Like you I am eagerly awaiting HMG’s national security strategy update set for this Thursday and next week’s IPPR report on national security.* Both publications have been making their way round Whitehall in the last few weeks – both are excellent pieces of work. But I’m a concerned. In a ‘gem’ of a comment piece today Philip Stephens suggests that:
‘Safeguarding national security may be the first duty of government, but it seems the least said the better before the general election…’ ‘When it comes to defence, we are greeted with a conspiracy of silence…’
This is true up to a point (a General Election hasn’t yet been formally called – so once the firing gun is sounded it’s every security soundbite for themselves) but there is something else – I don’t think the two reports are actually going to catalyse the debate on national security parties should be having. By the looks of it we’re only going to discuss one aspect: defence. For example:
The IPPR report enunciates the multiple challenges – from a fast-shifting geopolitical landscape and widespread state failure to nuclear proliferation and jihadi terrorism – that should be preoccupying political leaders. It looks beyond conventional external threats to the risks flowing from climate change, energy shortages and domestic radicalism. Britain will not have much use here for fast jets and nuclear submarines.
Well quite.
Is it really sensible to focus solely on defence? It’s an obvious line of attack for think tanks – and where Lords Ashdown and Robertson feel most comfortable – but I would suggest there are more important issues that need to be discussed in this fast-shifting geopolitical landscape. And lest we forget two of the three main political parties have already gone on record committing to a strategic defence review if they are in Government (I’d suggest the Labour manifesto will also include a promise of one too).
Finally I can’t believe that Britain’s European woes will be solved by simply strengthening the European arm of NATO – after all as Stephens says himself:
Strong relations with Washington will depend increasingly on what Europe, rather than simply Britain, brings to the security table.
This issue is where we need to pitch the debate on national security – it is utterly pointless to talk about platforms (carriers, tanks, planes) if there is no sense of strategic direction, no reasoning behind why we favour closer (or distant) European cooperation, or what the special relationship actually means in practice. Britain’s role needs to be better articulated – until then we will lurch from one policy issue to the next… and that’s not going to help anyone.
*Updated
Update Two: Here’s a good example from the Spectator of how the defence debate is going to go in the next few days – a set of complex issues, relationships and decisions boiled down to an overly simplistic, and crass argument:
This country faces a moment of decision: we either properly fund and equip our armed forces or we retreat from our role on the world stage. If the Conservative party believes that this country should be more than just a peace-keeping nation, then it will have to be prepared to increase defence spending.
Update 3: From The Times today: The Army can’t soldier on without more men Very observant, but somewhat out of step with news that Army chiefs have drawn up emergency plans to cope with an unprecedented recruitment surge following the collapse of Britain’s jobs market.
