported Mr Trump’s foreign policy.
The review will decide how many troops remain in Europe and where. Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, will be presented with four options by Nov 6, including changes to the number of forces, troop locations, the speed of adjustments, and the cost of adjustments.
US sees red over Nato’s inability to fight
During his visit to Brussels, Mr Colby is also understood to have raised concerns over Nato’s capability targets. This internal assessment judges whether the alliance is ready to fight a war.
He was said to have complained about the amount of red that featured on the latest version of the colour-coded appraisal. The appraisal uses a green, amber and red traffic light system, with red denoting insufficient capability, to judge whether a Nato ally can carry out its set role within the alliance.
The scheme is intended to ensure that enough resources are available across the land, sea and air domains and to assess individual allies’ contributions in the event of a conflict.
“This isn’t a punitive exercise. To the contrary, an essential part of our strategy is showing allies that as they step up, we are here to help and support them as they do,” the senior official told The Telegraph.
“Whether it’s defence industrial cooperation or other kinds of support and collaboration, it’s all on the table. But we’re going to prioritise working with allies who’ve shown that they’re serious about Nato 3.0.”