ScraperWiki Classic is now read-only.

But don’t worry! You can transfer this scraper to Morph.io if you want to continue editing it.

Transfer to Morph.io

Current status

Idle – next run ASAP

Last run

1 week, 1 day ago

No pages scraped

About this scraper

This scraper has no description.

This scraper is public

Anyone can see this scraper, and any registered user can edit it.

Users who have contributed to this scraper:

body date_scraped permalink minister_name title minister_parlparse_id given_on department where
<p>I would like to add my own appreciation to that of others, and say that it is a great privilege and a pleasure to work with you on the vital task of acquisition reform. <br><br>You approach this difficult issue with insight, courtesy and determination: a great combination when change is needed. Your support for the MoD, for DE&amp;S, for our industry, and in support of our exports has been remarked on by many, and is admired by all. <br><br>I last spoke at a Shrivenham acquisition conference almost two years ago, when my report had yet to be published. Then, I shared with the audience some of my key conclusions. I am sad to say that these conclusions were subsequently leaked to the media.<br> <br>Of course, I was sad that the information itself was leaked, but mostly I was sad that the poor quality PowerPoint slides that someone had made to try to explain my conclusions to others were passed off to the BBC as being my work. I’d never be seen dead producing that kind of low quality graphics.<br><br>But whether in tawdry black and white or glorious Technicolour, the conclusions of that report are now, of course, a matter of record. In some senses, it is a matter of history.<br><br>That “bow wave” of impending costs that I demonstrated was about to descend on the MoD has now crashed down upon us. And it has done so at precisely at the worst possible time, when the government has to retrench more generally, when money is so tight.<br> <br>Sadly, the impact of this perfect storm is all too clear. Key capabilities have had to be cut, important programmes cancelled. Many good and capable crown servants are in the process of being laid off. It is a grim picture for all of us who care about the robust health of the UK’s Armed Forces.<br><br>No part of this reduction is welcome, and indeed the Government has made clear its distaste of the action it has had to take to balance the budget. But the worst example of what has had to happen is in my mind the fate of the Nimrod MRA4 programme.<br><br>It is not because I have a particular view about the importance or otherwise of this capability, I leave that well-worn fight to others. It is because the MoD will have spent £4bn on this capability over the past 15 years and ended up with, nothing.<br><br>That is the worst indictment of the defence programme I can imagine. Just think of what capabilities we could have had for that money: imagine the number of aspects of defence that could have been improved. Or perhaps, don’t. To do so may be too disheartening. <br><br>That the programme had to be abandoned, I have no doubt. The MoD simply could not afford to carry on with that capability, alongside all of the other priorities in the defence budget, and with the limited cash available. <br><br>No, I am not cross because the programme was stopped. My ire is raised because the situation that gave rise to the expenditure of £4bn on a programme we could not afford was predictable. This disaster could have been avoided if action had been taken earlier. <br><br>It is the exemplar par excellence of what happens if the department lives beyond its means. Put simply, if you start more things than you can afford to finish, then sooner or later you are going to waste money by having to cancel some of those projects.<br><br>And what is worse, you will probably waste money on all of your projects along the way because you will slow everything down in a brave attempt to stave off the inevitable.<br><br>My report made a number of points, some say too many. The MoD helpfully, and accurately I think, boiled this down into two key principles. <br><br>First, the MoD must balance its budget over the short, and even more importantly, the long term. We are in a long-term business, and we must plan for the long term. We have to be realistic and clear-eyed about what our programme will cost, and we have to balance what we are planning to buy against the cash we are likely to have. <br><br>Second, we must make sure that DE&amp;S is well set up to acquire and support the equipment within the plan. We have to be able to deliver.<br><br>These two tasks are, I believe, the principle focus that Min(DEST) and I will have in driving forward acquisition reform in the years ahead.</p> <p>So, how is the MoD doing so far? Well, I am pleased to say that the department has made considerable progress on both fronts since I gathered the data for my report two years ago.<br><br>First, the programme is more realistically costed now than it was then, and painful actions were taken in the SDSR to address the bow wave in the programme. This process is not yet complete, as both the Secretary of State and Min(DEST) have made clear on a number of occasions, but a decisive start has been made.<br><br>In parenthesis at this point, I should like to say that I personally have little or no time for those who have criticised the SDSR for making cuts in the defence programme. I believe that ministers and officials have been brave in tackling the problem left to them, and that they have shouldered their responsibilities admirably in acting as they have.<br><br>When confronting the financial picture faced by the MoD, the new government faced three choices: to find more money, almost impossible with a budget deficit in excess of 10 per cent of national income; to pretend, and so to visit further “Nimrods” on a badly-served MoD; or to act courageously to take on the issue. <br><br>I am glad to say that the government chose this last course. It is, and was, the only responsible way. Unfortunately, as ministers have made clear, we are not yet at the end of this difficult and undesirable process. The current budget round, and probably the next few, are going to be extremely difficult for the MoD, as it seeks to get its budget fully back under control. It is not quite “blood, sweat, tears and toil,” but it is certainly going to be “hard pounding gentlemen”.<br><br>In this regard, the task of defence reform, and indeed the test of its success, must be to see whether the defence budget cannot just be balanced, but that institutional mechanisms must be put in place to ensure that it remains balanced into the future. As I know only too well, it is one thing to take weight off, it is quite another thing to keep it off.<br><br>My report recommended a number of actions which I felt would achieve this effect: from placing responsibilities on the Permanent Secretary, through to an Executive Committee of the board, to 10 year fixed MoD budgets and mandatory quinquennial defence reviews. <br><br>It is with some disappointment that I have to observe that many of these measures have not been enacted. And while this is an art, not a science, and there may be many ways to resolve these problems, I do not abandon my views of the way forward until I meet a better model. <br><br>Genuinely balancing this programme, and keeping it balanced so that the organisation has a fighting chance to deliver what is asked of it, must be the overriding test of this aspect of defence reform. I look forward with eager anticipation to what Lord Levene will bring forward. But if the team struggles for a model, I can always point them at my report….<br><br>A balanced and well-costed programme has to be the cornerstone of success for the MoD. I make no apology for repeating the point, because without achieving this outcome, little else is possible. <br><br>We can try to improve skills and processes within DE&amp;S as much as we like, we can splint and tourniquet the system as much as we wish, but in the end, cost growth and time delays will burst out like damp through a repainted wall.<br><br>Let us assume, therefore, that this difficult work of bringing the defence budget into balance has been achieved fully. No mean feat, as I have said, but let us make it so, at least in our mind’s eye. What then? What next? What more do we need to do to improve the performance of the MoD?<br><br>Well, I move on to the second point in the department’s summary of my report. We have to equip Defence Equipment and Support to enable it to be able to deliver.<br><br>In this arena, as in others, I made recommendations for change. Much attention was focused on the Go-Co proposal, which I am pleased to say, gathered almost universal approval, falling just short of any actual support. <br><br>There are reasons I made this recommendation, which we could discuss if you wish. Even though it seems to me extremely unlikely that this idea will be pursued, given the lack of support it received, there is, nonetheless, a need to realise the objectives it sought to achieve.<br><br>I made the point in my report that key disciplines have been downgraded over recent years in the name of saving money, and that the erosions of these functional skills harms the ability of DE&amp;S to deliver. Most saliently, and ironically, our cost-estimating teams have been run down over the past decade, removing our ability to complete that most crucial of tasks, estimating the size of programme we can afford.</p> <p>I also observed how finance, engineering and project management skills had not had the prominence they deserve.<br><br>Happily, as with the point about the size of the programme, I am pleased to be able to report back that good progress has been made in the course of the last two years.<br><br>The Cost Assurance and Analysis Service within DE&amp;S is in the process of being rebuilt and reskilled, to allow us to cost our projects fully. It is absolutely vital that these people have the freedom to advocate their “should cost” views without fear or favour. I intend to back this effort to the hilt.<br><br>Investment has also been made in the finance function of DE&amp;S, to bring greater financial modeling skill into the organisation.<br> <br>I intend to build on this success. I will give greater prominence and control to the Finance, Commercial, Engineering and Project Management functions. I intend to build skills in risk management and project control.  </p> <p>The line management of individual projects will remain strong, but the functional skills that are needed to actually deliver the outcomes need to be built up if we are to succeed.<br><br>It is right that an orchestra needs a conductor, but it also needs the disciplines of strings, woodwind, brass and percussion if the symphony is to be played. And each of those disciplines needs leadership, skill and development if it is to shine.<br><br>Work is in hand to look at this and other issues within DE&amp;S. Over the next few months a team under the leadership of General Chris Deverell will be re-evaluating all aspects of DE&amp;S’s work. This is part of a commitment I made to the workforce when I first arrived, that I would work with them and seek their views about the way forward, before making major changes within DE&amp;S.<br><br>I have also asked the team to look at the relationships between DE&amp;S and MoD Centre, the Front Line Commands, and Industry. I have invited them to look at other large scale procurement and support organisations. I will be encouraging them to explore the skills and secrets of other project management organisations. </p> <p>In some ways, this will be to re-walk a path I trod in my own studies of two years ago. But again, I make no apology for this. In part, because this team may discover many things I missed. In part, because even if they do not, it is only right that the staff of DE&amp;S have the opportunity to explore the ground I have covered, and come to their own views about the best way forward.<br><br>Along the way there will be a synthesis of the independence that outside views bring, along with the expertise that in-house experience offers. I know that everyone is working diligently and co-operatively towards the best possible outcome for the organisation.<br><br>Two main thrusts, therefore in acquisition reform. A deep commitment and drive to balance the budget, and to find ways to keep it balanced, and a thorough and collaborative approach to bringing best practice into DE&amp;S so that it can confound its critics and be justifiably proud of what it delivers to our Armed Forces.<br><br>Before I close, let me touch on two other issues. First, the proposed reduction in numbers within the Ministry of Defence as a whole, and DE&amp;S in particular. This will certainly make it harder to deliver a better output, not least because some of our brightest and best may be tempted by severance packages and a career in the private sector. </p> <p>We will have to strive to avoid losing our talented people in these difficult days. And it may be that this whole process forces us to a fundamental re-evaluation of those services the organisation provides. <br><br>But I would also say this: less does not always mean worse. Sometimes involving too many people complicates decision making and slows down progress. Placing power and responsibility in fewer hands can be motivating and liberating, if we have the confidence to do it. Ironically, we might actually be able to deliver more satisfying and productive careers to those who stay with us, than we have been able to in the past.<br><br>There is a linked point: a great deal has been made by the Defence Reform Unit about accountability. I’m fine with that. Indeed, sometimes people accuse me of taking responsibility for things that are not mine to run! <br><br>Yet to be properly accountable, one also needs the power to act. Too often in government we seek to find someone to blame, only to find out that so many people had a finger in the pie that it is impossible to hold anyone to account.<br><br>If there is a real desire to change this, then I think this would be for the good. But I would urge those involved to understand the full implication of their statements. Accountability has to be matched with decision-making power or it is nothing more than show.<br><br>But accountability with power is a fantastically energising force. It could transform the way that business is done within the whole of government, not just the MoD. If it came to pass, it would make the lives of those given the power to act far more rewarding. Making such a profound cultural shift within government will take huge effort and courage. If it were done, though, it would unleash great spirits.<br><br>All of this will be hard work, but success would be so self-evidently worthwhile that it has to be worth all of the striving. There is real excitement beyond the difficulties of today, much to look forward to. We have much to be proud of already. Let us make the future something to shout about.</p> <p> </p> 2011-03-16 07:13:13 http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SeniorOfficials/202110315RusicranfieldUniversityAcquisitionReformConference.htm Senior Officials 20211/03/15 - RUSI/Cranfield University Acquisition Reform Conference None 15/03/2011 Ministry of Defence the Royal United Services Institute/Cranfield University Acquisition Reform Conference, Defence Academy, Shrivenham
<p>Thank you, Michael, for inviting me to address this year’s RUSI Maritime Conference.  I am very pleased that the Minister for the Armed Forces is able to join us this morning.  </p> <p>Minister, thank you for making time to be here, and for agreeing to address the Conference.  People here might not know that I recently had the pleasure of spending many hours in the Minister’s company, while we were returning from a theatre visit to Afghanistan a few weeks ago – in my case, to see first hand the Royal Marines of 40 Commando in Sangin.  He certainly held my attention during a long flight, and I look forward to his comments.      </p> <p>The Royal United Services Institute has long been a close friend of Defence, and like all close friends, it does not shy away from pointing out where we could be doing better.  Over the next two days, we have our opportunity to talk rationally about the future for maritime forces in this country, how they contribute to the world of Defence, our aspirations to do more, and the resource implications we all face.  In all this, we have the benefit of contributions from our Land and Air colleagues, representatives of international navies, partners in industry and a number of analysts and academics.  Your contribution is much valued and from the audience at large.     </p> <p>My purpose in the next 25 minutes is to give a Head of Service perspective which I hope will inform the discussions taking place over the coming days.  </p> <p>The complexity of the challenge facing Defence bears repeating because it must, perforce, set the terms of our deliberations:</p> <p>Afghanistan remains the priority for Defence.  The campaign doesn’t define Defence, but it must stay at the centre of our thinking, the focus for our joint operations, and our Main Effort until mission success, however that comes to be understood, has been achieved.  </p> <p>It is fundamental to the credibility of the UK’s military strength and much depends upon it in the longer term – regional stability, first and foremost, but also our future ability to deter and contain, as much as our ability to reassure and support those who look to us for collective security.</p> <p>Important as that campaign is, and I pause to pay tribute to the courage and commitment of those in that fight and recognise the enormous sacrifices made by our armed forces, we must not forget the range of other tasks, those not of Afghanistan, beyond contingent operations, that protect and promote the national interest.  <br> <br>Defending our air and sea space, protecting our overseas territories, contributing to stability in other regions of interest to the UK, wider international engagement, none can sensibly be overlooked.  </p> <p>As the Secretary of State said in the House on the 21st of June:  </p> <p>“We know from historical experience that a declaration of peaceful intent is not sufficient to dissuade an aggressor, and a weakening of your defences can encourage them.”</p> <p>If that were about the size of it, things wouldn’t be so bad.  But we also have to deliver the capabilities it is best assessed will be needed to protect and promote our interests into the future.  Ours is a world characterised by more uncertainty and less predictability than we in Defence have in the past been used to.  The sources of potential conflict are increasing, threats are becoming much more diverse.</p> <p>That is because nations and communities are increasingly inter-connected.  The UK is an open society with many global interests: as such, it is becoming more vulnerable to events unfolding far from these shores, dependent on others for many of the resources that under-pin our prosperity and for some of the capabilities that under-pin our security.  <br> <br>That means we may have no choice other than to get involved in conflicts not of our making, where they threaten our interests, our citizens or our friends.  </p> <p>Add to this the dire economic situation, a point I need not labour, and it all points to one thing: change must come - and it will.  </p> <p>I aim to ensure that the Naval Service in this country – Royal Navy, Royal Marines and our close colleagues in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary – is prepared for change - not just for the Navy’s sake, but in order that the attributes of maritime forces can be leveraged as far as possible to help Defence as a whole meet the significant challenges it faces.</p> <p>This Conference is an important milestone in testing some of our thinking, and in that regard I have Three observations which will come as I hope no surprise, but which I nevertheless encourage you to bear in mind:     </p> <p>First, Defence is a Team Game and we need to think in those terms when we consider maritime capabilities, how we develop them and how we use them; </p> <p>Second, maritime capabilities are not a luxury – they are a necessity.  Our ability to control what happens at sea and from the sea is fundamental to our national security and prosperity; </p> <p>Third, our maritime forces are delivering today and they will have a vital role tomorrow – to deter and contain threats, reassure friends and develop strategic alliances, as much as to deliver lethal force when necessary.    </p> <p>My first message underpins the others two - Defence is a team game, and our discussions must start from a position which recognises that, while maritime capabilities are unique in many respects, and deliver in ways not open to others, our focus must be on how the Naval Service can do more -  do more to contribute to the work of Land and Air forces, other government departments, allies and partners.  That means understanding what they might require of us.</p> <p>This is a very much a two-way street and our consideration of future maritime capabilities must also recognise and articulate what others can do to support us.  Closer integration of air, land and sea capabilities across environmental seams not only gives politicians and operational commanders greater choice, it also delivers the absolute maximum effort from most of the capabilities that we already have at our disposal.  <br><br>There is an important international dimension to all this.  </p> <p>We also need to pursue enhanced inter-operability with allies and partners, particularly the US, but also with France and the many other maritime forces with whom we operate and exercise, regularly and easily.  The maritime environment is characterised by the freedom of manoeuvre and global reach which it offers the military, and it has proved to be – and remains – a natural arena within which to build trust with others, and to pursue our common interests in regional and international stability.  Multinational counter piracy task forces in the Gulf of Aden are one example, but I might also mention our counter-narcotics work with others in the Caribbean and West Coast of Africa.        </p> <p>My second message is that maritime capabilities are not a luxury – they are a necessity for a globally trading island nation, with many overseas interests.  </p> <p>I used to worry that the importance of the sea and what happens there, and consequently the need to be able to control what happens at sea in order to protect UK interests. I worry because this was not particularly well understood, beyond the maritime sector.  </p> <p>Whilst far from complacent, I worry less about that now, because I think that the strategic significance of the sea is, slowly once again, becoming much more widely recognised.  </p> <p>That is partly evidence of the enduring truth of my proposition, but it is as much evidence of the growing importance which other nations, particularly the emerging economies, are placing on protecting their interests in the maritime domain.  </p> <p>This reflects, among other things, the economic value of the utility of the oceans as a medium for trade and a cradle for resources.  Consequently, a nation’s ability to control or deny access to the sea has long been a decisive factor in guaranteeing strategic success in time of war, or in helping to shape conditions for the stability that prevents conflict, preserves peace and guarantees the free flow of global trade and the economies that depend upon it.  </p> <p>Access to the sea, and the global mobility such access bestows, have long been fundamental to the security and economic aspirations of states, including our own island nation.     </p> <p>Make no mistake, the sea is a competitive arena.  There are a number of contemporary challenges to the high seas freedoms upon which the global economy and our collective security depend.  </p> <p>In strategic terms, the most significant is perhaps the increasing tendency of coastal states to extend their jurisdiction beyond their territorial seas in an effort to curtail economic and military activity by others, in and above water space which is high seas.  </p> <p>Other challenges come in the form of excessive maritime claims, disputes over maritime boundaries or access to the sea bed, and the inability of states to police their territorial seas or adjacent high seas.  That can and does lead to organised criminal activity on the high seas with the potential to contribute to the destabilisation of failing states and their wider regions; terrorism from the sea, weapons proliferation, piracy, smuggling, trafficking in humans and the facilitation of illegal mass migration.   </p> <p>Maritime issues can come to the fore very quickly, usually have an international dimension and carry political consequences.  <br> <br>One has only to think of the implications of the loss of a South Korean corvette in the Yellow Sea, or of the international response to Israel’s attempts to blockade shipping heading for Gaza.   I might also point to the environmental impact of events in the Gulf of Mexico.  </p> <p>In the last 12 months, we have also been reminded that our national interests associated with far-flung Overseas Territories are perennially a potential flash point; and of the advisability of maintaining a meaningful presence in regions of interest to the UK, from the Gulf to the Indian Ocean, from the South Atlantic to the Caribbean, in protecting the maritime trade and energy supplies upon which we depend, or indeed those sea lines of communication into Pakistan along which flow the bulk supplies that enable the UK Armed Forces’ contribution to the NATO campaign in Afghanistan.  </p> <p>To borrow a phrase from the Secretary of State: “this is no time to become sea blind.” <br><br>“Sea Power” as a concept may sound dated to some commentators and analysts, but a great deal depends upon it, not least the ability to shape and influence events at sea and from the sea.  <br><br>I was encouraged to read in the reports of proceedings from RUSI’s Land Warfare Conference and the RAF’s Airpower Conference, both held last month, that the importance of the maritime contribution to operational success is something already recognised by our colleagues in the land and air environments.  <br><br>I welcome their recognition that greater integration of maritime capabilities will be key to delivering defence and security as we face the challenges of the 21st Century, just as I pay tribute to the important work they do on the nation’s behalf.  <br><br>My third message is about the utility of maritime forces, now and in the future. The Naval Service is today contributing to every one of the tasks demanded of Defence, from Afghanistan and Iraq to the South Atlantic, from the Gulf to the Caribbean, from the South Western Approaches to Dogger Bank.  What we do is in high demand. <br><br>Our maritime forces make an important contribution every day to the defence and security mission, whether working alone or alongside Government agencies and allies, and you will of course hear a great deal about that in the course of the Conference.  <br> <br>Underpinning it all is our ability to fight and win in war.  Warfighting is our bench mark: utility and agility are our hall-marks. However, we all need to focus on the way we develop and use that utility and agility in the future.  <br> <br>The MOD’s recent work on the Future Character of Conflict identified Three principal threats against which our armed forces may have to act: <br><br>• terrorists and other non-state actors, <br>• hostile states and, <br>• where there is a clear national interest, fragile or failing states.  </p> <p>It also concluded that the operating environments of the land, sea, air, space and cyberspace will be contested, congested, cluttered and connected.   </p> <p>Exactly where these threats may manifest themselves in the future is uncertain; but I should make the point that 85% of the countries in the world have a coastline and the land-locked remainder can increasingly be influenced from the sea.  I might add that all our UK Overseas Territories, with the exception of Gibraltar, are islands, many of them remote from the UK.  </p> <p>It is in the periphery of land masses, in the coastal regions, that you find the greatest concentrations of population, industry, political control and trade.  80% of the world’s capital cities are within 150 miles of coastlines.  By 2030, 65% of the world’s population (about six billion people) will live within this area .<br> <br>If you are serious about being able to influence people, if you think that future wars will be among the people, being able to conduct effective operations in this littoral zone is likely to be of crucial importance, either as the scene of an operation itself, or as the focus for deploying and sustaining the force for an operation deeper inland.  </p> <p>The MOD’s analysis also concluded that being able to target our use of military power in a more concise, accurate and timely fashion, may enable a more judicious and efficient use of our armed forces.  The Royal Navy is well suited to exploiting the unique access provided by the sea to gain the insight and understanding required to make timely decisions; to reassure, to deter or in the final analysis, to conduct precision strikes.  </p> <p>However, our aim must be to avert crises before they take hold, rather than our current model of holding large forces at readiness to deal with the crisis aftermath, on an enduring basis.  That conclusion echoes the Secretary of State’s view, which he articulated here a few weeks ago: </p> <p>“We underestimate the value of deterrence at our peril and we do ourselves a disservice if we merely confine it to the concept to nuclear weapons.  The nuclear deterrent is of course fundamental to our ability to deter the most destructive forms of aggression.  But we must also remember the powerful deterrent effect of our conventional forces.”  </p> <p>I believe the Navy knows something about deterrence.  Key to knowing the “what, how &amp; when” within the application of this military power is greater Situational Understanding: understanding the culture, language, politics, frictions and principal actors within a country or region.  The principle behind this is a more persistent, forward-deployed presence in potential crisis areas that coincide with our national interests, affording us the ability to determine, measure and perhaps counter a developing crisis.  It is about developing networks that can inform and influence.  </p> <p>This not only gives us the means by which to apply the ways of deterrence to achieve the ends sought by policy – it can also increase our warning times, such that Defence can consider at what readiness it wishes to hold our forces.  </p> <p>If we are serious about deterring and containing aggression using conventional forces, defence capabilities should be adaptable enough to ensure that they contribute across the spectrum of rewarding, denying and punishing those we seek to influence.  They should be capable of global reach.  They should be able to persist, if necessary, in order to develop the situational awareness required to ensure, first, that messages of intent are effectively targeted and then understood.  They should be scaleable, so that they can signal greater or lesser national intent in response to a developing situation.  They should be able to inter-operate with others.  They should be able to protect themselves from an adversary’s efforts to deter them.  They should be at immediate notice to deliver lethal force should deterrence fail.  </p> <p>Above all, they should present options which give the Government choice and agility in how it chooses to act.  Versatile forces that offer ‘engagement without embroilment’ can relieve the political pressures in a crisis, and so create the space and time within which to deploy other levers of national power, unless and until military force is required.  Again, you’ll hear more about that in the course of this Conference.</p> <p>I conclude by emphasising once again the importance of support to the campaign in Afghanistan, while also being prepared to look beyond it, today and into the future.  </p> <p>We have a timely opportunity over the next two days to come to a fuller understanding of how the global access, reach and persistence of maritime forces, combined with their versatility and independence, can contribute to the defence and security of the UK in an uncertain, increasingly contested world. <br><br>As I said earlier, war-fighting is our benchmark, utility and adaptability our hall-marks.  The Royal Navy has been delivering on that for over 500 years, and while we celebrate our past, we also understand the future, and the importance of adapting to best serve the defence needs of the UK – we have always done this and I am sure always will.  Thank you for listening - I look forward to a lively debate.  </p> <p> </p> <p><br> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/ChiefStaff/20100707FutureMaritimeOperationsConference.htm Chiefs of Staff 2010/07/07 - Future Maritime Operations Conference None 08/07/2010 Ministry of Defence the Royal United Services Institute, London
<p> <strong>Introduction</strong> </p> <p>Thank you Michael for inviting me to address this year’s RUSI Maritime Conference.  I am delighted that we have had the opportunity to hear from the Minister and from Julian Miller, to provide a sense of the broader direction in which the UK is responding to the challenges in our interconnected world.</p> <p>As the third speaker in this Session One ‘trinity’, I am not going to offer you a sense of completeness.  Rather, I intend to provide you with a sense of perspective and continuity, at a time of considerable challenge and change.</p> <p>Churchill once said, “Difficulties mastered are opportunities won.”  And I take this as the theme of my speech because I think we should guard against what is sometimes referred to as “the tyranny of pessimism” when viewing the challenges for the future of Defence and the future of the nation’s Royal Navy, which I am enormously proud to lead.</p> <p>This is not to ignore the very real challenges, especially in the short term.  Far from it.  But there is much in the long term about which we can be confident and where, if we are to control that long term space, then we must seize the opportunities today.</p> <p><strong>Future Challenges<br></strong><br>So, against a backdrop of a future global security environment that is dynamic - one that is complex, one that is multi-dimensional, one that is uncertain - from my perspective, as the nation’s maritime advisor for defence and security, we are presented with two principal challenges.</p> <p>First, for a nation so dependent on export and import, those of us with responsibilities for providing maritime defence and security, must ensure that confidence in using the maritime environment to conduct trade and harness resources remains high.</p> <p>Second, when threats to the nation need to be dealt with at range, we must continue to be able to use the maritime environment to project power to reassure and ultimately protect our national interests.</p> <p>To meet these challenges it is important for the maritime defence community to move both responsibly and decisively into the Government-endorsed “Adaptable Britain” tramline.  For in an uncertain world, the need to adjust our Armed Forces’ structures to provide the necessary flexibility of response has never been more pressing.  Afghanistan and Libya remain the key priorities, absolutely, but they are certainly not the only priorities.</p> <p>And for us all in the wider maritime community - be that, amongst others, in the Ports industry, the Shipping industry, the Defence Industry, the maritime business services sector, academia, or the maritime Defence sector - there is a need to collectively understand, and respond, to how the future security environment will affect the sea-going environment, the maritime environment - upon which the UK’s economy and indeed the economic engine of our interconnected world is so dependent.</p> <p>Part of this response, for the wider maritime community, is the need to awaken the national maritime consciousness from its slumber.</p> <p>And whilst responding to such challenges - especially against a global, regional and national backdrop of economic sobriety - is by no means easy, neither are, I believe, such challenges insurmountable.<br><br><strong>Confidence</strong><br><br>Let me share with you just three reasons for a degree of confidence regarding our ability to meet the demands of the future.</p> <p>First, the recent SDSR ultimately endorses the strategic utility of the Royal Navy.  The strategic analysis which underpinned the Review was entirely sound, despite the noises made by commentators.  The Cabinet Office Paper correctly concluded that, for a host of reasons, the UK needed to rebalance its defence and security mechanisms, including its Armed Forces, towards a security posture described as “Adaptable Britain.”</p> <p>A security posture which best reflects the strategic realities for this island nation, whose military operations are essentially expeditionary in nature.</p> <p>Against such a posture within which the capabilities of our Armed Forces were evaluated, maritime capabilities scored highly across the range of future scenarios under consideration.  Nobody should be surprised by this.  In any security posture which places a premium on global access, precision attack, agility, and the ability to work easily alongside allies, maritime forces are an essential part of the UK national response, as indeed they are for many nations.</p> <p>So the Review process has confirmed the ends which the Government seeks to serve, as expressed in the National Security Strategy and elsewhere.  The UK wishes to remain a global player, and recognises that defence and security are part of a continuum.  All of us in this room understand that prevention of conflict is better than cure - but if conflict cannot be prevented, then it is better to win than lose and it is better to deal with threats at range.</p> <p>The role of deterrence - and by that I mean both conventional and nuclear - has received the emphasis it is due.  The value of persistent presence in regions of interest, whether to signal national intent, gather intelligence and form insights, contribute to capacity building or to reassure others, is understood.  The Royal Navy’s long term commitment in the Gulf is testament to this.  Indeed, in volatile locations such as the Middle East, the ability to influence without embroilment has seldom been so important.</p> <p>Above all, the need to maintain a credible war fighting capability, able to operate and be maintained at range, has been confirmed.  For you cannot deter effectively unless it is understood, by those whose behaviours you seek to influence, that you can intervene militarily with confidence.  Having determined the correct range at which to exercise influence, you cannot keep the peace unless you are physically there, and prepared and able to stay there.<br><br>All this has implications for the characteristics, capabilities and structures of our Armed Forces and of the Royal Navy.  We need to be:<br><br>• more deployable;<br>• better able to operate with allies and partners;<br>• capable of precision effect;<br>• able to operate across the land, sea and air;<br>• and able to contribute across the widest spectrum of national activity - war fighting, peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, but more besides - deterrence, influence, keeping the door open through regional engagement, and so on.</p> <p>Why?  Because the National Strategy for the UK has to be balanced against the threats we face, able to offer the Government the greatest possible range of options in protecting and projecting our national interests.</p> <p>There is obviously a fundamentally important maritime dimension to this as we face the future, and it is a dimension to which the Royal Navy can, and will, contribute strongly in the coming years.</p> <p>This brings me to my second reason for a degree of confidence.  The naval equipment programme, enshrined in the Review, gives cause for the defence community as well as the wider maritime community to draw at least some encouragement.</p> <p>Of course the economic realities and political imperatives in Afghanistan have rightly demanded that, in the short term, we lean more towards the “Committed” side of an “Adaptable” posture.  And as such there are significant consequences for Defence and the Royal Navy.  We have necessarily had to make some difficult decisions in terms of platforms and people.</p> <p>So, from a maritime perspective, the Royal Navy that is emerging from this Review is smaller: with an obvious gap in our current Carrier Strike capability, a more limited Amphibious Strike capability and the withdrawal from service of the Type 22 Frigates some of the significant changes.  Yet the key Royal Navy’s core capabilities and operational tasks have remained and, importantly, will remain into the longer term.</p> <p>Which is why, by 2020, the Royal Navy will have new aircraft carriers, a high readiness amphibious capability, Type 45 destroyers, Astute Class submarines, and soon after, Type 26 Global Combat Ships, and upgraded helicopter fleets.  <br><br>Not to mention the delivery of new Fleet Tankers and a maturing programme for the Solid Support Ships; and a successor in build to replace the current deterrent submarines.</p> <p>A naval equipment programme to which the Secretary of State for Defence reinforced the Government’s commitment in this very location only last week, and was echoed this morning by Min (DEST).</p> <p>This is an equipment programme that ensures that, in the long term, the inherent flexibility associated with maritime capability is preserved.  The ability to veer and haul with ease across the spectrum of conflict: from warfighting to international engagement.  The ability to operate across the seams of warfare.  Above all, the ability to provide Government with choice.</p> <p>All of which is why the Government has expressed a commitment to the vision of Future Force 2020 set out in the Review.  And I welcome the Prime Minister’s desire for year on year real-terms growth in the Defence budget in the years beyond 2015.  For ambition must be reconciled with resource.</p> <p>My third reason for confidence owes much to the Royal Navy’s continued operational success in which its present achievements demonstrate its future utility, and flexibility in responding to the future security challenges of our interconnected world.</p> <p>Our primary focus is concerned with preventing war, yet deterrence is underwritten by our ultimate ability to fight war and to succeed.  And as this audience understands only too well, deterrence is also about credibility, and credibility depends on their being a tangible presence in the place where it is needed.</p> <p>That is why the Royal Navy in this country is not held in reserve, garrisoned in naval bases.  Rather, it is out there, 24/7, every day of the year, fulfilling the entire range of Defence tasks.</p> <p>So out there, right now, more than 8000 sailors and marines are deployed on operations around the world, and over 40 ships and submarines are at sea, today, protecting Britain’s interests and serving our international obligations.  From providing the UK’s strategic deterrent to fishery protection, and from conducting counter-piracy in the Indian Ocean to Maritime Security in the Gulf and Mediterranean.<br><br>Indeed, it is of note that, this summer, nearly a quarter of our Armed Forces personnel deployed in Afghanistan are either sailors or marines.</p> <p>Evidence of the Royal Navy’s enduring flexibility of force providing an enduring utility of force - day in, day out.</p> <p>But make no mistake, such confidence is no ‘conspiracy of optimism’, no mis-placed sense of the very real and very considerable resource challenges ahead, but rather a long term ‘rationale for realism’.</p> <p>The Government recognises in the Review the enduring strategic utility of the Royal Navy.  There is a desire from the Prime Minister to ensure that, in the long term, the funding is in place to balance resources with commitments, power with interests, and means with ends.</p> <p>And with proven operational credentials the Royal Navy consistently demonstrates its inherent utility in making a significant contribution to the security posture of the “Adaptable Britain” headmark.</p> <p><strong>Opportunity</strong><br><br>And because delivery won’t be easy, as we consider how to adapt for the future, I believe there are three key areas where we need to seize opportunity.</p> <p>First, we must embrace the opportunities offered by Defence Reform which, as the Secretary of State for Defence said last week, “sets out a vision of transformation on a scale not seen in Defence for a generation.”  He is right, of course, and such reform represents a welcome opportunity to remove unnecessary overheads and duplication, driving even greater efficiency into our Defence and Naval business.</p> <p>But I am also acutely aware that we are already highly efficient at force generating and operating maritime forces to deliver effect at, and from, the sea.  As I have said, right now, more than 8000 of our trained strength are deployed, somewhere in the world on operations.  The remainder are either preparing to deploy, recovering from their deployments or directly supporting our front line activity from lean and efficient Headquarters structures.<br></p> <p>And by continuously exploring ways to improve our efficiency, the Royal Navy has, for example, at least at Junior Rate level, de-latched personal harmony from the unit, so that we can extract the maximum platform availability, right to the edge of engineering certification criteria.  And the lower maintenance burden of newer platforms will see our availability increase whilst still continuing to provide an adequate harmony routine for the sailors.</p> <p>So, I would counsel, that the laudable pursuit of efficiency, at the heart of Defence Reform, must not compromise the effective delivery of maritime outputs: the very capabilities that we seek to preserve.</p> <p>The second opportunity to be embraced is my intent articulated in the Future Navy Vision, my recently published headmark for the future of the Royal Navy, including the Royal Marines and Royal Fleet Auxiliary.</p> <p>It details why and how we shall develop in the challenging years ahead - as Defence moves from a mindset of mass to manoeuverism, from intervention to prevention - and the implications for our people, capabilities and force structure.  Critically, it describes the path towards the Royal Navy of 2025.<br><br>Why then?  Three reasons: first, it takes time to build maritime capabilities; second, it takes time to train and grow the skilled people who operate these capabilities; and finally, 2025 will be the aiming point for the next Defence Review around 2015.</p> <p>You will hear more on this from Rear Admiral Phil Jones, the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff, in tomorrow’s Closing Session on the Future Role of Navies.  For those who can not wait until then, I would summarise by saying that I envisage the delivery of the Future Navy Vision being synonymous with the delivery of Defence’s “Adaptable Britain” security posture.  Nothing more, nothing less.</p> <p>The third opportunity is a wider one, and touches, in particular, on the need for the wider maritime community - all of us - to awaken a national maritime consciousness from its slumber.  From which it is already stirring.</p> <p>We owe much of this to the efforts of a number of maritime bodies - the IMO, the Chamber of Shipping, the British Ports Association amongst others.  Indeed, I - as the Government’s principal maritime security adviser - sense that the blanket of fog, on a hitherto sea-blind nation, is beginning to lift.</p> <p>This represents a significant opportunity for us all.  An opportunity for cooperation.  <br><br>In understanding our maritime environment so that we can, with a single voice, communicate the intrinsic value that the maritime sector, in its widest sense, brings to our national economic and security interests.</p> <p>In an interconnected world of shared vulnerabilities and shared opportunities, there is an important international dimension to all this as well.</p> <p>The author Parag Khanna offers a welcome perspective.  When governments, businesses and NGOs work together - not just at a national level but at an international level - real progress can be made.  For the networked world has the potential to truly galvanise dot.gov, dot.com and dot.org into generating more dynamic and innovative responses in our increasingly uncertain world.</p> <p>I would proffer that if we are not to be consumed by our networked world then - as a maritime sector, as a maritime community - we must respond in a more networked way.  We need to ‘join the dots’.</p> <p>So, three opportunities.  Embracing Defence Reform will help Defence deliver the SDSR outcomes.  Embracing the Future Navy Vision will enable the Royal Navy to serve at the heart of an “Adaptable Britain”.  Embracing the stirring national maritime consciousness, will strengthen our maritime nation’s global ambitions.<br><br><strong>Conclusion</strong><br><br>To conclude.  Amidst a future security environment characterised by more uncertainty and less predictability than we would wish, with sources of potential conflict increasing and threats more diverse, never has there been a more compelling need for us to consider how the Royal Navy, the maritime community, will serve at the heart of the “Adaptable Britain” posture enshrined in the SDSR - and thereby serve the interests of this nation.</p> <p>Never has there been a more compelling need for us, as a wider maritime community, to understand and communicate our environment in a way that recognises ‘security at sea’ as being synonymous with ‘security on our streets’.</p> <p>Never has there been a more compelling need for us to awaken our national maritime consciousness.  For just as strong economies make strong maritime communities possible, so strong maritime communities make strong economies probable.</p> <p>Thank you.<br></p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/ChiefStaff/20110706FutureMaritimeOperationsConference2011.htm Chiefs of Staff 2011/07/06 - Future Maritime Operations Conference 2011 None 07/07/2011 Ministry of Defence the Royal United Services Institute , London
<p>Thank you, Michael, for inviting me to address this year’s RUSI Maritime Conference.  I am very pleased that the Minister for the Armed Forces is able to join us this morning.  </p> <p>Minister, thank you for making time to be here, and for agreeing to address the Conference.  People here might not know that I recently had the pleasure of spending many hours in the Minister’s company, while we were returning from a theatre visit to Afghanistan a few weeks ago – in my case, to see first hand the Royal Marines of 40 Commando in Sangin.  He certainly held my attention during a long flight, and I look forward to his comments.      </p> <p>The Royal United Services Institute has long been a close friend of Defence, and like all close friends, it does not shy away from pointing out where we could be doing better.  Over the next two days, we have our opportunity to talk rationally about the future for maritime forces in this country, how they contribute to the world of Defence, our aspirations to do more, and the resource implications we all face.  In all this, we have the benefit of contributions from our Land and Air colleagues, representatives of international navies, partners in industry and a number of analysts and academics.  Your contribution is much valued and from the audience at large.     </p> <p>My purpose in the next 25 minutes is to give a Head of Service perspective which I hope will inform the discussions taking place over the coming days.  </p> <p>The complexity of the challenge facing Defence bears repeating because it must, perforce, set the terms of our deliberations:</p> <p>Afghanistan remains the priority for Defence.  The campaign doesn’t define Defence, but it must stay at the centre of our thinking, the focus for our joint operations, and our Main Effort until mission success, however that comes to be understood, has been achieved.  </p> <p>It is fundamental to the credibility of the UK’s military strength and much depends upon it in the longer term – regional stability, first and foremost, but also our future ability to deter and contain, as much as our ability to reassure and support those who look to us for collective security.</p> <p>Important as that campaign is, and I pause to pay tribute to the courage and commitment of those in that fight and recognise the enormous sacrifices made by our armed forces, we must not forget the range of other tasks, those not of Afghanistan, beyond contingent operations, that protect and promote the national interest.  <br> <br>Defending our air and sea space, protecting our overseas territories, contributing to stability in other regions of interest to the UK, wider international engagement, none can sensibly be overlooked.  </p> <p>As the Secretary of State said in the House on the 21st of June:  </p> <p>“We know from historical experience that a declaration of peaceful intent is not sufficient to dissuade an aggressor, and a weakening of your defences can encourage them.”</p> <p>If that were about the size of it, things wouldn’t be so bad.  But we also have to deliver the capabilities it is best assessed will be needed to protect and promote our interests into the future.  Ours is a world characterised by more uncertainty and less predictability than we in Defence have in the past been used to.  The sources of potential conflict are increasing, threats are becoming much more diverse.</p> <p>That is because nations and communities are increasingly inter-connected.  The UK is an open society with many global interests: as such, it is becoming more vulnerable to events unfolding far from these shores, dependent on others for many of the resources that under-pin our prosperity and for some of the capabilities that under-pin our security.  <br> <br>That means we may have no choice other than to get involved in conflicts not of our making, where they threaten our interests, our citizens or our friends.  </p> <p>Add to this the dire economic situation, a point I need not labour, and it all points to one thing: change must come - and it will.  </p> <p>I aim to ensure that the Naval Service in this country – Royal Navy, Royal Marines and our close colleagues in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary – is prepared for change - not just for the Navy’s sake, but in order that the attributes of maritime forces can be leveraged as far as possible to help Defence as a whole meet the significant challenges it faces.</p> <p>This Conference is an important milestone in testing some of our thinking, and in that regard I have Three observations which will come as I hope no surprise, but which I nevertheless encourage you to bear in mind:     </p> <p>First, Defence is a Team Game and we need to think in those terms when we consider maritime capabilities, how we develop them and how we use them; </p> <p>Second, maritime capabilities are not a luxury – they are a necessity.  Our ability to control what happens at sea and from the sea is fundamental to our national security and prosperity; </p> <p>Third, our maritime forces are delivering today and they will have a vital role tomorrow – to deter and contain threats, reassure friends and develop strategic alliances, as much as to deliver lethal force when necessary.    </p> <p>My first message underpins the others two - Defence is a team game, and our discussions must start from a position which recognises that, while maritime capabilities are unique in many respects, and deliver in ways not open to others, our focus must be on how the Naval Service can do more -  do more to contribute to the work of Land and Air forces, other government departments, allies and partners.  That means understanding what they might require of us.</p> <p>This is a very much a two-way street and our consideration of future maritime capabilities must also recognise and articulate what others can do to support us.  Closer integration of air, land and sea capabilities across environmental seams not only gives politicians and operational commanders greater choice, it also delivers the absolute maximum effort from most of the capabilities that we already have at our disposal.  <br><br>There is an important international dimension to all this.  </p> <p>We also need to pursue enhanced inter-operability with allies and partners, particularly the US, but also with France and the many other maritime forces with whom we operate and exercise, regularly and easily.  The maritime environment is characterised by the freedom of manoeuvre and global reach which it offers the military, and it has proved to be – and remains – a natural arena within which to build trust with others, and to pursue our common interests in regional and international stability.  Multinational counter piracy task forces in the Gulf of Aden are one example, but I might also mention our counter-narcotics work with others in the Caribbean and West Coast of Africa.        </p> <p>My second message is that maritime capabilities are not a luxury – they are a necessity for a globally trading island nation, with many overseas interests.  </p> <p>I used to worry that the importance of the sea and what happens there, and consequently the need to be able to control what happens at sea in order to protect UK interests. I worry because this was not particularly well understood, beyond the maritime sector.  </p> <p>Whilst far from complacent, I worry less about that now, because I think that the strategic significance of the sea is, slowly once again, becoming much more widely recognised.  </p> <p>That is partly evidence of the enduring truth of my proposition, but it is as much evidence of the growing importance which other nations, particularly the emerging economies, are placing on protecting their interests in the maritime domain.  </p> <p>This reflects, among other things, the economic value of the utility of the oceans as a medium for trade and a cradle for resources.  Consequently, a nation’s ability to control or deny access to the sea has long been a decisive factor in guaranteeing strategic success in time of war, or in helping to shape conditions for the stability that prevents conflict, preserves peace and guarantees the free flow of global trade and the economies that depend upon it.  </p> <p>Access to the sea, and the global mobility such access bestows, have long been fundamental to the security and economic aspirations of states, including our own island nation.     </p> <p>Make no mistake, the sea is a competitive arena.  There are a number of contemporary challenges to the high seas freedoms upon which the global economy and our collective security depend.  </p> <p>In strategic terms, the most significant is perhaps the increasing tendency of coastal states to extend their jurisdiction beyond their territorial seas in an effort to curtail economic and military activity by others, in and above water space which is high seas.  </p> <p>Other challenges come in the form of excessive maritime claims, disputes over maritime boundaries or access to the sea bed, and the inability of states to police their territorial seas or adjacent high seas.  That can and does lead to organised criminal activity on the high seas with the potential to contribute to the destabilisation of failing states and their wider regions; terrorism from the sea, weapons proliferation, piracy, smuggling, trafficking in humans and the facilitation of illegal mass migration.   </p> <p>Maritime issues can come to the fore very quickly, usually have an international dimension and carry political consequences.  <br> <br>One has only to think of the implications of the loss of a South Korean corvette in the Yellow Sea, or of the international response to Israel’s attempts to blockade shipping heading for Gaza.   I might also point to the environmental impact of events in the Gulf of Mexico.  </p> <p>In the last 12 months, we have also been reminded that our national interests associated with far-flung Overseas Territories are perennially a potential flash point; and of the advisability of maintaining a meaningful presence in regions of interest to the UK, from the Gulf to the Indian Ocean, from the South Atlantic to the Caribbean, in protecting the maritime trade and energy supplies upon which we depend, or indeed those sea lines of communication into Pakistan along which flow the bulk supplies that enable the UK Armed Forces’ contribution to the NATO campaign in Afghanistan.  </p> <p>To borrow a phrase from the Secretary of State: “this is no time to become sea blind.” <br><br>“Sea Power” as a concept may sound dated to some commentators and analysts, but a great deal depends upon it, not least the ability to shape and influence events at sea and from the sea.  <br><br>I was encouraged to read in the reports of proceedings from RUSI’s Land Warfare Conference and the RAF’s Airpower Conference, both held last month, that the importance of the maritime contribution to operational success is something already recognised by our colleagues in the land and air environments.  <br><br>I welcome their recognition that greater integration of maritime capabilities will be key to delivering defence and security as we face the challenges of the 21st Century, just as I pay tribute to the important work they do on the nation’s behalf.  <br><br>My third message is about the utility of maritime forces, now and in the future. The Naval Service is today contributing to every one of the tasks demanded of Defence, from Afghanistan and Iraq to the South Atlantic, from the Gulf to the Caribbean, from the South Western Approaches to Dogger Bank.  What we do is in high demand. <br><br>Our maritime forces make an important contribution every day to the defence and security mission, whether working alone or alongside Government agencies and allies, and you will of course hear a great deal about that in the course of the Conference.  <br> <br>Underpinning it all is our ability to fight and win in war.  Warfighting is our bench mark: utility and agility are our hall-marks. However, we all need to focus on the way we develop and use that utility and agility in the future.  <br> <br>The MOD’s recent work on the Future Character of Conflict identified Three principal threats against which our armed forces may have to act: <br><br>• terrorists and other non-state actors, <br>• hostile states and, <br>• where there is a clear national interest, fragile or failing states.  </p> <p>It also concluded that the operating environments of the land, sea, air, space and cyberspace will be contested, congested, cluttered and connected.   </p> <p>Exactly where these threats may manifest themselves in the future is uncertain; but I should make the point that 85% of the countries in the world have a coastline and the land-locked remainder can increasingly be influenced from the sea.  I might add that all our UK Overseas Territories, with the exception of Gibraltar, are islands, many of them remote from the UK.  </p> <p>It is in the periphery of land masses, in the coastal regions, that you find the greatest concentrations of population, industry, political control and trade.  80% of the world’s capital cities are within 150 miles of coastlines.  By 2030, 65% of the world’s population (about six billion people) will live within this area .<br> <br>If you are serious about being able to influence people, if you think that future wars will be among the people, being able to conduct effective operations in this littoral zone is likely to be of crucial importance, either as the scene of an operation itself, or as the focus for deploying and sustaining the force for an operation deeper inland.  </p> <p>The MOD’s analysis also concluded that being able to target our use of military power in a more concise, accurate and timely fashion, may enable a more judicious and efficient use of our armed forces.  The Royal Navy is well suited to exploiting the unique access provided by the sea to gain the insight and understanding required to make timely decisions; to reassure, to deter or in the final analysis, to conduct precision strikes.  </p> <p>However, our aim must be to avert crises before they take hold, rather than our current model of holding large forces at readiness to deal with the crisis aftermath, on an enduring basis.  That conclusion echoes the Secretary of State’s view, which he articulated here a few weeks ago: </p> <p>“We underestimate the value of deterrence at our peril and we do ourselves a disservice if we merely confine it to the concept to nuclear weapons.  The nuclear deterrent is of course fundamental to our ability to deter the most destructive forms of aggression.  But we must also remember the powerful deterrent effect of our conventional forces.”  </p> <p>I believe the Navy knows something about deterrence.  Key to knowing the “what, how &amp; when” within the application of this military power is greater Situational Understanding: understanding the culture, language, politics, frictions and principal actors within a country or region.  The principle behind this is a more persistent, forward-deployed presence in potential crisis areas that coincide with our national interests, affording us the ability to determine, measure and perhaps counter a developing crisis.  It is about developing networks that can inform and influence.  </p> <p>This not only gives us the means by which to apply the ways of deterrence to achieve the ends sought by policy – it can also increase our warning times, such that Defence can consider at what readiness it wishes to hold our forces.  </p> <p>If we are serious about deterring and containing aggression using conventional forces, defence capabilities should be adaptable enough to ensure that they contribute across the spectrum of rewarding, denying and punishing those we seek to influence.  They should be capable of global reach.  They should be able to persist, if necessary, in order to develop the situational awareness required to ensure, first, that messages of intent are effectively targeted and then understood.  They should be scaleable, so that they can signal greater or lesser national intent in response to a developing situation.  They should be able to inter-operate with others.  They should be able to protect themselves from an adversary’s efforts to deter them.  They should be at immediate notice to deliver lethal force should deterrence fail.  </p> <p>Above all, they should present options which give the Government choice and agility in how it chooses to act.  Versatile forces that offer ‘engagement without embroilment’ can relieve the political pressures in a crisis, and so create the space and time within which to deploy other levers of national power, unless and until military force is required.  Again, you’ll hear more about that in the course of this Conference.</p> <p>I conclude by emphasising once again the importance of support to the campaign in Afghanistan, while also being prepared to look beyond it, today and into the future.  </p> <p>We have a timely opportunity over the next two days to come to a fuller understanding of how the global access, reach and persistence of maritime forces, combined with their versatility and independence, can contribute to the defence and security of the UK in an uncertain, increasingly contested world. <br><br>As I said earlier, war-fighting is our benchmark, utility and adaptability our hall-marks.  The Royal Navy has been delivering on that for over 500 years, and while we celebrate our past, we also understand the future, and the importance of adapting to best serve the defence needs of the UK – we have always done this and I am sure always will.  Thank you for listening - I look forward to a lively debate.  </p> <p> </p> <p><br> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/ChiefStaff/20100707FutureMaritimeOperationsConference2010.htm Chiefs of Staff 2010/07/07 - Future Maritime Operations Conference 2010 None 08/07/2010 Ministry of Defence the Royal United Services Institute, London
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>It is a great pleasure to be with you here today and be offered my first opportunity as Secretary of State to speak to the wider defence community.</p> <p>I am honoured that the Prime Minister has asked me to serve in this role.</p> <p>It has been my good fortune to do so in time to witness the final end of Gaddafi’s brutal 40 year rule.</p> <p>I want to pay tribute to the role our Armed Forces played in the liberation of Libya.</p> <p>They have done a magnificent job.</p> <p>Libya has also shown the utility of the high-tech platforms, such as Typhoon, and high-precision weaponry, such as Brimstone.</p> <p>The ability to hit targets, from distance, with high-impact but low risk of collateral damage was incredibly important in an operation where the aim was not the destruction of a country but the protection of the population.</p> <p>I also want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Liam Fox, for the decisive leadership he showed as Secretary of State - not just in relation to Libya but also in taking many of the tough decisions required to put our Armed Forces on the road to a sustainable future.</p> <p>I worked with Liam closely both in opposition and in Government.</p> <p>He has always been a passionate and intelligent advocate for the Armed Forces and for the robust defence of our national security.  </p> <p>I look forward to the challenge of completing what he started.</p> <p><strong>PEOPLE MATTER</strong></p> <p>The Ministry of Defence is one of the most important departments of Government.</p> <p>And it is also one of the most complex and challenging.</p> <p>But I know I will be working with the bravest, most selfless and professional people the country has to offer - the men and women of our Armed Forces.</p> <p>And they are supported by some of the most dedicated people in the public service, the most highly skilled workforces in British industry and some of the most committed people in the charitable sector.</p> <p>I am grateful to have the opportunity so early on to thank SSAFA for all the hard work that is done day in, day out, week in, week out to support serving personnel, their families and the veterans community.</p> <p>My first official engagement was to accompany the Prime Minister to the ceremony conferring Royal status on Wootton Bassett.</p> <p>This reinforced for me just how important the Armed Forces are to the British public.</p> <p>But I also saw something else - I saw just how important public support is to the men and women of our Armed Forces. </p> <p>Knowing they have such high levels of public approval helps them stand tall as they deal with the daily challenges they face.</p> <p>That is part of the reason why organisations like SSAFA are so important - not only providing practical help - but providing the public with a meaningful way to express their respect and admiration.</p> <p><strong>A CHALLENGING ENVIRONMENT</strong></p> <p>As all of us in this room know, this is a difficult time for the country, and for Defence in particular.</p> <p>We are dealing with the toughest economic climate in a generation and the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history.</p> <p>Against that backdrop, in Defence, we have also to deal with the legacy of an unaffordable equipment programme and a decade of operations at a continuously high tempo.</p> <p>We do so at a time when the threats to our national security and our national interests are evolving fast - and by no means diminishing.</p> <p>And at a time when our Armed Forces, including a substantial number of reservists, remain engaged in a dangerous and enduring mission in Afghanistan.</p> <p>This is a vital operation to protect our national security by ensuring that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for international terrorism.</p> <p>I will make it a priority to get out to theatre to visit our troops as soon as possible, so I can see at first hand the superb job we all know they are doing.</p> <p><strong>FORMIDABLE ARMED FORCES</strong></p> <p>The first focus of Defence must be the delivery of success on operations.</p> <p>The projection of military power is, after all, the raison d’être of the Armed Forces and the MOD: everything else is a supporting role.</p> <p>And it is my firm belief that when the Government asks the men and women of our Armed Forces to put themselves in danger in pursuit of our national security, we owe it to them to make sure they are properly supported and have the best tools we can give them to do the job.</p> <p>In Defence, we now have a clear programme to deliver on this pledge.</p> <p>The Armed Forces that will emerge from the implementation of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) will be formidable, flexible and adaptable - structured to defend the country and project power abroad - equipped with some of the best and most advanced technology in the world.</p> <p>Astute Class Submarines, Type 45 Destroyers, Global Combat Ship, Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers, Joint Strike Fighter, Typhoon, Voyager, Foxhound, Warrior, Watchkeeper.</p> <p>This is not a vision of retrenchment; it is an ambitious programme of renewal after a decade of continuous operations - a blueprint for a sustainable future as one of the world’s most capable fighting forces.</p> <p><strong>STRONG ECONOMY, STRONG DEFENCE</strong></p> <p>It is now a year since the publication of the SDSR.</p> <p>I know that it has been a year of difficult decisions.</p> <p>I know that the changes being made are directly affecting people’s lives and livelihoods.</p> <p>And I have already, in my first week, heard something of the many valid and finely balanced arguments about the utility and necessity of this capability or that capability.</p> <p>So let me be clear about my approach.</p> <p>I am determined that we neither compromise current operations nor constrain future Defence capability - that we do not remove critical skills and capabilities that are irrecoverable - and that we retain the ability to scale up in the future if our national security demands it.</p> <p>I intend to be a strong and passionate advocate for our Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence both within government and with the public.</p> <p>I will advance the interests of Defence and national security at every opportunity.</p> <p>But let’s be under no illusions - if you want first class Armed Forces you need a first class economy.</p> <p>There is no future for a big military supported by a small economy.</p> <p>History is littered with examples showing that to be a fast track way to a collapse in global influence and military capability.</p> <p>That was one of the central lessons of the Cold War. </p> <p>Future Force 2020 must be built on firm foundations.</p> <p>First, with a force structure that is fit for the challenges of future warfare and the real world risks we are likely to face.</p> <p>Second, with a Defence programme that is affordable now and sustainable into the future.</p> <p>Unpicking the SDSR piece by piece is simply not an option.</p> <p>The transformation programme is essential to balance our books and modernise our organisation.</p> <p>I am clear that this is the only way to ensure success on operations and the continued ability to project military power.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>So let me end where I began - with the men and women of our Armed Forces.</p> <p>Military effectiveness is built not only on economic success; it is built on people.</p> <p>The men and women of our Armed Forces are the greatest asset we have.</p> <p>Defence is a very human endeavour - and the consequences of service life are very human too. </p> <p>That is why the work of SSAFA and other service charities is so important.</p> <p>I can assure you that, during my tenure in office, the commitment to rebuild the Armed Forces Covenant will continue.</p> <p>This will mean all of us working together - Government at all levels, working together with charities and the private sector, to look after our serving personnel and their families, and our veterans.</p> <p>We have a big challenge ahead.</p> <p>Succeeding on operations.</p> <p>Looking after our people.</p> <p>Building the adaptable Armed Forces this country needs</p> <p>And balancing the books in the process.</p> <p>I’ve only been in this job for a week but already I can be confident that working together we can deliver.</p> <p>Our Armed Forces deserve no less.</p> <p>Thank you.<br></p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20111024SoldiersSailorsAirmenAndFamiliesAssociationssafaAnnualDefenceIndustryDinner.htm Liam Fox 2011/10/24 - Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association (SSAFA) Annual Defence Industry Dinner uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 25/10/2011 Ministry of Defence the Banqueting House, Whitehall, London
<p>With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Afghanistan.<br><br>Let me begin by paying tribute to Rifleman Vijay Rai of the 2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles, who died in Afghanistan on Saturday. His commanding officer described him as tough, loyal, utterly professional and immensely proud to have been serving in the British Army. I am sure I speak for the whole House in saying that our thoughts are with his family at this difficult time.<br><br>The House will appreciate that I have not yet had an opportunity to visit our troops in Afghanistan. I intend to do so as soon as is practical. The purpose of this statement is to provide information on progress in Afghanistan since the Prime Minister’s statement to the House on 6 July. Our mission is to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for international terrorism, and the presence of our armed forces in Afghanistan to achieve this aim is supported on all sides of the House.<br><br>This mission has a cost: 383 members of our armed forces have lost their lives since operations began—eight since the Prime Minister’s statement of 6 July. I know the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute both to their sacrifice and to all those who have returned with serious injuries, and to the families who support them. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the troops from Estonia, Denmark and Tonga who are operating under British command in central Helmand. Since 6 July, two Danish soldiers and one Estonian soldier have also lost their lives, and I am sure the House will want to join me in expressing condolences to their families.<br><br>I am clear that this is an operation to protect our national security and national interests. That view is shared by the 49-nation, UN-mandated coalition. We share a common purpose: to enhance security and build the capacity of the Afghan national security forces and the Afghan Government, so that Afghans themselves can be responsible for their own territory, their own security and their own affairs. We ensure our national security and the security of the NATO alliance by helping the Afghans to take control of theirs.<br><br>Our strategy is comprehensive, drawing security, governance and development objectives together. In 10 years, with international support and assistance, Afghanistan has come a long way. Governance and the rule of law are improving across the country. The Afghan Government are providing increasing levels of basic services, with Afghans enjoying much greater access to health facilities, and more education opportunities—including for girls—than in 2001. We welcome the Afghan Parliament’s decision on Saturday to approve the supplementary budget to recapitalise the central bank, paving the way towards agreement on a new International Monetary Fund programme of support in the coming weeks. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has been actively engaged with the Afghan Ministry of Finance and the IMF in support of this objective. Agreeing the new programme will reinvigorate the Kabul process, allowing donors to align themselves behind Afghan Government priorities and systems as we move through transition and beyond.<br><br>Let us not understate the tangible improvements that have taken place, but let us also not underestimate the scale of the remaining challenge. We are working from a very low base. If progress is to be sustained, the commitment of the international community, including the UK, will have to endure for many years to come, long after international troops have withdrawn from combat operations.<br><br>On the security front, progress has been real and meaningful, but it has been hard won and is not irreversible. In many areas, Afghanistan remains a dangerous place. Levels of violence vary dramatically from region to region, but the insurgency continues to be a nationwide threat. The insurgency is under considerable pressure, but its leaders remain committed to conducting a violent campaign. Over recent months we have seen them increasingly focus on high-profile attacks, such as that on the British Council in August and on the US embassy and the international security assistance force headquarters in September. The murder of former President Rabbani is a particular setback. It is important that his death does not derail efforts to engage with those willing to renounce violence and work towards peace. We will continue to support President Karzai’s efforts to promote peace and reconciliation, and are encouraging engagement to support this from all those in the region, including Pakistan.<br><br>Despite that difficult background, there is also cause for optimism. In the UK area of operations in central Helmand, there is clear evidence that the ISAF troop surge has brought security gains, limiting the insurgents’ ability to prosecute their campaign. UK troops, partnered with Afghan security forces, are having a tangible impact on insurgent activity in our area of operations. On 9 October, 20 Armoured Brigade assumed authority for Task Force Helmand from 3 Commando Brigade, who can be proud of the progress made during their tour.<br><br>The central achievement this summer has been the commencement of the formal security transition process. July saw the first group of three provinces and four urban areas across Afghanistan, covering almost a quarter of the population, begin that process. This included Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province, where the Afghan national police now lead on security in this bustling community of 120,000 people. ISAF remains ready to provide support if needed, but the ANSF have been able to respond effectively to insurgent attacks and to pre-empt many. That has been a source of considerable pride, both to the Afghan security forces and to the civilian population. Here in the UK, we should remember that the ANSF have suffered very considerable losses themselves.<br><br>The process of transition is on track and will continue. The Afghan Government, with ISAF support, are continuing the preparatory work needed to begin the transition process in the next set of provinces and districts. October also saw Task Force Helmand resume responsibility for the upper Gereshk valley. That follows the temporary deployment of US marine corps to the area, during which time UK forces provided security on the strategically significant Highway 1, outside the UK area of operations. UK forces will now work with the ANSF to prepare the district to enter the transition process in the future. We look forward to the second tranche of transition and an announcement later in the autumn by President Karzai outlining which areas are to be included.<br><br>Strong Afghan national security forces are key to achieving our objectives. The ANA now stands at 169,000 men and the ANP stands at 134,000, and both are on track to meet their target levels by October 2012. But progress cannot be measured in quantity alone—it must be measured in quality too—in respect of the effectiveness of the Afghan forces and the strength of their organisation. The Afghan-led response to the attacks on the US embassy and ISAF headquarters saw the ANSF successfully complete an exceptionally difficult night-time building clearance and, for the first time, Afghan air force helicopters were deployed in direct support of troops on the ground. Operational effectiveness rates are improving, allowing the ANSF to take the lead in many operations. Literacy rates among the ANSF are also improving. All 12 of the Afghan army’s planned specialist branches are now functioning, which will, in time, improve self-sufficiency and professionalism. Measures to improve retention rates in the ANSF have also been introduced. Such measures include a pension scheme and a work cycle consisting of periods of operations, training and leave. So the ANSF are improving but, as the recent report by UNAMA, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, shows, there remain important areas where further improvement is crucial.<br><br>President Karzai has stated his commitment to his Government assuming lead security responsibility across the country as a whole by the end of 2014, which is a goal that we share and support. That means that British troops will not be in a combat role by 2015, nor will they be deployed in the numbers they are now. The ANSF will, however, still need support from the international community even after the conclusion of the transition process. We will continue to support their development: for instance, through our lead involvement in a new officers academy announced by the Prime Minister in the summer.<br><br>On 5 December, the Afghan Government will chair an international conference in Bonn. This is a key opportunity to advance the political track. The Istanbul conference in November and the Chicago summit next May are further opportunities for the international community to reiterate its long-term commitment to Afghanistan. That commitment is crucial if we are to deliver on our key objective of ensuring that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for international terrorism. Our armed forces will continue to protect our national interests with the selfless devotion to duty we have come to expect. I am sure that we in this House will reciprocate by maintaining the staunch cross-party support that has underpinned the operation from the outset, and I commend the statement to the House.</p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20111018QuarterlyStatementOnAfghanistan.htm Liam Fox 2011/10/18 - Quarterly Statement on Afghanistan uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 19/10/2011 Ministry of Defence None
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>In December 2005 David Cameron invited me to be the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence.</p> <p>Probably the only good thing about opposition, and even that is stretching the point, was that we had time to think about how we would change the way business was done or indeed what parts of the business needed changing.</p> <p>I want to talk to you this evening about how we are taking that forward and importantly about the intellectual underpinning of the transformation in the way business in Defence is done.</p> <p><strong>INHERITANCE</strong></p> <p>Let me reflect first on what we inherited.</p> <p>The one thing that everyone in the Defence Community could agree on was that change had to come - how painful you thought it was going to be depended on your optimism or indeed your pessimism.</p> <p>While the depth of the black hole in the Defence programme was difficult from the outside to pin down, the symptoms of the disease were on show for everyone to see.</p> <p>Projects were regularly and almost routinely delayed or cancelled, fleets were consistently salami-sliced, in-service dates were delayed by months or even years.</p> <p>Consequently costs continued to grow ever more out of control.</p> <p>As Bernard Gray said in his 2009 report “(the MoD has) too many types of equipment being ordered for too large a range of tasks at too high a specification. This programme is unaffordable on any likely projection of future budgets”.</p> <p>In their final year in office alone the previous Government presided over an increase of reported cost by a staggering £3.3 billion in just two programmes.</p> <p>Regardless of the state of the public finances, simply from a management point of view, this would have to be tackled.</p> <p>Because of the state of the public finances we inherited, there was no question of just pouring money into the hole that was left behind.</p> <p>As I told the audience at DSEI this week, for a politician, it is painful to be a hawk on the deficit as well as a hawk on Defence.</p> <p>It is unfortunate that the moment of transformation had to come at a time when the public finances were under so much pressure.</p> <p>But what the crisis has forced us to do in Defence - and indeed more widely across government - is face some harsh but necessary truths.</p> <p>Let me draw out for you two that are relevant here.</p> <p><strong>ECONOMIC WEAKNESS IS A NATIONAL SECURITY LIABILITY</strong></p> <p>First, tackling the crisis in the public finances is not just an issue of economics but an issue of national security too.</p> <p>Debt is a strategic issue.</p> <p>Or to be brutal - you cannot be secure if you’re broke.</p> <p>Let’s just look at the figures.</p> <p>Even with the Coalition’s aggressive action, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts public sector net debt to peak at over 70% of GDP in 2014/15. </p> <p>Our current national debt is roughly equivalent to almost a quarter of a century of spending on Defence at the level of this year’s budget. </p> <p>The interest, just the interest, paid out last year alone was £43bn - greater than the annual budgets of the MoD, plus the Foreign Office, plus DfID put together. </p> <p>Next year the interest payments will be in the order of £50bn. </p> <p>Does this matter?</p> <p>Well, the lessons of history are clear - from the Roman Empire to the Soviet Union - even Britain’s own 20th century history bears this out - relative economic power is the wellspring of strategic strength. </p> <p>Structural economic weakness, if not dealt with, will bring an unavoidable reduction in our ability to shape the world.</p> <p>In Defence terms, without sound finances and a sustainable Defence programme the inevitable result in the long-term is a collapse in capability.</p> <p>The Coalition has acted to address both the structural economic weakness of the country and the unsustainable defence programme in order to avoid these outcomes.</p> <p>We are not alone in doing this although we may have been the first or at least amongst the earliest to act.</p> <p>The same process is also now taking place in the United States.</p> <p>But this is why our approach to Strategic Defence and Security Review had to be logical and unsentimental and include realigning our Defence priorities with the economic realities.</p> <p>But the vision of Future Force 2020 - supported by the fourth largest Defence budget in the world and by real terms rises in the equipment programme in the next spending period - is a vision that maintains formidable capability - from nuclear weapons to aircraft carriers, from state of the art jets to precisions weapons, from multi-role brigades to cyber defence - an adaptable defence posture for a volatile dangerous and unpredictable world.</p> <p><strong>TRANSFORMING THE WAY THINGS ARE DONE</strong></p> <p>The second harsh truth from the state of the public finances is this - just as throwing money at problems doesn’t automatically produce improvements, simply cutting things does not bring your budget into balance in the long-term.</p> <p>Unless you change the way you do things, you risk history repeating itself.</p> <p>So the drivers of financial instability and the lack of accountability in the management of Defence had to be tackled too.</p> <p>And that is what I want turn to now.</p> <p>I chose an approach of simultaneous reform rather than sequential reform because the vision of the SDSR will be unachievable if not accompanied by a management system robust enough to deliver it.</p> <p>That is why I set up the Defence Reform Unit under Peter Levene before the SDSR had been completed.</p> <p>He was very clear in his critique. </p> <p>A department with overly bureaucratic management structures, dominated by committees leading to indecisiveness and a lack of responsibility. </p> <p>A bloated top level defence board without Ministerial membership allowing strategic decision to drift and unable to reconcile ambition with resources. </p> <p>Budget holders without the levers needed to deliver and Ministers kept in the dark. </p> <p>In response to his report we have initiated a transformation in Defence in not seen for a generation.</p> <p>In particular, three key changes have to be made in contrast to what went before.</p> <p>First - We have to have confidence that what is being ordered can be afforded. </p> <p>Second - we have to live with our means - there has to be a mechanism for the real time control of budgets so that if things start going wrong they can be identified and dealt with.</p> <p>Third - authority has to be aligned with responsibility - so budget holders have the levers to deliver and the incentive to do so but can also be held to account for failure.</p> <p>Let me take each of these in turn.</p> <p><strong>COMMITMENT CONTROL REGIME</strong></p> <p>First, the commitment control regime.</p> <p>Despite the fact that ministers in the previous government knew the Defence program was unsustainable they continued to add new elements to it knowing that there were no secure funding in the budget to finance them. </p> <p>Too often, in order to get projects included in the programme, fantasy numbers produced by the MOD and Industry were accepted at the outset knowing that cost overruns would have to be recovered later. </p> <p>By looking at and approving programmes in isolation from the totality of departmental spend any programme can be made to look affordable. </p> <p>But when they are considered together, the cumulative risk and cost become unmanageable.</p> <p>These practices in the MoD would not be tolerated in the private sector and they will no longer be tolerated in the MoD.</p> <p>A risk-aware and cost-conscious mentality must permeate every level at the Ministry of Defence, civilian and military alike. </p> <p>The commitment control regime means that guarantees of realistic budgets for development, procurement and deployment must be presented to Ministers before spending can begin on new programmes. </p> <p>A good example of this in action is the recent order placed for 14 Chinook Helicopters - 12 to expand the fleet and two to replace losses in Afghanistan.</p> <p>As the Financial Times wrote at the time “The broader significance of the order may now be less to do with the extent the new aircraft will boost airlift capacity, and more to do with what it conveys about the MOD’s procurement system.”</p> <p>That is true.</p> <p>I was not willing to sign the order unless I had a budget that I could guarantee. </p> <p>I also sought guarantees that the projected costs had been thoroughly vetted. </p> <p>This is all part of the commitment control regime run by my Permanent Secretary Ursula Brennan and Chief of Defence Materiel Bernard Gray. </p> <p>As we went through the SDSR I was never convinced that the Department was in full control of the facts about real costs.  </p> <p>Having brought Bernard Gray in and having asked him to thoroughly scrub the equipment programme, I think we now have a much better and more rigorous idea of what things really cost. </p> <p>This was one of the most positive results of the recent three month exercise we undertook to prepare for the next annual planning round.</p> <p>During that exercise I said to the Department you need to give us all the information that we need because if you come back afterwards and say ‘by the way this is actually costing a bit more’ you will have to find it from somewhere else inside your budget.</p> <p>This brings me to my second key change.</p> <p><strong>MAJOR PROJECTS REVIEW BOARD</strong></p> <p>Having a realistic projection of costs and a budget to meet them is only the first part of the jigsaw.</p> <p>Keeping to budget, as anyone in the private sector knows, requires real-time control.</p> <p>But there was a complete lack of process within the MOD to achieve that and no system to hold to account project leaders in the MOD and indeed in Industry for failure.</p> <p>So first we had to initiate a process of regular review - that is what the Major Projects Review Board (MPRB) is all about.</p> <p>The 20 biggest procurement projects which make up 80% of the equipment budget are now reviewed on a quarterly basis.  </p> <p>If a particular programme is showing signs of incipient failure, then those responsible are brought in front of the Board to explain the problem and to outline the proposed way ahead. </p> <p>Of course problems can lie with the MOD or with Industry or both - but I believe, when public money is involved, that the public has a right to know where things are going wrong.</p> <p>I think it is perfectly reasonable when Government and Industry are working in constructive co-operation that shareholders and indeed the stock market are kept informed of progress.</p> <p>I am determined that the discipline of the market should apply as much to Defence as it does other areas where Government is investing in infrastructure over long-timescales.</p> <p>This external discipline is now regularly and routinely being applied.</p> <p>And it is exactly this discipline that is required if we are to ensure that the Department lives within its means.</p> <p><strong>AUTHORITY AND CONTROL</strong></p> <p>The last fundamental change I want to address is on authority and control.</p> <p>If the MOD was in the private sector it would be the third biggest company in Britain.  </p> <p>But we inherited a management system where the Secretary of State didn’t even chair the board.</p> <p>It is part of my basic Conservative philosophy that politicians shouldn’t try to tell people how to do the jobs they are trained to do. </p> <p>We should set out what we want the outcome and the output to be and then we should leave professional people to make those judgements.  </p> <p>I have no intention of micro-managing the Armed Forces which is why we have reconfigured the management structure of the Department - including the Defence Board.</p> <p>Key to this is empowering the Service chiefs to run their own individual services.</p> <p>The single service chiefs are the custodians of their services, the fundamental building blocks of defence. </p> <p>In the new model, the Service chiefs get a clear strategic direction within set budgets that enables them to carry out the detailed military capability planning needed across equipment, manpower and training. </p> <p>Once that is agreed, they will be given greater freedom to veer and haul between priorities within their own service to deliver what is needed in Defence. </p> <p>They will enjoy long-denied freedoms, and they will be held robustly to account for doing so.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>A lot of what I have said this evening are procedural changes which to the average tabloid reader would seem to be meaningless.</p> <p>Of course as you are all FT readers I’m sure you agree that this will bring an essential discipline to how the Ministry of Defence operates.</p> <p>This is not to say that the difficulties have ended.</p> <p>But I am confident that we are on the right path.</p> <p>A path that leads not only to a balanced Defence budget, but also to Armed Forces able to keep our citizens safe, and to project the military power required to do so at a distance.</p> <p>Britain will remain one of the few countries in the world able to do just that.</p> <p>In this last 16 months we have achieved much in the Ministry of the Defence - the SDSR, the Armed Forces Covenant, the Defence Reform Unit, the Reserves Review, the Basing Review.</p> <p>We’ve set up the Defence Infrastructure Organisation and the Defence Business Services Organisation.</p> <p>We’ve reconfigured the management system, set up the Major Projects Review Board, set up the Defence Exports Support Group and set up the Defence Suppliers Forum.</p> <p>We’ve begun the transformation in the management of Defence from a cumbersome Cold War bureaucracy to an adaptable 21st century organisation.</p> <p>And while we have done so, our Armed Forces have been proving themselves again and again on operations - in Afghanistan - in the skies over Libya - on their standing tasks around the world.</p> <p>People often say to me that I must have one of the worst jobs in Whitehall, but I think exactly the polar opposite.</p> <p>I think I have one of the best jobs in Whitehall.</p> <p>I am working with some of the best minds in Britain in the Military and in the Civil Service and in Industry.</p> <p>I have the absolute honour of seeing day in and day out the professionalism, courage and commitment of the men and women of our Armed Forces who do some of the most difficult jobs in the most dangerous of circumstances all around the world. </p> <p>I am enormously proud of what they are achieving - I’m humbled to be nominally in charge of them and I’m proud of what is being achieved at the Ministry of Defence.</p> <p><br> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20110915TransformingTheManagementOfDefence.htm Liam Fox 2011/09/15 - Transforming the Management of Defence uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 20/09/2011 Ministry of Defence the Financial Times Annual Defence Dinner, London
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>It is a great pleasure to be here at DSEi.</p> <p>Although this is not my first visit, it is as Secretary of State for Defence.</p> <p>So in that role let me add my words of welcome to representatives of our many allies and partners from around the world here this week.</p> <p>DSEi brings together over 1,300 suppliers from the global defence and the security sectors - everything from traditional defence platforms to cyber security and counter-terrorism to commercial security, fire protection and safety. </p> <p>Of course, the United Kingdom’s own industrial presence here is exceptionally strong.</p> <p>And I’m pleased to see a record number of small and medium sized businesses represented.</p> <p>This represents a track record of manufacturing prowess, engineering skill and innovation that exist in businesses and people from across the whole country - a track record of which Britain can be rightly proud.</p> <p>Today I want to celebrate that success but I also want to talk about some of the difficult challenges ahead - not just for the United Kingdom - but for all those who seek to build a stable and secure environment in which our societies can prosper and flourish.</p> <p><strong>THE VALUE OF DEFENCE</strong></p> <p>Just as we take pride in the job that our Armed Forces do - it is right that we take pride in those in industry who support them and provide the tools that keep us safe.</p> <p>From those who research and design solutions that may well save lives, to those who engineer, produce and support equipment and capabilities too. </p> <p>It is not only that this maintains over 300,000 jobs across the country - in all parts of the United Kingdom.</p> <p>It is not only that this pays around £2bn a year in taxes to the exchequer and a £35bn contribution to the wider economy.</p> <p>All this helps to ensure that our Armed Forces and those of our allies and partners are equipped, armed and supported in operations that protect our national interest and give many people in many parts of the world new hope.</p> <p>We are seeing this in Afghanistan and the recent NATO action in Libya.</p> <p>Our forces in Afghanistan who are doing a fantastic job in challenging circumstances have never been so well equipped.</p> <p>We will continue to support them properly until the mission is complete.</p> <p>In Libya, state of the art precision weapons, such as Brimstone, have allowed NATO forces to prosecute a dynamic campaign within the terms of the UN resolution.</p> <p>In particular, the performance of Typhoon in its first multi-role contribution to operations has been fantastic - exceeding our own high expectations.</p> <p>For some time Britain has relied on Typhoon to defend our homeland and our dependent territories.</p> <p>Now Typhoon is tried and tested in a ground attack role too -  and has proved its versatility, endurance and reliability.</p> <p>And I want to thank all those who have worked so hard to deliver the support our forces needed on recent operations.</p> <p>A healthy and thriving defence and security sector supports more than our Armed Forces, it supports our foreign policy aims too.</p> <p>Defence and Security exports play a key role in promoting our foreign policy objectives - building relationships and trust, sharing information and spreading values - these things cannot be measured in monetary terms on a balance sheet alone.</p> <p>For me it is irrefutable - helping one of Britain’s most dynamic, successful industries to export responsibly is in British national interest.</p> <p>I am proud that the UK is the second biggest defence exporter in the world.</p> <p>And I and my fellow Ministers at the MOD and across government are proud to play our part in supporting that process.</p> <p>This is fundamental part of the Coalition Government’s agenda for economic growth but it is also part of our strategy of enlightened international engagement. </p> <p>Margin, profit, market share - these are not dirty words - but the language of multi-national business can sometimes appear values free.</p> <p>The nations that set the framework in which manufacture and exports take place are most definitely not. </p> <p>To represent Britain, in war, in peace and, yes, in business, is to represent our inherent democratic values, the rule of law, and respect for life. </p> <p>This is why the United Kingdom’s export licensing regime is amongst the most rigorous in the world.</p> <p>Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are mandatory considerations for all export licence applications which we consider on a case-by-case basis.</p> <p>When conditions change we act swiftly to revoke licences that do not meet our strict criteria - just as we did earlier this year as the events in the Middle East and North Africa unfolded.</p> <p>This important area of policy is subject to rigorous scrutiny and regular review, and the Foreign Secretary will update Parliament in due course. </p> <p>We will not compromise our values.</p> <p>But let me be equally clear, we will continue to support our allies and partners, we will help with their security needs, and we will support businesses seeking to do that.</p> <p><strong>THE ADAPTABLE APPROACH IN A VOLATILE WORLD</strong></p> <p>Our export controls, just like our promotion of responsible exports, are not tactical - they are strategic.</p> <p>In this volatile world, it is in Britain’s interests to help create security where there is none, promote stability where it is threatened, and reinforce responsible governance wherever it exists.</p> <p>Our strategic response has to be relevant in the conditions that exist and designed to help positive transformation.</p> <p>The Arab Spring shows just how quickly circumstances can propel countries and, indeed whole regions, from one condition to another.</p> <p>And it is a dynamic process whose ultimate conclusion is as yet unknown.</p> <p>Such swift change requires our export regimes as well as our international security structures to be flexible, responsive and multi-layered.</p> <p>And they require our Armed Forces to be adaptable too.</p> <p>The United Kingdom is now implementing the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) announced last year.</p> <p>The SDSR lays out a roadmap for sustainable, well-managed and formidable Armed Forces - structured for the rigours of the future character of conflict - able to swiftly adapt to circumstances - able to operate with our allies or independently if necessary -  and fully able to provide for Britain’s Defence in an age of uncertainty.</p> <p>It is exactly because of the unpredictability of this volatile world - exactly because of the continuing need to use military force to protect Britain’s interests at distance - that the SDSR places such a premium on the flexibility and adaptability of our Armed Forces.</p> <p>These are testing times - not just in security terms but in economic terms too.</p> <p>Like many of our allies and partners, the United Kingdom is seeking to bring order to our public finances and to its Defence programme.</p> <p>We have been among the first to recognise just how dangerous the economic crisis could be in terms of long-term security.</p> <p>Economic growth and economic success are issues of national security too.</p> <p>It is painful for a politician to be both a hawk on the deficit and a hawk on Defence but you cannot be secure when you’re broke </p> <p>Influence depends on both economic power and military power.</p> <p>That is why our approach to Defence transformation has had to be logical and unsentimental.</p> <p>At each step we have considered the implications of cost and capability, we have considered the impact on current operations, and we have considered capacities for capability regeneration against real world risk.</p> <p>This methodology has allowed us to seek budgetary balance while investing in the future platforms and systems our Armed Forces will need to remain formidable and adaptable - from aircraft carriers to cyber capabilities.</p> <p>As many of you know, this has meant taking difficult decisions on particular programmes that have implications for industry.</p> <p>But in doing so we have achieved a level of stability and predictability that was previously absent.</p> <p>The Government’s commitment to a 1% real terms increase in the Defence equipment and support budget from 2015 underlines our determination to realise the transformation of our Armed Forces.</p> <p>We are moving towards a period of growth with greater opportunities for industry as we build the capabilities upon which our Future Force 2020 will rely.</p> <p>So let me turn to the relationship between Government and industry we need if we are going to produce both economic growth and national security.</p> <p><strong>BUILDING ON SUCCESS</strong></p> <p>As I have said, these are testing economic times.</p> <p>But despite this the UK defence and security industry is a real success story.</p> <p>Last year the UK maintained its position as the second largest exporter of new Defence products and services winning almost £6Bn of new Defence orders and increasing its share of the global Defence market to 22%.</p> <p>Additionally, security exports grew too by 8% to £2bn fuelled by the 9,000 companies and 140,000 people in the UK who work hard to bring new, relevant and innovative security products to market.</p> <p>The British success story is not just about global prime contractors - it is about the small businesses who are world leaders in cutting-edge technologies - they are the lifeblood of the industry.</p> <p>This is about family-owned companies like Tinsley Bridge Group in Sheffield who worked with BAE Systems to produce suspension on Warrior vehicles that provides mobility and protection.</p> <p>It is about companies like Cambridge Design Partnership who have designed a lightweight integrated oxygen concentrator that helps medics administer life-saving treatment - this is technology not just for the front-line, but for search and rescue operations, disaster relief and civilian ambulances.  </p> <p>Technology transfer works both ways - the new Foxhound light patrol vehicle incorporates technology developed in Formula 1 racing.</p> <p>The British engineering solutions found in some of the most advanced racing cars in the world - found in some of the most advanced military vehicles in the world.</p> <p>This innovation means that Foxhound has the potential to be a world leader in protected mobility and will be deployed to Afghanistan next year.</p> <p>We have collected many of the innovative ideas and capabilities that UK has to offer into a UK Capability Showcase at the eastern end of the North Hall, and I urge you all to pay it a visit.</p> <p><strong>CONSTRUCTIVE CO-OPERATION</strong></p> <p>But in the new environment, businesses, both big and small, will have to continue to adapt to be successful.</p> <p>Government is going to be a tougher, more intelligent customer - it needs to be.</p> <p>The pressure on the public purse means that now more than ever, value for money for the taxpayer must be demonstrable.</p> <p>Value for money is not about compromising your Defence aim or compromising business viability - it is about realising those aims in a way that is sustainable for both customer and supplier. </p> <p>That balance has not always existed in the past.</p> <p>As a measure of our determination to redress this and as part of Defence Transformation, the Ministry of Defence has been we are conducting a programme of contract review and re-negotiation affecting up to 500 contracts with a value of £8bn.</p> <p>And the new Major Projects Review Board brings much needed market pressure into the process of ensuring projects are proceeding on time and on budget.</p> <p>As I have said - profit is not a dirty word - but neither is competition or value for money or ‘off the shelf’ - or as I prefer to call it ‘barcode procurement’.</p> <p>Now I know that our contractors have demonstrated great flexibility to meet the requirements of operations.</p> <p>This has demonstrated to me the terrific capability that can be generated from within the UK’s industrial base and by our overseas suppliers in a time of need.</p> <p>This is the behaviour and the outcomes we need to have in all our dealings.</p> <p>Industry does not need handouts - nor will it get them.</p> <p>Industry looks to Government to be clear in defining its needs, consistent in its application of policy and transparent in how business is done.</p> <p>That is what we are delivering.</p> <p>We have consulted widely and intend to publish our policy approach in a White Paper before the end of the year.</p> <p><strong>EXPORT-LED GROWTH</strong></p> <p>But also crucial to success is what DSEi is all about - the quality of product and the export potential.</p> <p>The UK Defence Survey published yesterday by ADS suggests that export sales last year amounted to over 40% of total turnover.</p> <p>For too long export potential has been ignored when initiating projects for the UK’s own use - that needs to change.</p> <p>Exportability needs to become engrained in the requirement setting, commissioning and production processes - because only through exportability can risks and costs be shared in a viable way.</p> <p>The best way to sustain UK Defence and security jobs in the long term is to widen the customer base through enhanced Defence exports.</p> <p>The Ministry of Defence and Industry working together can be at the forefront of an export led growth strategy.</p> <p>We also must recognise and understand the needs and priorities of our allies and partners.  </p> <p>Successful exports is not just about selling equipment and capability; increasingly success is based the ability to create joint ventures with the excellent industries that exist amongst the countries represented here at DSEi.</p> <p>Quite rightly sovereign nations wish to have indigenous defence industries, perhaps not all embracing, but which play to individual strengths and areas of expertise.  </p> <p>We should be looking at these as opportunities for our industry to grow and for Government’s deepen and strengthen partnerships.     </p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom are among the best equipped in the world, funded by the world’s fourth largest Defence Budget. </p> <p>The cutting edge technology they are able to call on gives them a true advantage on the frontline - it protects them, it informs them, and ultimately it provides them with precision offensive capability to deliver battle winning effect - it has been tried and tested on operations some of the most demanding environments in the world.</p> <p>At this exhibition you will see much of that equipment and you will see the world class British engineering that is delivering battle-winning capability.</p> <p>I am pleased to see so many of our allies and partners here this week - the responsible stewardship of international stability and security is not a task just for a few but a task for all those who wish to see their societies prosper.</p> <p>We are reminded this week - in the long shadow of the terrible events of 9/11 - that security does not exist unless it is created.</p> <p>As the world changes around us, the adaptability of our defence and security forces will be key to keeping our citizens safe - and the strength of our economy and the innovation of our industry will be key to national success.</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20110913BuildingSecurityCelebratingSuccess.htm Liam Fox 2011/09/13 - Building Security, Celebrating Success uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 13/09/2011 Ministry of Defence the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEi) 2011, ExCel London,
<p>Madam Deputy Speaker, with permission I would like to make a statement on the Report into the death of Mr Baha Mousa in Iraq in 2003.</p> <p>In any conflict, no matter what the reason for our country’s involvement and no matter how difficult the circumstances, what separates us from our adversaries are the values with which we prosecute it and the ethics that guide our actions.</p> <p>To represent Britain, in war as well as in peace, is to represent our inherent democratic values, the rule of law and respect for life. </p> <p>When those values are transgressed, it is vital that we get to the bottom of what has happened, are open about the issues and their causes, make sure what reparations we can make are made, and do all we can to prevent it happening again. </p> <p>Only in that way can we ensure that those values hold firm – in how we think of ourselves and in how others perceive us.</p> <p>Mr Speaker, I am today laying before the House the independent report published this morning by Sir William Gage as Chairman of the Public Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Baha Mousa in Iraq in 2003. </p> <p>I am grateful to Sir William and his team who have produced a report that is sober, focussed and detailed.</p> <p>Above all I believe it to be both fair and balanced.</p> <p>It is, however, a painful and difficult read.</p> <p>As the report sets out, “Baha Mousa was subject to violent and cowardly abuse and assaults by British Servicemen whose job it was to guard him and treat him humanely”, and this was the primary cause of his death.</p> <p>This Inquiry was rightly set up in 2008 by the previous Government with the intent to shine a spotlight on the events surrounding the death of Baha Mousa and to provide the most definitive account possible in the circumstances.</p> <p>It does that comprehensively.</p> <p>What happened to Baha Mousa and his fellow detainees in September 2003 was deplorable, shocking and shameful.</p> <p>The MOD and the Army have previously made a full apology to the family of Baha Mousa and to his fellow detainees and has paid compensation to them. </p> <p>We can take some limited comfort that incidents like this are extremely rare - but we cannot be satisfied by that.</p> <p>Given the seriousness of this case, there is a series of questions that I have myself asked and that others in this House will ask too.</p> <p>Among these are:</p> <p>Who was responsible and what happened as a consequence?  </p> <p>What action has been taken to prevent a recurrence?  </p> <p>Do we have the right protection in place today in Afghanistan?</p> <p>And, of course, how will the Government respond to the recommendations made in the report?</p> <p>First, on responsibility the report makes clear the extent of the failings of individuals, the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces at the time and in earlier years.</p> <p>In addition to the shocking displays of brutality for which individuals are responsible, it is also clear that there were serious failings in command and discipline in the 1st Battalion the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment. </p> <p>There was a lack of clarity in the allocation of responsibility for the prisoner handling process and sadly too there was a lack of moral courage to report abuse. </p> <p>However, it must be acknowledged that a small number behaved with both integrity and courage in reporting what they had witnessed and they are examples of how others should have behaved.</p> <p>Wider than the Battalion, there were also deficiencies in policies, orders and training relating to detention at that time. </p> <p>The Chairman notes that there was inadequate doctrine on prisoner handling. </p> <p>There was a ‘systemic failure’ that allowed knowledge of the prohibition on abusive techniques made by the Heath Government to be lost over the years. </p> <p>The Report confirms that the Army was underprepared for the task of handling civilian detainees, having expected after the end of war-fighting to provide humanitarian aid rather than becoming involved in counter-insurgency activities. </p> <p>Madam Deputy Speaker, since this incident in 2003, six different Defence Secretaries have stood at this Despatch Box and I am sure all will regret that it has taken so long to get to the bottom of what happened, and that even now the refusal of some involved to tell the whole truth means it has not been possible to establish the full extent of the culpability of individuals. </p> <p>Their behaviour is a matter for their own consciences but others must take responsibility for the wider failures and deficiencies.</p> <p>This report does not mean that our investigations of mistreatment of detainees are over.</p> <p>The evidence from the Inquiry will now be reviewed to see whether more can be done to bring those responsible to justice.</p> <p>It would therefore not be appropriate to comment here in the House of Commons on specific individuals and the role they played in this appalling episode.</p> <p>I have asked the Chief of the General Staff where individuals are still serving, to consider what action is necessary to ensure that the Army’s ethical standards are upheld - that action is underway through the chain of command as we speak.</p> <p>The investigations of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (or IHAT), which started work in November last year, are now well under way and are revealing evidence of some concern. </p> <p>It is too early to comment on what the conclusions of the IHAT investigations might be, but cases will be referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions if and when there is sufficient evidence to justify this.</p> <p>Mr Speaker, since 2003 action by the MOD and the Army to address failings as they were identified has touched every aspect of the prisoner handling system from policy and doctrine to ground level directives, as well as training and oversight. </p> <p>The changes wrought have been fundamental.</p> <p>The Army Inspector’s report in 2010, validated by an independent, expert adviser, is one example of the detailed scrutiny applied to the training and doctrine for handling detainees. </p> <p>And I can assure the House that there is a commitment to continuous improvement at all levels inside and outside the Armed Forces. </p> <p>As the Report acknowledges, further positive changes have been made as a result of matters that emerged from evidence heard during this Inquiry’s final module - Module 4 – which was a thorough scrutiny of our current detention policies, practices and training. </p> <p>The Minister for the Armed Forces and I take a close personal interest in detention matters in Afghanistan.  </p> <p>I am confident that our approach to detention there is now markedly improved from the period rightly criticised in this report. </p> <p>But we are in no way complacent about the issues identified by Sir William.</p> <p>I can inform this House that I am accepting in principle all of his recommendations with one reservation.</p> <p>It is vital that we retain the techniques necessary to secure swiftly in appropriate circumstances the intelligence that can save lives.</p> <p>The recommendation that we institute a blanket ban during tactical questioning on the use of certain verbal and non-physical techniques I am afraid I cannot accept.</p> <p>However, I share some of Sir William’s concerns and I have asked the Chief of Defence Staff to ensure that this approach is only be used by defined people in defined circumstances.</p> <p>Madam Deputy Speaker, let me conclude by saying this: In Iraq, between 2003-2008, 179 British personnel were killed serving their country and many more returned injured.</p> <p>In autumn 2003, the 1st Battalion Queen’s Lancashire Regiment faced an immensely difficult challenge as they attempted to bring law and order to a large area that had been subject to a brutally oppressive regime for many years. </p> <p>As Sir William acknowledges, the issues addressed in his Report – and I quote – “need to be understood in the operational context in which they occurred: the tempo of operations; the poor state of the local civilian infrastructure; a daily threat to life from both civilian unrest and an increasing insurgency; the deaths of fellow service personnel and incessant oppressive heat. In combination these factors made huge demands on soldiers serving in Iraq in 2003.”</p> <p>There are few of us sitting in the comfort of the House of Commons who can claim to understand what this must have been like.</p> <p>However, the vast majority of Armed Forces personnel faced these same challenges and did not behave in the way outlined in this report.</p> <p>They represent the fine ethical values found day in and day out in our Armed Forces.</p> <p>We must not allow the unspeakable actions of a very few to damage the reputation of the whole.</p> <p>So let me be clear, Baha Mousa was not a casualty of war.  </p> <p>His death occurred as a detainee in British Custody – it was avoidable and preventable and there can be no excuses.</p> <p>There is no place in our Armed Forces for the mistreatment of detainees and there is no place for a perverted sense of loyalty that turns a blind eye to wrongdoing or erects a wall of silence to cover it up. </p> <p>If any Serviceman or woman, no matter the colour of uniform they wear, is found to have betrayed the values this country stands for and the standards we hold dear, they will be held to account. </p> <p>Ultimately, whatever the circumstances, the rules or regulations people know the difference between right or wrong.</p> <p>We will not allow the behaviour of individuals who cross that line to taint the reputation of the Armed Forces of which the British people are rightly proud.</p> <p>I commend this statement to the House.</p> <p>ENDS</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20110908StatementOnTheReportIntoTheDeathOfMrBahaMousaInIraqIn2003.htm Liam Fox 2011/09/08 - Statement on the Report into the death of Mr Baha Mousa in Iraq in 2003 uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 13/07/2011 Ministry of Defence None
<p> <strong>Introduction</strong> </p> <p>20 years ago this month the international community recognised the restoration of independence and liberty in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as the shackles of the Soviet Union were cast off once and for all.</p> <p>This was, of course, not a single event but the culmination of a struggle - a struggle spanning half a century - with many heroes - and sadly many victims of many different nationalities.</p> <p>In Britain we continue to mark the 8th May 1945 as Victory in Europe Day.</p> <p>But we remember that liberation for some was not liberation for all and the throwing off of oppression that the 8th May represents for much of Europe was not secured by many in North and Eastern Europe for another 45 years.</p> <p>We should never forget that the Cold War did not simply end.</p> <p>The Cold War was won - won by those who believed in the triumph of liberty and human spirit.</p> <p>Not by guns and tanks and missiles, although deterrence played its part, but won by the dynamism of the free market and the courage of people desperate for freedom.</p> <p>Liberty is not the natural state of affairs - it must be fought for and defended repeatedly in place and time, in every nation and by every generation.</p> <p>The current struggle in Libya is part of that same long continuum that people here in the Baltic are familiar with.</p> <p>It will not be the last conflict.</p> <p>The forces of freedom and the forces of tyranny are in a constant battle for supremecy.</p> <p>For the 'Baltic Way' of 1989, when millions linked the capitals of Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius in a human chain, read Bouazizi Square, Tahrir Square and Martyr Square in Tunis, Cairo and Tripoli today.</p> <p>Here and now, in the 21st century, the people of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia are enjoying the fruits of 20 years of successful democratic governance.</p> <p>Now members of NATO and the European Union. </p> <p>Part of a family of nations united by values - united in defence of those values and in defence of one another.</p> <p>This Baltic Defence College here in Tartu is part of how that unity is fostered - those with a responsibility for national and collective Defence coming together to learn together - and to learn from one another.</p> <p>And I am particularly pleased that, after a few years absence, the United Kingdom is once again represented among the student body.</p> <p>This college teaches not only the craft of defence but the values of NATO - values which have been on display in the campaign in Libya - not only the justification for NATO's initial involvement, but also the way in which the campaign has been prosecuted - with precision, to protect civilians and to minimise casualties showing that we have greater regard for life than the regime being overthrown.</p> <p>Today I want to talk about how we defend our values and maintain our collective defence in this globalised, unpredictable, fast moving world - a world in which threats are not single but diverse - a world in which our security response necessarily cannot be monolithic but needs to be flexible and multi-layered. </p> <p><strong>Afghanistan</strong></p> <p>But first I want to dwell for a moment on another, much less auspicious anniversary that is nearly upon us.</p> <p>The 11th September will mark ten years since the Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, which killed nearly 3,000 innocent people and changed the way many political leaders saw the world.</p> <p>Ten years later Osama Bin Laden is dead, but the followers of his deadly, nihilistic, extremist creed - though weakened - have not gone away.</p> <p>You can't shoot an idea. Just as Soviet communism had to be beaten in the mind, the heart and the pocket - so must violent Islamic extremism.</p> <p>That is why the Arab Spring and what NATO has been helping to achieve in Libya is so important.</p> <p>It shows that violent extremism is not the only route to change.</p> <p>It demonstrates that representative government and freedom are not simply 'western' values but represent a universal aspiration.</p> <p>It disproves the myth peddled by extremists that freedom is somehow incompatible with Islam.</p> <p>The desire for control over your own destiny is not constrained by religion but by those who seek to use religion to oppress legitimate aspirations.</p> <p>Of course the presence of NATO in Afghanistan is a direct consequence of 9/11.</p> <p>For the first and only time in its history, NATO invoked Article V of the Washington Treaty - an attack against one being an attack against all.</p> <p>Our mission in Afghanistan is to build up the capacity of the Afghan Government so that it is able to prevent the return of those who pose a threat to us and our allies around the world.</p> <p>We protect our own national security and the security of the NATO alliance by helping the Afghans take control of theirs.</p> <p>Progress has been slow at times and difficult, but it is real and meaningful.</p> <p>We are now entering a new phase.</p> <p>The size and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) has grown significantly, first meeting and exceeding targets, and is now at the stage where transition of lead responsibility for security can take place area by area as conditions allow.</p> <p>This is happening now in Helmand where US, British, Estonian and Danish troops are co-operating together alongside the ANSF.</p> <p>Afghan forces are doing more fighting and patrolling - our forces are doing more training and mentoring.</p> <p>Security for the provincial capital Lashkar Gah is now the responsibility of the ANSF, but the security situation in other parts of the province remains challenging and there is no room for complacency.</p> <p>Afghanistan remains a dangerous place and progress is by no means irreversible.</p> <p>All the Baltic nations are contributing to ISAF and on behalf of the British Government I want to thank Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia for their efforts in pursuit of our collective security.</p> <p>With your contributions you are putting to shame some of NATO's larger nations and this will not be forgotten.</p> <p>I hope you will forgive me for dwelling a moment on the contribution of Estonia, whose troops train side by side, and fight side by side with those from Britain.</p> <p>We are particularly grateful that Estonian troops serve without caveats.</p> <p>They are a valuable part of Task Force Helmand - valued in particular at that soldier to soldier level where personal trust is paramount.</p> <p>Operating now with 42 Commando Royal Marines as part of Combined Forces Nad 'Ali (North), the Estonian troops from the 1st Infantry Brigade have played a significant role in the latest Operation OMID HAFT.</p> <p>I know that the Estonian BRIMSTONE team of bomb disposal experts were outstanding in finding and disposing of the deadly IEDs that laced the area.</p> <p>Operations like this are inherently dangerous and I pay tribute to those Estonians who have lost their lives.</p> <p>Their sacrifice is not forgotten - nor do we forget those who have been injured - just as we fight side by side, so do our medical teams work side by side - and those who are seriously injured are able to use the medical facilities in the UK designed for treatment and rehabilitation.</p> <p>Last week I was at the military ward at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, in Birmingham.</p> <p>I met there a young Estonian soldier who is recovering from his wounds.</p> <p>I told him I was soon to be visiting Estonia and speaking here at Tartu.</p> <p>He said I was lucky and that he was looking forward to coming home.</p> <p>He and his colleagues are truly 'Lions of Estonia' - highly capable, good in a fight, and feared by the insurgency for their tenacity and professionalism.</p> <p>We share with the Government of Afghanistan the objective that the Afghans assume lead security responsibility across the country as a whole by the end of 2014 so British troops will not be in a combat role by 2015. </p> <p>But as Minister Laar, Minister Bech from Denmark and I set out when we met in Kabul in June, "though the nature of our forces might evolve during the transition process, the mission will remain resourced and the right balance maintained between combat troops and others."</p> <p><strong>Preparing for the Future</strong></p> <p>Afghanistan represents a significant test for the NATO alliance and it may well point the way to a character of warfare that NATO could face in the future.</p> <p>But we must be careful not to use Afghanistan - or indeed Libya - dogmatically as exemplars of other current challenges or those that we may face in the future.</p> <p>We can never assume that the conflicts of the future will be the same as the conflicts of today.</p> <p>In the United Kingdom we have just been through a rigorous process of reassessment, completing our first Strategic Defence and Security Review for over a decade.</p> <p>The transformation of our Defence capability is now underway.</p> <p>The British Armed Forces that will emerge from this process will remain formidable, advanced and structured for swift deployment overseas, but they will be more flexible and more able to withstand the rigours of modern warfare on land, sea, air and notably in cyberspace.</p> <p>And we will of course remain a nuclear power, supported by the fourth largest defence budget in the world, continuing to meet the NATO criteria of 2% of GDP.</p> <p>Our review was thorough, based on a fresh assessment of Britain's wider national security requirements, and based on realistic judgements about the nature of the threats we face and the risks we need to prepare for.</p> <p><strong>Economic Strength</strong></p> <p>Let me share with you with just a few strategic conclusions I have drawn from the process we have been through.</p> <p>First - structural economic weakness is a national security liability and has to be dealt with as a priority. </p> <p>You can't be secure if you are broke.</p> <p>Without sound finances and a sustainable defence programme the inevitable result in the long-term is a collapse in capability.</p> <p>The Soviet Union's implosion was in part caused by an economic system that could not sustain the myth of communism's superiority - nor sustain the military forces required to hold the myth together.</p> <p>The lessons of history are clear. </p> <p>Relative economic power is the wellspring of strategic strength. </p> <p>The determination of the UK Government to reduce the structural deficit in our public finances comes in part from recognition of this fact.</p> <p>This reality is being recognised in the United States and in some parts of Europe, but I fear that the message still needs to get through in some quarters.</p> <p>Structural economic weakness, if not dealt with, will bring an unavoidable reduction in our ability to shape the world. </p> <p>But it is not only economic weakness that could stand in our way.</p> <p>This brings me to my second point.</p> <p><strong>Adaptability, Deployability and Political Will</strong></p> <p>In this volatile world we cannot predict with certainty exactly when and where threats may emerge so the requirement is for Armed Forces that are agile, adaptable and of high quality.</p> <p>And equally important is that they must be deployable - and supported by a political class willing to use them and to explain to their public the requirement for intervention in the collective interest - even if the public mood is otherwise.</p> <p>Having the means without the will to use it is not what NATO needs.</p> <p>This new world is not only volatile, but connected like never before.</p> <p>Just like contagion in financial markets, it is not long before threats emerging from instability even in regions thousands of miles away, are felt in our own backyard.</p> <p>That can be through disruption to trade, access to natural resources, through migration flow, or even more directly through security threats like trans-national terrorism.</p> <p>There has never been, nor can there ever be, such a thing as Fortress Europe.</p> <p>We have to be prepared to confront those who would threaten international stability or our collective security - outside our region and outside our comfort zone if necessary.</p> <p>As the philosopher John Stuart Mill said: "war is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war is worse."</p> <p>I am not advocating a strategy of unfettered liberal interventionism, but I am advocating a hard headed strategy of enlightened national interest where threats are tackled at source.</p> <p>An integrated approach which includes financial action, trade, conflict prevention, poverty reduction and development assistance is of course part of such a strategy, but ultimately we have to have the will and capability to respond militarily if required - swiftly, decisively and at distance.</p> <p>That is why I have a great deal of sympathy with the forensic dissection of the challenges facing NATO delivered by my very good friend and former US Defence Secretary Gates in June.</p> <p>The imbalances in NATO that Bob Gates set out are not only financial - they are about the kind of capability that exists and the political will to use it.</p> <p>Let me be clear, I do not believe we need to choose between the capabilities required for both Article 5 and non-Article 5 activities - deployability is central to the effectiveness of NATO in both areas.</p> <p>This brings me to my third point.</p> <p><strong>Partnership with Purpose</strong></p> <p>No country acting alone can hope to protect every aspect of its national security.</p> <p>Partnership is not discretionary - partnership between like-minded countries - partnership with clear purpose - based on clear values - is the only way to meet the threats of this new age.</p> <p>The United Kingdom belongs to a wide range of organisations and institutions allowing us to generate influence - the Security Council of the United Nations as a permanent member, NATO, the Commonwealth, the European Union, the G8, G20 and others. </p> <p>The UK's membership of NATO remains the bedrock of our collective security. </p> <p>And it is through NATO that the UK is committed to ensuring the continuing active participation of the United States in Europe's security into the future. </p> <p>As our SDSR confirmed, the United States remains Britain's most important security relationship, not least because of our conviction that NATO should remain a guarantor of European security well into the future.</p> <p>That is why NATO will not be well served by a dismissive response by some European members of NATO to issues raised by Bob Gates. </p> <p>The European Union is also a key part of the means through which we could promote security and prosperity in our neighbourhood - but it should be complimentary, and in addition, to NATO. Not a substitute which dilutes or diverts our efforts. </p> <p>I firmly believe that what is required is multilayered security so that nations can respond using the right means for the right occasion - through multi-lateral organisations such as NATO wherever possible - but also through small group and bilateral relationships - when the task requires it - or when wide consensus is harder to achieve. </p> <p>That is why the United Kingdom is embarking on a drive to maintain, improve and forge where necessary bilateral and small group relationships between like-minded states.</p> <p>This is what we might describe as a 'building block' approach to defence and security in the Euro-Atlantic area and further afield. </p> <p>It allows natural bi-lateral partnerships to flourish, allows regional groupings to flourish - and crucially it has the capacity to add value to the capabilities available to larger multi-national institutions such as NATO, the UN or the EU.</p> <p>A combination of strong bilateral ties and multilateral arrangements brings added strength to the whole. </p> <p>The UK-France Defence Co-operation Treaty is part of this process for us.</p> <p>So too is the Northern Group of nations, which includes the Baltic and Nordic countries, Germany, Poland and the Netherlands. </p> <p>This recognises our shared history as Northern European states - a history which I have to admit for too long Britain seemed to have forgotten but which the new Coalition Government greatly values. </p> <p>Here in the Northern European neighbourhood it makes sense to work together to secure our own region, to keep our trade routes open, to exploit together new opportunities and to face together threats as they arise.</p> <p>The UK does not believe that relationships in Europe always have to be about political Europe or the EU - we can and should work with geographical Europe.</p> <p>We view Europe differently, not just in terms of its institutional structures, but as a geographically united group of sovereign nations. </p> <p>The Northern Group includes nations who are members of NATO but not the EU and vice versa.</p> <p>So this model of multi-layered security is inclusive - it is a perfect example of why multilateralism outside traditional institutions is sometimes a better way and certainly a complimentary way to work together.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>Let me conclude with this thought.</p> <p>Since the end of the Cold War, the Baltic region has experienced a reawakening and renewal - a renaissance that Britain is proud to have supported and been involved in.</p> <p>But of course our shared history is much wider and deeper covering over a thousand years of migration, trade and yes, conflict at times.</p> <p>I was struck by Mart Laar's pamphlet on the Estonian War of Independence. He set out how the intervention of the British Fleet in Baltic waters was instrumental in the struggle leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Tartu in 1920.</p> <p>Indeed, Admiral Cowan is remembered here in the Baltic Defence College and of course in the name of the first Sandown Class mine countermeasures vessel commissioned in the Estonian Navy. </p> <p>The British were among those who gave their lives in the fight for freedom in the Baltic. </p> <p>Today in the 21st century, that passion and committment is absolutely undiminished.</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20110830PartnershipWithPurposeMultilayeredSecurityInThe21stCentury.htm Liam Fox 2011/08/30 - Partnership with Purpose: Multi-Layered Security in the 21st Century uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 13/07/2011 Ministry of Defence the Baltic Defence College, Tartu, Estonia,
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>No matter how much resource you commit, no matter how many great minds you employ, no matter how clear the analysis, it is impossible to predict with absolute precision when, where, and in what way Britain will find itself drawn into conflict in the future to protect the national interest and national security. </p> <p>We prepare but we cannot know.</p> <p>Who would have predicted at the time of the publication of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) that barely two months later the desperate act of a street vendor in Tunisia would set off a wave of protest across the Arab world, demanding reform, toppling Governments, blinking in the light of freedom? </p> <p>Who would have predicted that by the summer of this year the Royal Air Force would have flown over 1,500 sorties in support of OPERATION UNIFIED PROTECTOR, as part of a NATO-led, UN-mandated coalition, stopping the forces of the Gaddafi regime from using the skies to brutalise his own people and degrading his ability to do so from land and sea?</p> <p>I didn’t - and I doubt anyone in this room did?</p> <p><strong>PREPARED FOR THE UNPREDICTABLE</strong></p> <p>But the point is this: despite this lack of prophetic talent, the RAF has flown over 1,500 sorties and continues to contribute significantly to coalition operations in Libya.</p> <p>Working with our allies, the war machine Gaddafi had been using indiscriminately against his own people has been significantly degraded. </p> <p>The RAF alone has damaged or destroyed over 500 military targets, including command and control sites.</p> <p>In particular, the performance of Typhoon in its first multi-role contribution to operations has been fantastic.</p> <p>For some time now we have relied on Typhoon to defend the UK and our dependent territories.</p> <p>Now Typhoon has truly come of age.</p> <p>In the last few months, Typhoon has flown over 1700 hours with the average hours flown per aircraft increasing fourfold - proving its versatility, endurance and reliability.</p> <p>The outstanding performance of Typhoon is increasingly impressing those countries who are considering upgrading their fleets, as was clear when I visited India at the weekend. </p> <p>Of course operations in Libya are not an RAF only affair.</p> <p>The Royal Navy is off the Libyan coast penning in the regime’s maritime forces, policing the arms embargo, and contributing to strike missions.</p> <p>The Army is flying Apache Helicopters off HMS Ocean providing tactical flexibility to NATO commanders.</p> <p>All this has been achieved with crucial support from ISTAR and Command and Control platforms and from the air transport and refuelling fleet.</p> <p>And our Armed Forces are doing all this while continuing to focus energies on the main effort in Afghanistan where 9,500 men and women from all three Services face tough and dangerous challenges as I have seen for myself in recent weeks. </p> <p>I’m not saying that this is easy, without cost, or without consequences.</p> <p>It is important that we recognise and reward those who are engaged in the very highest areas of conflict.</p> <p>That is why I can announce today that Service personnel on operations in Libyan airspace and territorial waters will receive the Operational Allowance reflecting the rigours and risks that they are facing.</p> <p>Our forces currently on Operations in Libya are performing brilliantly and at considerable risk to themselves. </p> <p>We regularly review the payment of the Operational Allowance that recognises the risk and hardships faced by our forces on operations.</p> <p>We have recently completed such a review, and have decided it is only appropriate to extend the Operational Allowance to all those serving this country on operations in Libya.</p> <p>This will result in the payment of Operational Allowance to anyone operating within the landmass, airspace and territorial waters of Libya, including all aircrew operating over the Libyan landmass and to ships and submarines within 12 nm of the coast. </p> <p>Payment is based on the number of days within the specified areas, and I am pleased to announce will be backdated until 18 March with funding coming from the Reserve. </p> <p>In accordance with the agreed policy, those engaged in Operations for which they are in receipt of Operational Allowance on the day that individuals are notified will be excluded from the redundancy programme. </p> <p>Similarly, those on a dedicated operational work up package (of up to 6 months) or post operational tour leave on the day of notifications will also be excluded. </p> <p>We will never have a crystal ball for international events.</p> <p>But it is precisely because we can’t always predict, that we have to prepare, plan and put in place contingencies for a range of capabilities against a range of scenarios.</p> <p>This is precisely what the National Security Strategy and the SDSR have done.</p> <p>It may not have mentioned Libya by name, but the National Security Strategy placed an international crisis drawing in the UK and its allies in the top tier of risks over the next five years.  </p> <p>The planning assumptions in the Strategic Security and Defence Review allow for our Armed Forces to respond to a number of different scenarios, concurrent or otherwise. </p> <p>But this is where planning meets reality.</p> <p>We can, and have, planned for operations such as those we are undertaking.</p> <p>But no-one can predict how long a complex intervention will take - every scenario will be different - militarily, politically and diplomatically.</p> <p>Sustaining the tempo does increase the pressure on both personnel and equipment as planning assumptions are tested, and it tests the ability of defence companies to support front-line operations.</p> <p>We all accept that.</p> <p>But the costs of the Libya campaign are being met from the Treasury reserve, not the MOD budget.</p> <p>In the MOD, we must use our skills to match resources with commitments in the right way for the circumstances - that is our core business.</p> <p>Of course, no-one wants the operations in Libya to take a day longer than necessary.  </p> <p>But the bottom line is this - we can, and will, sustain operations in Libya for as long as it takes.</p> <p>That is what our national interest requires, and that is what our commitment under a United Nations mandate to the people of Libya requires.</p> <p>We are not doing this alone, nor would we choose to, and as NATO operations continue, and as members of the alliance participating adjust to the pressures being placed on their Armed Forces, we will look to the breadth of capability that the alliance possesses as a whole to sustain the tempo of operations.</p> <p><strong>TESTING TIMES</strong></p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, these are testing times - for the country as a whole and for Defence in particular.</p> <p>Testing times force us to make unpalatable decisions, but they provide opportunities too.</p> <p>Let me take the difficulties first.</p> <p>The Government is committed to eliminating the deficit in the public finances.</p> <p>The consequence of not taking tough action is there for all to see in the events playing out in the Eurozone.</p> <p>Economic power is the well-spring of strategic strength.</p> <p>Without it we will not be able to afford in the long-term the public services our country needs and the military forces required to meet the needs of Britain’s security and protect our interests around the globe.</p> <p>But this means tough decisions across public spending, including in Defence.</p> <p>Such action is not confined to the UK.</p> <p>President Obama has talked of cuts in the US security budgets of $400bn over 12 years</p> <p>The new US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is undertaking a comprehensive review to contribute to that aim.</p> <p>But he is clear - as I am - that “we do not have to choose between strong fiscal discipline and strong defence.”</p> <p>Indeed, in the longer-term one provides for the other.</p> <p>In the Ministry of Defence we face the added pressure of tackling the long ignored black hole in the defence budget bequeathed to us by a decade of over-programming.</p> <p>If we do not do so now, the inevitable consequence will be a severe recalibration in the future.</p> <p>I know of no mainstream voice arguing for that kind of retrenchment.</p> <p>We have also embarked on reforming the way we go about managing Defence, because if we do not the systemic problems that have allowed this situation to build up will simply repeat themselves overtime.</p> <p>This is the opportunity in adversity.</p> <p>Taken together, the SDSR and the reform of Defence management proposed by Lord Levene provide the blueprint for sustainable, well-managed and formidable Armed Forces - structured for the rigours of the future character of conflict - able to swiftly adapt to circumstances and operate with allies - fully able to provide for the Defence of the United Kingdom in an age of uncertainty.</p> <p>It is exactly because of the unpredictability of this volatile world, exactly because of the continuing need to use military force to protect Britain’s interests at distance, that the SDSR places such a premium on the flexibility and adaptability of our Armed Forces.</p> <p>Air Power and the Royal Air Force are a central component of this vision. </p> <p>When I became Secretary of State for Defence there were voices - strong voices - urging me to merge air operations fully into the other services.</p> <p>But I am clear that the RAF makes a definable and unique contribution to Britain’s Defence - a contribution that it would be wrong to dispense with.</p> <p>Some say the distinct heritage and tradition of the RAF is immaterial as it does not have a demonstrable monetary value.</p> <p>I believe that the cost of something does not always demonstrate its value.</p> <p>We cannot afford to lose the doctrinal understanding of air power and its effects which is burned deep into the collective fibre of the force.</p> <p>The value of the RAF is not confined to history - far from it.</p> <p><strong>INTEGRATION AND INTERNATIONALISM</strong></p> <p>Today the RAF is operating across all four enduring air power roles on current operations in Afghanistan and Libya, in addition to the standing operational commitments of defending Britain and our overseas territories: </p> <p>First, securing control of the air, guaranteeing freedom of manoeuvre and action to coalition forces while severely curtailing the options of our adversaries;</p> <p>Second, delivering intelligence and real-time information to support commanders and decision makers at every level;</p> <p>Third, providing global reach through strategic lift and theatre support through tactical lift;</p> <p>And fourth, delivering firepower rapidly and with precision.</p> <p>Air Power remains critical to the 21st century battle space.</p> <p>At this conference I have no doubt that we will hear many perspectives on the utility of Air Power, not least from the Chief of the Air Staff later today.</p> <p>I want to talk about two particular areas - joint operations and international operations.</p> <p>You will also know that today Lords Philip is publishing his report on the Mull of Kintyre accident.</p> <p>I will be making a statement on this later in Parliament today , so you will understand why I cannot make further comment on that at the moment.</p> <p>From its very establishment as an independent service in 1918, the RAF has recognised that despite standing alone as a profession, the utility of air power rests in achieving effect not only in the air, but integrating into other domains and contributing decisive effect to campaigns on the land and the sea. </p> <p>The concept of joint operations is in the very DNA of the RAF.</p> <p>So too is the concept of international action.</p> <p>The RAF came of age in World War Two at a time when operating alongside allies was imperative for the survival of the country.</p> <p>Even when we famously ‘stood alone’, in the ranks of the RAF who faced the Luftwaffe at the Battle of Britain were pilots from over a dozen other nations.</p> <p>Since the end of the Cold War in the skies over Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and now Libya the RAF has built up an unrivalled experience in working as part of wider international coalitions.</p> <p>The future character of warfare will demand both joint operations and the international integration of effort and increasingly so.</p> <p>The level and sophistication of the integration between air and surface that has been forged in campaigns such as Afghanistan needs to be maintained and then taken forward.</p> <p>So too does our understanding of, and interoperability with, our main allies.</p> <p>Air power in all its forms is a key part of the advantage that Britain continues to hold over opponents.</p> <p>The RAF’s long focus on flexibility and adaptability is suited to the unpredictability of future conflict and operations in Libya are proving yet again how air power provides decision makers with vastly increased options in supporting the national interest.</p> <p>And I can envisage no future conflict in which air power will not be required - none whatsoever.</p> <p>Air power is, quite simply, mission critical.</p> <p>So let me turn to a couple of issues that our future RAF must grapple with to ensure that they remain at the forefront of aviation and of military evolution.</p> <p><strong>CAPABILITY</strong></p> <p>First, the fleet itself.</p> <p>The role call of iconic aircraft that the RAF has flown over its history is long and distinguished.</p> <p>Spitfire, Lancaster, Vulcan and Lightning among others.</p> <p>These aircraft are now joined in retirement by the Harrier and the Nimrod which have served the people of the United Kingdom magnificently over the last 4 decades.</p> <p>These decisions were not taken lightly.</p> <p>Alongside the decision to reduce manpower, these were some of the most difficult, and alongside the decision to decommission Ark Royal, they were the most finely balanced. </p> <p>But to achieve the real savings required to put the Defence programme towards balance, reductions in the number of platforms was essential.</p> <p>The period later this decade in which the Tornado GR4 force is drawn down and the Joint Strike Fighter comes up to speed will be particularly challenging.</p> <p>Of course numbers matter, but as the late Air Vice Marshal ‘Jonnie’ Johnson said, “good aeroplanes are more important.”</p> <p>That is why I am particularly pleased with the performance of Typhoon as a multi-role aircraft in Libya.</p> <p>With the introduction of the world’s first and only 2nd generation E-SCAN radar, Typhoon will remain at the forefront of aviation technology for years to come.</p> <p>It is also why I am looking forward to the capabilities of the powerful [and more cost-effective] carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, or ‘Lightning II’ as it will be known - to be jointly operated, of course, with the Royal Navy.</p> <p>The overhaul in the consolidated transport fleet will see greater capacity and capability, with the new Voyager tanker and the A400M operating alongside the C17. </p> <p>With the additional capabilities provided by ISTAR programmes, the RAF of Future Force 2020 will have one of the most formidable and high-tech fleets in the world.</p> <p>And let me be clear, the RAF will continue to rely as much on its people as on its platforms.</p> <p>The human underpinning of the RAF - the commitment, talent and technical understanding of the men and women who serve - will be the difference between success and failure.</p> <p>This is why I find any polarised position between manned and unmanned aircraft as an utterly false choice.</p> <p>I agree with Admiral Mullen, the US Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that we are at a time of transition in future aviation in terms of remote technology.</p> <p>But two things strike me.</p> <p>First - a UAV is a sophisticated flying machine with sensors and weapons.</p> <p>But unless it has a skilled set of human beings operating it, interpreting the data it provides and making real-time decisions it has absolutely no impact.</p> <p>Second - we are some way away from remotely piloted systems being able to deliver all that manned aircraft can.</p> <p>That does not mean that we do not need to research, develop and invest in remotely piloted technology for all three services - and we will do so.</p> <p>But for the foreseeable future it will be a combination of the speed, payload and survivability that only piloted systems can currently supply - complemented by the persistence and flexibility of remotely piloted air systems - that deliver the overall air power effect that is required.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>Let me conclude on this theme of the utility of people.</p> <p>I’ve seen for myself on many occasions what the RAF do - from my time as a GP at Beaconsfield to Tango ramp at Kandahar airport.</p> <p>I know it’s not all about fast jets.</p> <p>I see the work of those at the less glamorous but equally critical end.</p> <p>Keeping the air bridge up and running, keeping our forces supplied.</p> <p>The force protection provided by the RAF Regiment.</p> <p>The medics, the mechanics, the armourers, the analysts, the air traffic controllers.</p> <p>All the support staff that keep the organisation delivering at the sharp end.</p> <p>In Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, the RAF has a Chief of Staff who not only directs his own service with insight, commitment and tenacity and but just as importantly who understands the application of military power across the three services.</p> <p>He is supported in his efforts by some of the most capable and dedicated men and women in the Armed Forces.</p> <p>There have been times in our history when the light blue line was the only thing that stood between us and defeat.</p> <p>I know, if so called upon today, this generation will take the fight to the enemy, no matter what the cost.</p> <p>The people of this United Kingdom know that the Royal Air Force will never let them down.</p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20110713AirPowerInAnAgeOfUncertainty.htm Liam Fox 2011/07/13 - Air Power in an Age of Uncertainty uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 13/07/2011 Ministry of Defence the Royal United Services Institute Air Power Conference, London
<p>I became Defence Secretary just over a year ago with great expectations about what we could achieve in Defence but with eyes wide open about what we would face and with growing realisation of the scale of the challenge.</p> <p>Today I will set out what we have accomplished and what remains still to be done. </p> <p>Of all the problems inherited from the Blair-Brown government, Defence was always going to provide one of the greatest headaches. </p> <p>As George Osborne has said "of all the budgets I have seen, the defence budget was the one that was the most chaotic, the most disorganised, the most overcommitted”.  </p> <p>For years successive Defence Secretaries failed to get a grip on the equipment programme and failed to hold the department and industry to account for delays and poor cost-estimation.</p> <p> Too often in the past, in order to get projects included in the programme, fantasy numbers have been accepted at the outset knowing that cost overruns could be recovered later. </p> <p>As Bernard Gray said in his 2009 report “(the MoD has) too many types of equipment being ordered for too large a range of tasks at too high a specification. This programme is unaffordable on any likely projection of future budgets”.</p> <p>In their final year in office alone Labour presided over an increase of reported cost by a staggering £3.3 billion in just 2 programmes.</p> <p>So it has been no easy task to match our aspirations with our resources, especially in the appalling economic mess left behind by Labour. </p> <p>And it has also been essential to deal with the very structures which allowed the Ministry of Defence and its budget to become so dysfunctional.</p> <p>Of course we knew the financial position we were inheriting was grim. </p> <p>We assessed that there was an unfunded liability of at least £38 billion up to 2020.</p> <p>What we could not know was that the highly committed nature of the budget, especially in the early years, meant that there was little room to deal with the problem without taking some very difficult decisions. </p> <p>For example, with the budget in the first year already 90% contractually committed they were unavoidable constraints on the speed at which we could act to reduce the deficit.</p> <p>Despite the fact that Labour ministers knew the defence program was unsustainable they continued to add new elements to it knowing that there were no funds in the budget to finance them. </p> <p>The future defence program was worse than a delusion- it was a deliberate lie.</p> <p>Given the scale of the problem we were never likely to be able to eliminate Labour's black hole quickly. </p> <p>Along with the reductions in the future programme already made, we need reform of the MoD and cost reduction, changes to the procurement practices and, as the Prime Minister has said, a year-on-year real terms increase in defence spending in the second half of the decade to meet Future Force 2020.</p> <p>Now I have said repeatedly that tackling the crisis in the public finances is not just an issue of economics but an issue of national security too.</p> <p>The lessons of history are clear. </p> <p>Relative economic power is the wellspring of strategic strength. </p> <p>And conversely, economic weakness debilitates every arm of government including security.</p> <p>The Coalition Government inherited from Labour a record peacetime annual deficit equal to over 11% of GDP. </p> <p>Structural economic weakness, if not dealt with, will bring an unavoidable reduction in our ability to shape the world. </p> <p>So realigning our Defence priorities with the economic realities was essential.</p> <p>Within days of entering office the Coalition Government launched the Strategic Defence and Security Review. </p> <p>This was the first fundamental review of defence in 12 years, and the first of its kind to span the whole of government.</p> <p>The new National Security Strategy set out the policy framework that was the force driver of the SDSR. </p> <p>It recognised that we are both more secure and yet more vulnerable than in most of our history and that only by mobilising the whole of Government would our country’s security interests be safeguarded. </p> <p>That meant defence, diplomacy and development, delivered through the National Security Council, all pulling in the same direction with UK’s interest in mind. </p> <p>This all-of-government approach is at the heart of the coalition approach to government.</p> <p>The SDSR was a coherent outcome that ensured that we have an overarching ‘adaptive posture’ to deal with the threats of today and begin the transformation of our Armed Forces to meet the challenges of the future.</p> <p>When considering each defence programme we developed a generic template to compare the respective costs, capability, operational risk, opportunities for regeneration and real-world risk. </p> <p>That way we could make objective decisions based on the facts and a clear understanding of the risks.</p> <p>The adaptive posture demands that our Armed Forces become a more flexible and agile force with global reach:</p> <p>Achieving all of this in the circumstances meant smaller armed forces, painful decisions, and sacrifice from our people.</p> <p>But it has ensured we will remain in the premier league of military powers able to project influence and protect our interests wherever they may be.</p> <p>Libya has proved to be the acid test of the SDSR and the adaptable posture we advocated. </p> <p>We were amongst the first countries to evacuate our own nationals, and helped many other countries to do the same; it was the UK that coordinated much of the humanitarian effort; and it was the UK who led the way in establishing the no fly zone and preventing a massacre in Benghazi.</p> <p>The SDSR may not have named Libya, but it imagined exactly the type of conflict we would be in and prepared us accordingly. </p> <p>Let me be very clear, we are able to continue operations in Libya for however long is necessary and have the political resolve and will to do so..</p> <p>Some people have advocated a reopening of the SDSR. </p> <p>But with the same strategic outlook, the same financial constraints and the same black hole the outcome would remain the same.</p> <p>What they are really asking for is not a reopening of the SDSR, but a reopening of the cross-Government Comprehensive Spending Review. </p> <p>Those who advocate this course need to tell us which taxes they will raise, what services they will cut more, or indeed if they intend to take the insane course of yet more borrowing.</p> <p>The SDSR required tough choices, but these were taken on the basis of clear military advice and within a financial environment that constituted a national economic crisis.</p> <p>Let me take head on the persistent claim that the nature of our operations in Libya, and the cost of them, would be different had we an aircraft carrier and the Harrier in service. </p> <p>The truth is that we still would have based RAF Tornados and Typhoon to Italy for the air to air role and to carry the precision weaponry such as Stormshadow or Brimstone that Harrier cannot carry.</p> <p>So it would not have been cheaper - in fact it would have been much more expensive.</p> <p>We could simply not afford to retain a third fast jet type and deal with Labours legacy on Defence. </p> <p>Labour had already reduced the Harrier fleet in 2009, leaving them unable to sustain operations in Afghanistan let alone undertake contingencies such as Libya - only Tornado has the capacity to do both. </p> <p>The Harrier served us well, but we have to move on and embrace new technology. </p> <p>However great the contribution in the past we cannot allow sentiment to drive our policy for the future. </p> <p>There is much to look forward to in Defence for all three services. </p> <p>We will continue to have the fourth largest defence budget in the world-a fact that seems to have been overlooked by many commentators and critics.</p> <p>By 2020 the Royal Navy will have new aircraft carriers, a high readiness amphibious capability and a new fleet of Type 45 destroyers and Astute class submarines, and soon after, the Type 26 Global Combat Ship. </p> <p>The RAF will be built around state of the art multi-role fleets of Joint Strike Fighter and Typhoon jets, as well as a new fleet of strategic and tactical transport aircraft with the introduction of the A400M and Voyager. </p> <p>The Army, based on Multi-Role Brigades, will be powerful, flexible, fully equipped for the land environment and able to operate across the spectrum of conflict. </p> <p>The MOD spends around a third of its budget every year, or around £13bn, on equipment acquisition or equipment support. </p> <p>This is a fundamental activity at the heart of defence and if and if it fails, it is the men and women on the frontline who suffer the consequences and the tax payer who pays the price. </p> <p>In February of this year I announced a programme of work aimed at dealing with the fundamental causes of delays and poor cost estimation in the equipment programme.</p> <p>First, the so-called conspiracy of optimism, through which the risks and costs in new or existing projects are under-estimated both by industry and government, only to find mushrooming costs and time delays later.</p> <p>Second, the inclusion of programmes without clear budget lines for development, procurement and deployment that merely compounded an already unaffordable defence programme.</p> <p>Third, a lack of real time cost control and tight budgetary discipline that masked project failure and neutered effective project management.</p> <p>And finally, a relationship with industry that was out of balance. </p> <p>All too often the master had become the servant, with value for money and the needs of our armed forces being undermined by inefficient practices and unreconstructed cost-bases.</p> <p>Cost over runs and time delays as well as poor cost and risk estimation have long plagued successive Defence Secretaries. </p> <p>While there is no question that the performance at DE&amp;S is improving, much more can be done.</p> <p>To this end I established the Major Projects Review Board. </p> <p>This board, which I Chair, receives a quarterly update on the Ministry's major programs to ensure that they are on time and within budget. </p> <p>If they are not, those responsible are rigorously held to account as those who attended the first session last week will attest. </p> <p>If these programmes continue to suffer time delays or cost increases, relevant details of programmes and the reasons for failure will be made public. </p> <p>This way market forces can hold industry and the department dramatic to account. </p> <p>This has begun with the 20 biggest projects by value and will rapidly expand to the 50 biggest projects. </p> <p>The board has already reviewed several programs and demanded improvements of the management teams.</p> <p>We have also set up the Defence Exports Support Board, abolished the National Defence Industries Council and will shortly publish our white paper on equipment support and technology for UK defence following the successful consultation launched by Peter Luff and Bernard Gray. </p> <p>It will cover how we will identify the critical areas where the UK has or needs an operational advantage and freedom of action for a particular capability; how we intend to strengthen bilateral international co-operation and collaboration; how we will enable SMEs, which are a vital source of innovation and flexibility, to fulfil their potential; and how we will give support to exports within a framework of responsible licensing.</p> <p>I don’t know how but I anticipate it will emphasise open competition in the global market, buying off-the-shelf where we can, and only using single-source suppliers were we must.</p> <p>It will also set out the vital importance of science and technology to our future security and the viability of UK industry.</p> <p>Together this work will ensure that critical skills are retained in some of our most technologically advanced areas, that SMEs can compete as equals and British industry remains at the cutting edge on the world market.</p> <p>An essential part of reducing the cost of the defence programme was renegotiating our contractual liabilities with industry. </p> <p>This programme has begun, and we are already looking at 300 contracts in light of the SDSR decisions to ensure they are both necessary and give greater value for money for the taxpayer where possible.</p> <p>We have also embarked on a pilot programme to renegotiate three of our PFIs, with a number of further projects being considered. </p> <p>In June Chief of Defence Materiel - Bernard Gray - launched ‘The Materiel Strategy’ that will encompass a fundamental review of the delivery of equipment and support to the front line and will deliver the necessary step change in performance and reduction in running cost needed. </p> <p>Bernard Gray is talking to a number of stakeholders both within the Department and outside to understand the true nature of the problems we face, their root causes and potential solutions.  </p> <p>Bernard’s previous experience in the commercial world and his far reaching review of defence acquisition in 2009 give me confidence that the potential solutions will challenge the accepted norm and provide fundamentally different ways of doing business. </p> <p>I expect to see recommendations for the way forward towards the end of this year.</p> <p>But none of our positive vision for the future can be achieved if we don’t tackle the drivers of structural financial instability and the institutional lack of accountability throughout the MOD.</p> <p>The department needed radical reform, so in August of last year I asked Lord Levene to establish a hard hitting group of external experts to lead a root and branch review of the way the department was structured.</p> <p>The report will be published later today, setting out a vision of transformation on a scale not seen in Defence for a generation. </p> <p>You will understand why I am unable to detail the recommendations here before I have put them to the House, but I can say that there are a number of key strategic themes that have influenced this work.</p> <p>Lord Levene is clear in his critique. </p> <p>A department with overly bureaucratic management structures, dominated by committees leading to indecisiveness and a lack of responsibility. </p> <p>A bloated top level defence board without Ministerial membership allowing strategic decision to drift and unable to reconcile ambition with resources. </p> <p>Budget holders without the levers needed to deliver and Ministers kept in the dark. </p> <p>Lord Levene has proposed a new, simpler and more cost-effective model for departmental management, with clear allocation of responsibility, authority and accountability.</p> <p>This will mark an end to the micromanagement of the individual services.</p> <p>The report addresses the lack of key skills and fragmented career paths within defence and considers radical ways in which the Department can encourage a more joint approach across defence and promote the advocacy of joint capabilities, particularly those that deal with emerging threats such as cyber and cross-cutting issues such as intelligence. </p> <p>With so many different and at times conflicting channels of military advice, greater clarification at the top of the services is also given.</p> <p>The report also advocates tighter financial management and a more risk-aware and cost-conscious mentality at every level at the Ministry of Defence, civilian and military alike.</p> <p>This work is not a criticism of our people, but a constructive critique of a department in need of reform. </p> <p>In fact, Lord Levene’s work has exposed that the people who are at the heart of defence are the greatest advocates of the need for change at the MoD.</p> <p>As well as the various reforms of acquisition and departmental structure, our Armed Forces themselves are undergoing similar change to deliver the SDSR.</p> <p>The rationalisation of RAF bases, the move to a new concept of deployable Multi-role brigades and the withdrawal of our forces from Germany all mean we need to reconsider the basing of our forces across the whole of the UK.</p> <p>The ongoing Basing Review was the necessary follow-on work from the SDSR.</p> <p>It offers a significant opportunity to balance the Defence footprint across the UK, and provide greater stability to our Armed Forces.</p> <p>It will bring better value for money for the tax payer, as well as helping to realise the challenging estate sales targets we are committed to achieving. </p> <p>Whilst the delivery of defence capability is paramount, careful consideration has been given to a range of other factors including the welfare of service families and consistency with the New Employment Model as well as the impacts on the local economy and environment.</p> <p>This work is making good progress, and we hope to be able to announce the key outcomes shortly.</p> <p>Between the three services the way in which we generate forces vary greatly. </p> <p>We also operate differently from international comparators. </p> <p>For this reason in December of last year I launched a review of the way we generate and sustain forces within defence.</p> <p>This work has considered the efficiency and effectiveness of the processes by which individuals and units are prepared for operations and the overall balance between the Front Line and Non Front Line.</p> <p>It has also reviewed the optimum tour length, tour interval and harmony for the Armed Forces.</p> <p>I expect the review to propose moving toward increased standardisation in tour lengths across the services, whilst maintaining a scalable approach where necessary.</p> <p>Maximising key and niche skills that rest in our Reserves also demand serious consideration. </p> <p>We need to find the best balance of Regular, Reserves, Civil Servants and Contractors.</p> <p>The Future Reserves 2020 study (FR2020) was commissioned by the Prime Minister to ensure the most cost-effective use of Reservists to meet the UK’s operational requirements for future conflict. </p> <p>The FR2020 Commission is committed to ensuring that the Reservist experience remains valuable for both the individual and his/her employer, as well as providing an important output for Defence.</p> <p>I look forward to reviewing the recommendations of the commission shortly. </p> <p>Finally there needs to be cultural changes too. </p> <p>There must be a rebalancing between political control of the armed forces from the centre and the ability of service chiefs to manage their own services. </p> <p>I will set out plans by which I mean to do this in the House of Commons this afternoon.</p> <p>I also want to see more open, meritocratic Armed Forces better shaped to adapt to the challenges of the future, able to absorb the widest range of talents possible and to prepare for the future as well as understanding the past.</p> <p>None of these ideas -- budgetary control, reform of procurement, reform of MoD structure, export promotion, SME development or change to the Armed Forces will be solutions by themselves to the problems we inherited.</p> <p>But taken together they provide a radical programme for change which will provide stability for future planning and improved security of United Kingdom.</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20110627ReformingDefence.htm Liam Fox 2011/06/27 - Reforming Defence uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 27/06/2011 Ministry of Defence the Reform Think Tank, 1 Whitehall Place, London
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>Ladies and gentlemen, while we dine, Britain’s interests are under attack.</p> <p>There is a continuous battle being waged against us, day in, day out.</p> <p>Between 2009 and 2010, security incidents more than doubled.</p> <p>Was this in Afghanistan? No - this was in cyber space and the target was the MOD.</p> <p>I and my senior colleagues are routinely alerted to incidents that could have had severe consequences if they’d not been stopped.</p> <p>Our systems are targeted by criminals, foreign intelligence services and other malicious actors seeking to exploit our people, corrupt our systems and steal information.</p> <p>To give you an idea of the challenge, last year we in the MOD blocked and investigated over 1,000 potentially serious attacks.</p> <p>The risks to Defence are real, and I take them very seriously. </p> <p>These risks are not restricted by the geographic constraints of conventional conflict - we are not protected by distance or by natural barriers - in cyberspace our adversaries are on our doorstep.</p> <p>This is the war of the invisible enemy.</p> <p>Success cannot be achieved by government alone because, in cyber space, there are few boundaries between government, business and every individual internet user.</p> <p>We now see weekly reports of cyber attacks against businesses, institutions and networks used by people going about their daily lives.</p> <p>The cost to the UK economy of cyber crime is estimated to be in the region of £27bn a year and rising.</p> <p>These are attacks against the whole fabric of our society.</p> <p>When it comes to cyber security - we must fight this battle together.</p> <p>Part of our response must be to act internationally.</p> <p>The Foreign Secretary has set out 7 broad principles which the UK sees as important including the need for governments to act proportionally in accordance with international law, the need to provide proper protect for intellectual property and the need to act collectively to tackle the threat of cyber criminality.</p> <p>To take international dialogue forward the UK will host in London in November an International Cyber Conference that aims to provide some focus to the currently fragmented international response to the challenges of cyber space.</p> <p>But we must also continue to act here at home.<br><br>That is why, last autumn as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), we allocated an extra £650m to create a National Cyber Security Programme funding work across government, including the MOD, to strengthen our understanding, our resilience and our defences.</p> <p>I want to talk today about how we can work together to meet this threat, but first I want to talk about other challenges facing Defence over the next few years and how those relate to industry in particular.</p> <p><strong>ECONOMIC WEAKNESS IS A NATIONAL SECURITY LIABILITY</strong></p> <p>The Coalition Government inherited a level of debt and economic mismanagement that represents a national economic emergency.</p> <p>Even with the aggressive action we are taking to eliminate the structural deficit, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts public sector net debt to peak at over 70% of GDP in 2014/15 - well over 1.3 trillion pounds - equivalent to almost 40 years spending on Defence at the level of this years budget. </p> <p>Put aside for a moment the economic arguments about how Britain’s deficit reduction programme brings confidence to the financial markets, just consider the opportunity costs of running a national debt of this size.</p> <p>The interest, just the interest, paid out last year was £43bn -  around the same as the annual budgets of the MoD, FCO and DfID combined. </p> <p>But it is not just opportunity costs - this is an issue of national security too.</p> <p>The lessons of history are clear.</p> <p>Relative economic power is the wellspring of strategic strength. </p> <p>Structural economic weakness, if not dealt with, brings an unavoidable reduction in any country’s ability to shape the world.</p> <p>As the National Security Strategy clearly sets out, Britain’s national interest requires our continued full and active engagement in world affairs.</p> <p>Our trade and economic relationships are world-wide - we are connected to, and reliant on, the global economic system as never before.</p> <p>A threat that appears in one part of the world, such as in Afghanistan, can swiftly be felt on our streets and those of our allies. </p> <p>In order to protect our interests at home, we must project our influence abroad.</p> <p>Britain can ill-afford another ‘East of Suez’ moment.</p> <p>But without a strong, sustainable economy we will not be able to afford the Armed Forces and other levers of influence required to keep us safe in a volatile and unpredictable age.</p> <p>Deficit reduction has to be the Government’s number one priority in the short-term, and it is something I am fully signed up to, both as a Cabinet Member and as Defence Secretary.</p> <p>As the Prime Minister said yesterday, “In the end, this isn’t just about economics - it is also about the morality of it all.”</p> <p><strong>THE DEFENCE DEFICIT</strong></p> <p>The Defence budget was perhaps the worst inheritance of all.</p> <p>Before the SDSR the forward defence programme was overcommitted to the tune of £38bn over the next decade. </p> <p>This is one of the reasons why, in relation to the vast majority of government departments, the MOD is contributing less to deficit reduction. </p> <p>Given the mess we inherited, putting Defence on a sure footing with a predictable budget is going to take time and cannot be pain-free.</p> <p>But it is the only way in the long-term that we can we can sustain the Armed Forces we require.</p> <p>The Strategic Defence and Security Review has set the right direction, ensuring that we will remain in the premier league of military powers - supported by the fourth largest defence budget in the world.</p> <p>The adaptable posture we have embraced gives us the best capability to respond with agility to changing threats in an uncertain world. </p> <p>But staying the course will require sustaining the strict cost-control regime I have put in place at the MOD.</p> <p>One of the consequences of the mismanagement of Defence over the last decade - including what Chief of Defence Materiel, Bernard Gray described as ‘the conspiracy of optimism’ in the department's planning - is that we have to prove that Defence can be managed sustainably.</p> <p>It is as if we have taken over a troubled business, with the Treasury as our main investor.</p> <p>We have to show that we can live within our means and have a business plan for recovery to ensure the further investment we need to grow.</p> <p>The SDSR is part of that plan, but so too is tackling the drivers of systemic financial instability and the institutional lack of accountability. </p> <p>That is why the work of Lord Levene and his Defence Reform Unit to reform the operating model of Defence is so important.</p> <p>As is the work of Bernard Gray on ‘The Materiel Strategy’ to achieve best value in procurement and set the forward equipment programme on a sustainable basis.</p> <p>Inevitably - the relationship between Defence and the industries that support our Armed Forces will have to change too.</p> <p><strong>INDUSTRY</strong></p> <p>We have published our Green paper on Equipment, Support and Technology with the White paper expected later this year and obviously I can’t pre-empt its conclusions tonight.</p> <p>But the principles are clear.</p> <p>We are determined to create a climate in which Defence and Security companies are resilient, and can flourish, without using the Defence Budget to subsidise them - maximising the benefits of international collaboration and exportability. </p> <p>Let me be crystal clear, the primary purpose of defence procurement is to provide our Armed Forces with the equipment and support they require to do the job we ask of them and at a cost acceptable to the taxpayer. </p> <p>This need not be inconsistent with a decent rate of return for business.</p> <p>The Defence Budget is there to be used for Defence purposes and where there’s a real need to protect national security. </p> <p>But our approach is not laissez-faire. </p> <p>We have an interest in our wider security relationships, British influence, and the economic benefits of a flourishing industrial base.</p> <p>These and other factors will be weighed when spending the £20bn we do each year on Defence with UK-based industry.</p> <p>But I am clear that our default position is open competition and buying off-the-shelf where we can, albeit that many of the goods on the shelf are wholly or partly British. </p> <p>Science and Technology is a key element of our overall capability.</p> <p>R&amp;D is extremely important in delivering a technological edge to the Forces of the future and continuing to support them on operations today.</p> <p>The Government has allocated £200 million for the establishment of a network of elite Technology and Innovation Centres which will help the UK to take advantage of new and emerging technologies in areas where there are large global market opportunities. </p> <p>Ideas and technology can come from across the S&amp;T community - big and small industry and the UK’s excellent universities and research organisations.</p> <p>This is particularly true in the work required to maintain and develop our defences in cyber space.</p> <p><strong>CYBER</strong></p> <p>The National Security Strategy recognises the threat of attacks from cyber space as being in the top tier of our national security concerns. </p> <p>This threat is growing in scale and sophistication - my Department is a prime target. </p> <p>Across the core Defence networks there were an average of over a million security alerts every day.</p> <p>Not all of this can be attributed to deliberate activity by adversaries - many are the result of the back ground noise of the Internet and the unintended consequences of the interconnected environment in which we have to work. </p> <p>But as I said earlier many are potentially serious.</p> <p>Of course, the cynic might say that we have coped for hundreds of years with the threat of espionage from our competitors. </p> <p>We have always adapted and designed strategies to thwart our adversaries.</p> <p>But in this modern cyber age, where we have increased our own ability to work efficiently, exploit paperless environments and share information - we have made the task for our adversaries easier - and they have not been shy in taking advantage of our open and free society.  </p> <p>With the opening of the new Global Operations and Security Control Centre, we have already made significant strides in ensuring that we can defend our departmental systems, but there is more to do.  </p> <p>Working with our ICT suppliers, we will continue to develop the defensive capability of our systems and we will continually re-evaluate our budgetary plans as the threat evolves.</p> <p>As I try to come to terms with the challenges that my Department faces in cyber space, I am constantly reminded that the issue is not just one for our departmental systems. </p> <p>There is no Maginot Line in cyber space as recent high profile attacks on defence contractors have shown. </p> <p>Our national intellectual property in defence and security industries is at risk from a systematic marauding. </p> <p>Not only could it severely affect the future success of British industry, our economic advantage, and the country’s financial recovery - but also directly impacts upon our national security today. </p> <p>We pride ourselves in maintaining a technological edge over our adversaries and collectively, Aerospace and Defence companies in this room spend over £1.7 Billion on R&amp;D every year.</p> <p>But that technological edge is at risk of being eroded as your hard won nuggets of intellectual property are targeted on a daily basis.</p> <p>Without proper protection, what took years of diligent work and millions of pounds of funding to develop could fall victim to an expert adversary with the right know-how working on a simple networked laptop.</p> <p>The Government is taking this seriously.</p> <p>The Prime Minister led a senior level meeting with key Industry CEOs in February to look at the problem and how we might tackle it.  </p> <p>As Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude now has responsibility for co-ordinating efforts on cyber security across government and with business and academia.</p> <p>A new type of partnership will be required if we are to survive this new battle in cyber space. </p> <p>Partnerships often fail when there is no shared interest in the outcome - I believe the protection of our intellectual property and the national advantage it affords offers just such a shared interest.</p> <p>Lest we forget, much of the infrastructure we are worried about is not government property, but it is no less critical to our society and its security. </p> <p>Fundamentally, we must recognise that cyber space is now where most business is done. </p> <p>The recent Sony incident and the phishing attacks on the Google accounts of US officials have proven that a passive approach to cyber security is not enough.  </p> <p>Detica’s recent study of the costs of cyber crime suggest that the Aerospace and defence sector is particularly exposed -  losing £1.6bn per year as a result of espionage and the theft of intellectual property.</p> <p>As I look across the defence and security industries, I see a complex supply chain with many companies, all of whom use the internet to do business, and all of whom are vulnerable to cyber intrusions. </p> <p>The reality is that increasingly we will worry about how seriously our suppliers take account of the cyber security threat when we are placing our business, so I am encouraged by the recent joint initiative by ADS and Intellect.</p> <p>So we will establish a new partnership with you - I will make sure that my department plays its part by being more open about the scale and nature of the threat and by tackling barriers to international co-operation on cyber security matters with our key Allies.</p> <p>But I look to you to recognise the seriousness of this issue -  and to work with me to improve our national security and our competitive advantage.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, we face a challenging few years.</p> <p>We must tackle the deficit, grow our economy, and put defence on a sustainable footing while ensuring that we are successful in the wars of today - in Afghanistan, in Libya and in cyber space.</p> <p>To do this a new partnership between government and business is required.</p> <p>It has to provide our Armed Forces with the equipment and support they require at a cost that the taxpayer is willing to bear.</p> <p>And it has to provide industry with a competitive edge in the global market, but it has to be based on reality not wishful thinking.</p> <p>It has to deal with the world as it is, not as we hope it would be, and that includes the opportunities and challenges of cyber space.</p> <p>The bottom line is that a strong economy is a national security requirement.</p> <p>An affordable Defence programme is the only responsible way to support our Armed Forces in the long term. </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20110607CyberTheWarOfTheInvisibleEnemy.htm Liam Fox 2011/06/07 - Cyber: The War of the Invisible Enemy uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 08/06/2011 Ministry of Defence the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry Annual Defence Dinner,
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>It’s a great pleasure to be back at the Shangri-La Dialogue this year.</p> <p>I have been coming here for several years but last year, after spending time with British troops in Afghanistan, coming to Shangri-La was my first overseas visit as Britain’s Secretary of State for Defence.</p> <p>My intent then was to send a message about how the new Government in Britain would adopt a different, more engaged approach to the region - diplomatically, militarily, and economically.</p> <p>I did so because this United Kingdom Government recognises that the world is now multi-polar and multi-powered, and that our interests are not confined to the Euro-Atlantic area. </p> <p>Too many in Europe still remain focussed on the structures and dynamics of the second half of the 20th century, failing to recognise and adapt to the global shift that has occurred in politics as well as economics.</p> <p>It is ironic how so many in debt ridden Europe still talk about so called “emerging countries” in Asia while these emerging powers, with their high growth, disappear over the economic horizon.  </p> <p>In Britain, we welcome the developing strategic depth of countries here in Asia and your increasing role in maintaining the international stability and security that, as an open, trading nation, the United Kingdom’s national interest requires.  </p> <p>We strongly believe that those who benefit from increased trade and prosperity in an interdependent global economy have a moral responsibility and obligation to contribute to global security - and it is, after all, in their national self-interest to do so.  </p> <p>Here again is an area where many countries in this part of the world show a very good example that others should follow.  </p> <p>Over the last twelve months, Prime Minister David Cameron and senior Ministers have been regular visitors to this part of the world.</p> <p>From the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, my colleagues and I have held high-level talks in Japan, India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Brunei and Singapore, and we have many more planned over the next 12 months.</p> <p>Our Military Service Chiefs have also engaged widely with their counterparts.</p> <p>This all reflects our determination to build new relationships and enhance established partnerships.</p> <p><strong>THE FUTURE OF HISTORY</strong></p> <p>Britain has long historical connections here in Asia and many close and strong friendships.</p> <p>But our engagement cannot just be based on shared history but must be based on a shared future. </p> <p>Economic prosperity is the well-spring of strategic strength.</p> <p>Power and influence have always followed economic trends.</p> <p>And so Asia is one of the key centres of global power in the 21st Century.</p> <p>Over a quarter of the world’s richest 100 cities are in this region -  in the top 30, there are twice as many here as there are in Europe.</p> <p>London is one of the worlds financial powerhouses but so too are Tokyo, Hong Kong, Mumbai, Shanghai, Seoul, Sydney, and of course Singapore.</p> <p>The nature of our world means Britain's national interests are directly affected by events in this region and intimately linked to those of our friends and our partners here.</p> <p>How the balance of power in this region develops - in close co-operation and in healthy competition - and how countries of this region choose to exercise their responsibility - matters not only to us but across the globe.</p> <p>The challenges are not just economic and political.</p> <p>Of course, there are significant security challenges also.</p> <p>In this connected globalised world many of the threats we face are not confined to one country, nor even to one region, they spread across borders and they extend across oceans.</p> <p>That is why the United Kingdom’s recent Strategic Defence and Security Review was designed to maintain Britain’s strategic reach.</p> <p>This is bolstered by our permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, NATO, the EU, the Commonwealth, the Five Powers Defence Arrangements and our strong bi-lateral partnerships.</p> <p>All of this, let me remind you, is underpinned by the 4th largest defence budget in the world.</p> <p><strong>ACTING TOGETHER</strong></p> <p>Our Defence Review was grounded in the understanding that for any country isolation, protectionism or unilateralism will not be a recipe for success.</p> <p>To meet the challenges of this new world West and East, North and South must work together.</p> <p>We can already see encouraging examples of this being put into practice today.</p> <p>In Afghanistan, a wide international coalition of 48 countries is assisting the Afghan Government to resist the Taliban-led insurgency, build their indigenous security and deny safe haven to those intent on exporting terrorism.</p> <p>Of course, that process must include Pakistan, and Pakistan too requires our support as it battles the similar threats on its soil.</p> <p>Trans-national terrorism does not respect boundaries or borders.  </p> <p>The brand of violent extremism peddled by Al Qaida, its extremist allies and affiliates are not confined to one part of the globe, nor do they target one country, one faith, or one system of Government - as many people in this region know to their very great cost.</p> <p>We all have a stake in confronting terrorism wherever it surfaces, however difficult that is and however long it takes. </p> <p>The same is true in countering the scourge of piracy.</p> <p>As an island nation, maritime security remains of fundamental importance for the United Kingdom, just as it is for many countries here.</p> <p>As we speak HMS Richmond is steaming through the Malacca Straits to return to counter-piracy duties after conducting successful exercises with our partners in the Five Power Defence Arrangements.</p> <p>In the Gulf, off the Horn of Africa, here and elsewhere - our navies operate together in international waters.  </p> <p>Forces from Singapore, Japan, China, India, Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea to name just a few work regularly and well alongside the EU, NATO, and other national forces.  </p> <p>A fortnight ago, Britain took part in the successful three day Maritime Information Sharing Exercise in which Singapore acted as the hub for 26 countries and 42 operational centres.</p> <p>We have also applied to join the Regional Co-operation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against ships in Asia.</p> <p>This is truly a multi-national response to a multi-national menace.</p> <p>In this increasingly interconnected world it is not only the physical transfer of goods and services we have to protect.</p> <p>The effect on the economies of this region of a well-planned and well resourced cyber attack on trans-national commercial networks and institutions would be catastrophic, and would impact on us all.</p> <p>We face today the war of the invisible enemy.</p> <p>That is why the United Kingdom is mainstreaming cyber security across all parts of Government at home, and why cyber security is regularly high on the agenda in discussions we have with partners in this region.</p> <p>Nuclear non-proliferation is another area in which we must continue to co-operate.</p> <p>We have a direct interest in working together to address the nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran.</p> <p>But we also have an interest in strengthening the international rules-based system in order to reduce the risk of future proliferation, help declared nuclear states build trust, de-escalate tensions, and bring down, not build up, nuclear arsenals.</p> <p>In all these areas isolation or unilateralism is not an option.</p> <p>The responsible exercise of power requires partnership.</p> <p>As the influence of Asia grows, so too does the requirement for more nations to take responsibility for building the regional and international stability and security that is needed if our citizens are to remain prosperous and protected.</p> <p><strong>MULTI-LAYERED SECURITY</strong></p> <p>The last 12 months has seen significant developments in regional security here with the continuing evolution of ASEAN and the establishment of the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting Plus.</p> <p>I have no doubt that this trend - of increasingly effective institutions - will continue over time.</p> <p>We should act through multi-lateral organisations wherever possible.</p> <p>But equally we must ensure that a lack of consensus does not lead to a lack of action and that we are able to deal with threats appropriately and in a timely manner.</p> <p>That is why we need multilayered security so that we can respond using the right means for the right occasion - through multi-lateral organisations yes but also through smaller coalitions or bi-lateral relationships. </p> <p>The United Kingdom / United States relationship and Britain’s membership of NATO and have been, remain, and will remain the bedrock of our collective security.  </p> <p>The European Union is also a key part of the means through which we promote security and prosperity in our own neighbourhood.</p> <p>But we also seek to build on established partnerships in Asia and to forge new non-traditional partnerships.</p> <p>For instance, this November will mark the 40th anniversary of the Five Power Defence Arrangements. </p> <p>The formal stocktake of FPDA’s structures, exercises, and activities will demonstrate its continued relevance and ensure that the arrangements evolve in the light of contemporary security challenges.</p> <p>The United Kingdom and Australia are also developing a bi-lateral Defence Treaty that we aim to conclude early in 2012.</p> <p>But the last 12 months has also seen us improve bilateral security co-operation with a wide range of countries across the region, through joint training, collaboration on defence capabilities and equipment, research and development, sharing information and defence education.</p> <p>This is what we might describe as a “building block” approach to defence and security and it is part of the United Kingdom’s new strategy of enhanced engagement in Asia.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, </p> <p>Here in Asia, just as in Europe, we are seeing the fruits of globalisation.</p> <p>But globalisation also brings the unavoidable importation of strategic risk.  </p> <p>As I have said earlier, those who benefit from globalisation must contribute to managing the strategic risk.</p> <p>Recent natural disasters in this region have had a global impact, reminding us all how vulnerable we are to the forces of nature as well as the forces of mankind.</p> <p>We live in an unpredictable and volatile age in which there is no single centre of power in the world.</p> <p>The future will be shaped in a great measure by how security, stability and prosperity in Asia are managed.</p> <p>Not just in pursuit of narrow national interests but in recognition that we all are connected and dependent on each other connected in trade and prosperity, and dependent in security.</p> <p>There is no better way to secure the future than to help shape it.</p> <p>That is what Britain stands ready to do in partnership with many of you here today.</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20110604AsiasNewDistributionOfPowerAndItsImplications.htm Liam Fox 2011/06/04 - Asia’s New Distribution of Power and its Implications uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 07/06/2011 Ministry of Defence the 10th International Institute for Strategic Studies Asia Security Summit, the Shangri-La Dialogue, Singapore
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>The true test of Government is to act not for party political advantage, but to act in the national interest.</p> <p>The Coalition Government inherited a level of debt and economic mismanagement that represents a national economic emergency.</p> <p>To deal with it we have had to take difficult and potentially unpopular measures.</p> <p>But they are essential if we are to put Britain back on track in the long-term.</p> <p>This is as important for national security as it is for national prosperity.</p> <p>This requires not only dealing with the here and now, but charting a course 10, 15, 20 years ahead - acting to position the country for the safety and prosperity of future generations.</p> <p><strong>ACTING IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST</strong></p> <p>So in no area is this more important than in Defence and Security.</p> <p>Our Armed Forces remain at a high and sustained operational tempo.</p> <p>The requirement to fight, and win, the wars of today is not optional but necessary to protect national security and meet the national interest.</p> <p>And when our Armed Forces are committed, they deserve and the country expects that they get the support they need to do the job we ask of them.</p> <p>That is why current operations in Afghanistan and in Libya remain the priority for the Ministry of Defence and the men and women of our Armed Forces fighting on the front-line get first call on MOD resources.</p> <p>But the requirement for strategic thinking, for strategic planning and preparation - the requirement to play the long-game - is equally necessary.</p> <p>Why?</p> <p>First - because conflict and threats to national security do not fit neatly into electoral cycles.</p> <p>The hunt for Osama bin Laden and the campaign against al-Qaeda’s brand of violent extremism has been taken forward under three American Presidents and three British Prime Ministers of different political persuasions.</p> <p>For the long watch of the Cold War - it took 10 different US Presidents and 9 different British Prime Ministers.</p> <p>Second - the character of conflict evolves and new threats arise, but the complex military equipment required to meet these challenges can take a decade or more to design and build.</p> <p>So we must constantly scan the horizon and prepare for the world as it will be, not as we hope it will be.</p> <p>In Defence, contingency planning is central to ensuring that we are prepared for what may come - even if we can’t predict exactly when and where threats may emerge.</p> <p>This drives a continuing requirement for Armed Forces that are agile, adaptable and of the highest quality.</p> <p>Third - building and sustaining the power, influence and prosperity of a country in the long flow of history - particularly in our age of rapid change and unpredictability - requires action now to ensure the country can succeed in the future.</p> <p>Energy security is one example.</p> <p>Climate change would be another.</p> <p>So today I want to set out what we have achieved in Defence over the last year to set in place a long-term strategy for the safety, security and prosperity of our citizens.</p> <p>The Strategic Defence and Security Review has ensured that we will remain in the premier league of military powers. </p> <p>It is not an agenda for retrenchment; it’s an ambitious agenda for transformation over time.</p> <p>It is not an agenda for the next general election; it’s an agenda for the next generation.</p> <p>This long-term vision for Britain’s Defence depends upon a sound economic base that enables sustainable military power to be built - together economic power and military power are the foundation of global influence.</p> <p>A proper strategy for the long-term health of our country must balance ends and ways with the means available. </p> <p>That is why tackling the crisis in the public finances is not just an issue of economics but an issue of national security too.</p> <p>It is central to sustaining in the long-term Britain’s reach, military power and influence. </p> <p><strong>THE LESSONS OF HISTORY</strong></p> <p>Let us not forget our own history.</p> <p>The contraction of European influence in the 20th century was driven as much by the economic exhaustion of European nations over two World Wars as it was by political enlightenment in support of decolonisation.</p> <p>As a result of the First World War in the 1920s and 30s, Britain’s national debt was regularly over 150% of GDP.</p> <p>After World War Two, it peaked at around 250% of GDP.</p> <p>As examples of the effect, economic considerations underpinned both the British withdrawal from Palestine in 1948, and the abandonment of the Suez campaign in 1956.</p> <p>It wasn’t until the 1970s that the debt position recovered to under 50% of GDP - a quarter of a century after the end of the War.</p> <p>Britain’s so-called ‘East of Suez’ moment in 1967 when the Wilson Government announced a major withdrawal of UK forces from South East Asia, was a response to the decline in the country’s relative economic strength.</p> <p>Equally, the Cold War was won because the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of an economic system that could not sustain the myth of communism’s superiority - nor sustain the military forces required to hold it together.</p> <p>During the early 1980s for instance, the Soviet Union was spending around 20% of GDP on Defence - roughly four times the level of the US and wholly unsustainable in the long-term.</p> <p>The lessons of history are clear. </p> <p>Relative economic power is the wellspring of strategic strength. </p> <p>And conversely, economic weakness debilitates every arm of government.</p> <p>Structural economic weakness, if not dealt with, will bring an unavoidable reduction in our ability to shape the world.</p> <p><strong>ECONOMIC WEAKNESS IS A NATIONAL SECURITY LIABILITY</strong></p> <p>Let’s relate these lessons to our situation today.</p> <p>Speaking at Chatham House last week, Niall Ferguson said:</p> <p>“fiscal and monetary stimulus, no matter how much it may take and how many times you read aloud the collected works of John Maynard Keynes, sooner or later brings a hangover.”</p> <p>It has fallen to this Coalition Government to nurse Britain through the hangover of the decade of financial mismanagement that put us where we are today.</p> <p>When, as Chancellor, Gordon Brown abandoned sticking to the previous Conservative Government’s strict spending policies, Britain’s national debt began an inexorable rise.</p> <p>Despite the benign economic environment of most of the last decade, from 2002-2007 under Labour, UK national debt as a percentage of GDP increased not decreased - from around 31% to around 37%.</p> <p>On the back of the financial crisis it has ballooned to around 60% of GDP.</p> <p>The Coalition Government inherited from Labour a record peacetime annual deficit equal of over 11% of GDP - in 2009/10 alone that meant a spend of over £150bn more than the Government brought in in income. </p> <p>Until the structural deficit is eliminated, Britain’s national debt will only continue to grow.</p> <p>Even with the Coalition’s aggressive action, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts public sector net debt to peak at over 70% of GDP in 2014/15. </p> <p>It currently stands at over £900bn - equivalent to almost a quarter of a century of spending on Defence at the level of this year’s budget. </p> <p>By 2015 it is likely to reach well over 1.3 trillion pounds. </p> <p>The interest, just the interest, paid out last year alone was £43bn - greater than the annual budgets of the MoD, FCO and DfID combined. </p> <p>£43bn pounds a year of taxpayers’ money that could pay for a tax cut to each taxpayer of almost £1,500 a year.</p> <p>Or it could pay for a million teachers or over a million nurses.</p> <p>In Defence - a dozen Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carriers or 33 Astute Class submarines. </p> <p>And the bad news is, next year the interest payments will be £50bn. </p> <p>This is all while we are tackling the deficit and before we even begin reducing the national debt.</p> <p>So let me boil down this barrage of statistics to my central point.</p> <p>The Chancellor doesn’t just sit on the National Security Council to tell us how much everything costs, he does so because this Government recognises what the last did not - that our national security is linked to the health of our economy.</p> <p>Creating military power on the back of borrowing at times of extreme or existential threat, such as during the World War Two, is understandable and reasonable. </p> <p>But if you continue to do so as a matter of routine, as Labour did over the last decade, you set off a ticking fiscal time bomb that if not defused will inevitably result in strategic shrinkage. </p> <p>I didn’t come into politics to cut the defence budget, but neither did I come into politics to be fiscally irresponsible - because the consequences of that are written deep in the historical record. </p> <p>To be a hawk on defence, you need to be a hawk on the deficit and the national debt too.</p> <p><strong>THE DEFENCE DEFICIT</strong></p> <p>Defence spending represents the fourth largest chunk of public expenditure, so the MoD must play its part in addressing the current economic challenges.</p> <p>In the MOD we face a particularly tough job. </p> <p>The Defence budget was perhaps the worst inheritance of all -  before the SDSR the forward defence programme was overextended to the tune of £38bn over the next decade. </p> <p>That was spending on all the equipment, programmes and all other variables previously planned over and above a budget rising at the rate of inflation. </p> <p>Everyone knew the Defence Budget was running hot and that addressing this would have been required regardless of fiscal tightening.</p> <p>This is one of the reasons why, in relation to the vast majority of government departments, the MOD is contributing less to deficit reduction. </p> <p>And this is also why the transformation of Defence will have to take place over a longer-term period too.</p> <p>This cannot be done overnight - with sunk costs, kit in build, contractual liabilities and other inherited committed spend, room for manoeuvre in the short-term is limited.</p> <p>So it’s a process charting a course for the recovery of Defence capability and the sustainability of its funding.</p> <p>The Strategic Defence and Security Review has set the right direction - and I will return to this and Future Force 2020 in a moment - but staying the course will require sustaining the strict cost-control regime I have put in place at the MOD.</p> <p>This will inevitably require that tough decisions are taken on a regular basis to keep the budget on track.</p> <p>Following the SDSR we made it clear that there would be a series of complicated second order consequences including the basing and reserves reviews, as well as the emerging work from the Defence Reform Unit.</p> <p>Having completed the current planning round, we have started the next Planning Round to take forward the work needed to balance defence priorities and the budget over the long-term. </p> <p>The Department has recently initiated a three month exercise as part of that work to ensure we match our assumptions with our spending settlement.</p> <p>This allows us to draw all this work together to inform the next planning round and to avoid the mistakes of the previous government in building up to an unsustainable Defence programme </p> <p>We have made it clear that while the SDSR had made substantial inroads into the £38bn funding deficit, there is still more to be done.</p> <p>Given the mess we inherited putting Defence on a sure footing, with a predictable budget, was always going to take time, but we believe it is better to be thorough than quick</p> <p>The Prime Minister has set out his personal view, with which I strongly agree, that achieving our vision for the future structure of our Armed Forces will require year-on-year real growth in the Defence Budget after 2015. </p> <p>As we approach the next General Election, and as we prepare for the next Defence Review in 2015, a commitment to meet Future Force 2020 will be a key signifier for those political parties dedicated to the vision of a Britain active on the world stage and protected at home.</p> <p><strong>BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE</strong></p> <p>As the National Security Strategy clearly sets out - our national interest requires our continued full and active engagement in world affairs</p> <p>Our trade and economic relationships are global.</p> <p>A threat that appears in one part of the world can swiftly be felt at home. </p> <p>In order to protect our interests at home, we must project our influence abroad.</p> <p>Coming together as they did, the National Security Strategy, the Strategic Defence and Security Review and the Comprehensive Spending Review, set us on a course to maintain our strategic reach, renew military capability on a sustainable basis, and address the structural weakness of the economy.</p> <p>In the MOD it was not only a budgetary deficit that we inherited. </p> <p>It was also a capability deficit. </p> <p>We had failed properly to adapt to meet future challenges. </p> <p>We had scores of tanks on the German plains, but insufficient cyber capability. </p> <p>We were committed to an expeditionary policy, but increasingly dependent on ageing strategic airlift. </p> <p>So we have embarked on a long-term programme of renewal and revitalisation in Defence that maintains our strategic reach.</p> <p>In doing so we have rejected alternative postures quite strongly advocated by some. </p> <p>One was that we should invest in what you might call ‘Fortress Britain’, withdrawing back closer to home and investing in the appropriate assets in that direction. </p> <p>Under such a posture there would be no requirement for expeditionary capabilities on our current scale, for example.</p> <p>There were others who said to go exactly the other way, and that we should have a highly committed posture and just assume that the conflicts of the future would be like the one we currently face in Afghanistan.</p> <p>Under such a posture there would be no requirement for widespread maritime capabilities, for example.</p> <p>Something that is difficult is to quantify but undoubtedly real is Britain’s invisible export of security and stability carried out by our Armed Forces, including the Royal Navy.</p> <p>Clearing mines in the Arabian Gulf, anti-piracy actions in the Gulf of Aden, protecting our own sea lanes - all contribute to international stability and the free movement of goods upon which our prosperity relies.</p> <p>So neither a fortress nor a committed posture would have met the requirement in the National Security Strategy for continued engagement in a world where threats are evolving and unpredictable.</p> <p>The adaptable posture we have embraced gives us the best capability to respond with agility to changing threats in an uncertain world. </p> <p>This means keeping our forces ready to react swiftly to those things we cannot easily predict. </p> <p>It means upgrading strategic lift capability.</p> <p>It means investment in Special Forces.</p> <p>It means being efficient, cutting down on duplication and numbers of equipment types to shorten the tail.</p> <p>And it means investing in areas of capability that suit the future character of warfare - such as cyber, intelligence and unmanned technology.</p> <p>It also means investing in activities, such as conflict prevention and aid, that prevent the development of threats ‘upstream’, before they require a more demanding military response.</p> <p>But in doing so we are not ignoring conventional military power required for flexible, multi-rolled, deployable forces.</p> <p>By 2020, The RAF will be built around hi-tech multi-role combat aircraft Typhoon and the Joint Strike Fighter, surveillance and intelligence platforms such as Airseeker, and a new fleet of strategic and tactical transport aircraft including A400M and Voyager.</p> <p>The Royal Navy will have new aircraft carriers with the JSF carrier-variant, a high readiness amphibious capability, a new fleet of Type 45 destroyers and Astute class submarines - and ready at that point to accept the new Global Combat Ship. </p> <p>The Army, based on Multi-Role Brigades, will be powerful, flexible, fully equipped for the land environment and able to operate across the spectrum of conflict. </p> <p>We will remain one of the few countries who can deploy and sustain a brigade sized force plus its air and maritime enablers, capable of both intervention and stabilisation operations almost anywhere in the world. </p> <p>And we will remain a nuclear power, maintaining a minimum credible nuclear deterrent.</p> <p>I am absolutely clear, as I said in the House of Commons yesterday, that a minimum nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile delivery system and continuous at sea deterrence is right for the UK.</p> <p>We still have the fourth largest defence budget in the world and will continue to meet the NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on Defence over the spending review period. </p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>Of course, pursuing the necessary long-term strategy set out in the SDSR is not the only mark of renewal in Defence over the last year.</p> <p>For years successive Defence Secretaries have failed, often through no fault of their own, to get a grip on the equipment programme and failed to hold the department and industry to account for delays and poor cost-estimation</p> <p>The drivers of structural financial instability and the institutional lack of accountability, from ministers down, must be tackled if we are to avoid history repeating itself. </p> <p>That is why the work of Lord Levene and his Defence Reform Unit to reform the operating model of Defence is so important along side the work of the Chief of Defence Materiel, Bernard Gray, to set the forward equipment programme on a sustainable basis.</p> <p>We are also acting to redraw and rejuvenate the relationship with industry to ensure the tax payer gets the best deal from the investment in Defence.</p> <p>These are all measures in support of the long-term transformation of Defence and the vision set out in the SDSR.</p> <p>Labour’s Defence Green Paper published just months before the election admitted with what I have to say is spectacular understatement that:</p> <p>“the forward defence programme faces challenging financial pressures” </p> <p>It said in particular that the MOD:</p> <p>“cannot proceed with all the activities and programmes we currently aspire to, while simultaneously supporting our current operations and investing in the new capabilities we need. We will need to make tough decisions".</p> <p>Well, we have made those tough decisions, and I stand by them.</p> <p>I believe in setting your strategic direction and sticking to your plan unless the facts change.</p> <p>Since we completed the SDSR, the financial position of the country has not changed nor substantially have the nature of the threats we face. </p> <p>Let us be honest about this.</p> <p>Those who are arguing for a fundamental reassessment of the SDSR are really arguing for increased defence spending.</p> <p>But they fail to spell out the inevitable result - more borrowing, more tax rises, or more cuts elsewhere.</p> <p>The bottom line is that a strong economy is a national security requirement and an affordable Defence programme is the only responsible way to support our Armed Forces in the long term. </p> <p>There are no easy answers.</p> <p>There are no silver bullets.</p> <p>There are only tough decisions, hard work and perseverance.</p> <p>To pretend otherwise is to fail in our duty to our country and its people.<br></p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20110519StrongEconomyStrongDefenceStrategicReachProtectingNationalSecurityInThe21stCentury.htm Liam Fox 2011/05/19 - Strong Economy, Strong Defence, Strategic Reach: Protecting National Security in the 21st Century uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 19/05/2011 Ministry of Defence Chatham House, London
<p> <strong>Introduction<br><br></strong>Being the Secretary of State for defence was always going to be one of the toughest jobs in the new Government. </p> <p>Defence was the worst in a grim set of inheritances. </p> <p>As the Chancellor said, Defence was the “most chaotic, most disorganised, most over-committed” budget he had seen.</p> <p>Labour had avoided a strategic defence review for 12 years. </p> <p>As a consequence we were always going to need a step change not incremental reform.</p> <p>The black hole in the MoD budget by the end of the decade was more than one year’s entire defence spending. </p> <p>This had resulted from the serial failure of Labour ministers to take difficult decisions and what Bernard Gray described as ‘the conspiracy of optimism’ in the department's planning.</p> <p>On top of this was the need to contribute to the deficit reduction. </p> <p>Next year's interest payment on the national debt will be bigger than the defence, foreign office and the international aid budgets combined. </p> <p>Unless we deal with the deficit it will become an increasingly dangerous national security liability as more and more money is swallowed up in interest and less is available to spend on the safety of our country.</p> <p>In less than a year huge progress has been made in turning these problems round. </p> <p>The SDSR set a clear direction for policy, implementing the National Security strategy. </p> <p>It decided on an adaptive posture for the UK - neither Fortress Britain nor overcommitted expeditionary forces on the other. </p> <p>We had inevitably to divest ourselves of some legacy to enable us to invest in dealing with the threats of the future, not least in cyberspace where government will now spend an extra £650m.</p> <p>But the SDSR was not a single event, it was part of a cycle of five yearly defence reviews designed to constantly adapt to changing global security circumstances. </p> <p>The 12 year gap in defence reviews, the budgetary black hole and the need for deficit reduction inevitably meant that we would have to take tough and sometimes unpopular decisions. </p> <p>But we were able, nonetheless, to show a path to the Future Force 2020 where Britain's defences will be coherent, efficient and cutting-edge.</p> <p>But the change cannot stop there. </p> <p>Across Government, we must transform the way public services are delivered. </p> <p>For years successive Defence Secretaries have failed to get a grip on the equipment programme and failed to hold the department and industry to account for delays and poor cost-estimation</p> <p>Only today we are reminded by the Public Accounts Committee of Labour’s desperate legacy.</p> <p>In their final year in office just two programmes reported an increase of cost by a staggering £3.3 billion.</p> <p>The MoD must fundamentally change how it does business and today I want to set out how this change will come about.</p> <p>The drivers of structural financial instability and the institutional lack of accountability, from ministers down, must be tackled if we are to avoid history repeating itself. </p> <p>The constant postponement of difficult decisions created a bow wave in the department’s finances which became increasingly difficult to handle. </p> <p>It would be folly to tackle this, as are doing, only to allow the systemic failures which created it to continue. </p> <p>We need greater accountability and transparency to ensure that our resources genuinely match our ambitions and cost control is rigorously enforced.  </p> <p>Too often when ministers have wanted to pull levers they find themselves pushing string instead. </p> <p>So there are a number of changes that are crucial.</p> <p>First, the so-called conspiracy of optimism, through which the risks and costs in new projects are under-estimated, only to find mushrooming costs later, needs to end. </p> <p>Second, future programmes should not be included unless there is a clear budgetary line for development, procurement and deployment.</p> <p>Third, we must end the lack of real time cost control with tight budgetary discipline.</p> <p>And fourth, we must rebalance our relationship with industry so that we achieve maximum value for money, remembering that the primary purpose of the procurement process is to give our Armed Forces to the need when they need it at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer. </p> <p><strong>Dealing with the Conspiracy of Optimism</strong> </p> <p>For too many years projects have been included in the future defence programme without a proper appreciation of the risks or costs.</p> <p>The conspiracy of optimism based on poor cost estimation and unrealistic timescales, across the Department has – to be frank - involved politicians, the civil service, the military and industry. </p> <p>Too often in the past, in order to get pet projects included in the programme, unrealistic costs have been accepted at the outset knowing that they can be recovered later due to what are euphemistically called ‘cost overruns’.</p> <p>These practices in the MoD would not be tolerated in the private sector and they cannot be tolerated in the MoD.</p> <p>By looking at and approving programmes in isolation from the totality of departmental spend any programme can be made to look affordable. </p> <p>But when they are considered together, the cumulative risk and cost become unmanageable.</p> <p>So a risk-aware and cost-conscious mentality must permeate every level at the Ministry of Defence, civilian and military alike. </p> <p>Now more than ever, every penny counts.</p> <p>Value for money is not about compromising your defence aim. It is about realising that aim in a sustainable way. </p> <p>From now on, guarantees of realistic budgets for development, procurement and deployment must be presented to ministers before spending can begin on new programmes. </p> <p>At the same time we must examine the future programmes we currently have to ensure risks and costs are well understood and that they remain affordable.</p> <p>I have asked the Permanent Secretary, Ursula Brennan and Bernard Gray to carry out this process immediately. </p> <p><strong>Real Time Cost Control</strong> </p> <p>If we are to achieve real budgetary discipline we must also have better real-time control of project budgets. </p> <p>How often have we had to listen to the National Audit Office detailing projects which run over time and over budget? </p> <p>Too often the MoD has simply presided over a post-mortem on programs -- in my previous profession a post-mortem was not considered a good professional outcome and it will not be so in the MOD.</p> <p>There are a number of changes we need to make. </p> <p>We need to give project managers the right resources and authority to deliver what we ask of them and hold them to account. </p> <p>We also need to keep them in post long enough to deliver, ensuring that they have the skills available to make the tough calls necessary. </p> <p>The private sector would view the rapid turnover of project managers in the MoD - with what I call the repetitive loss of expertise - as crazy.</p> <p>It is for all these reasons that I am establishing the Major Projects Review Board. </p> <p>This will be chaired by me as the Secretary of State and will receive a quarterly update on the Ministry's major programs to ensure that they are on time and within budget. </p> <p>This will begin with the 20 biggest projects by value and will rapidly expand to the 50 biggest projects. </p> <p>There must be a real sense of urgency about achieving this goal.</p> <p>Where projects are falling behind schedule or budget we must take immediate remedial measures. </p> <p>Those responsible will be brought to account in front of the project board. </p> <p>And in addition we will publish a list every quarter of the Major Project Review Board’s ‘Projects of Concern’. </p> <p>That way the public and the market can judge how well we and industry are doing in supporting our Armed Forces while offering value for money to the taxpayers. </p> <p>I want shareholders to see where projects are under-performing so that they can bring market discipline to substandard management where required.</p> <p><strong>Rebalancing Our Relationship with Industry</strong> </p> <p>But change cannot just be internal.</p> <p>This government showed from the outset its commitment to the defence industry and an understanding that the best way to sustain defence jobs in the long term is to widen the customer base through enhanced defence exports.</p> <p> A great deal of energy has already been devoted to this across government departments with substantial results. </p> <p>It will ensure that skills and employment are retained in some of our most technologically advanced areas, that SMEs can compete as equals and we keep British industry at the cutting edge on the world market.</p> <p>In the Ministry of Defence we established the new Defence Exports Support Group to ensure that MoD, alongside our UKTI colleagues, is focusing its efforts in support of defence exports. </p> <p>This way, the MoD can be at the forefront of the Government export led growth strategy.</p> <p>In December we published a Green paper on equipment support and technology for UK defence and security and we are currently consulting on this. </p> <p>The defence industry is a major source of revenue, jobs and exports and can play an important role in the government's growth agenda.</p> <p>But industry must also play a role in reducing costs at a time when budgets are constrained by the need to control the deficit we inherited.</p> <p>Following the SDSR, we have entered into a period of intense negotiation with a number of our major industrial suppliers.</p> <p>This is already looking at 130 contracts relating to SDSR decisions to ensure they are both necessary and give greater value for money for the taxpayer. </p> <p>For the first time these negotiations are taking place at a company level as well as a project level.</p> <p>The number of these contracts will soon be expanded by around 500 contracts and we will complete this work over the next 18 months releasing significant cost savings across the Department.</p> <p>We must also have a relationship with industry that is open, transparent and reflects the realities of the current business environment.</p> <p>We have recently launched an independent review, led by Lord Currie of Marylebone, into the pricing mechanism - called the Yellow Book - which the MoD uses for single source contracts.</p> <p>Some of you may never have heard of this. </p> <p>But these are arrangements have been in place since 1968 without a fundamental update from either Conservative or Labour governments. </p> <p>They reflect an entirely different industrial era and they need to be updated.</p> <p>Under the Yellow Book we currently place around 40% of our contracts on a non-competitive basis, worth around £9 billion annually. </p> <p>We will set out the first stage of this review, recommending changes in consultation with industry, in the summer. </p> <p>This will affect all future non-competitive contracts and is intended to save the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds.</p> <p>The MoD is also working through the Centralising Category Procurement Initiative, run by the Cabinet Office, which will transform how government buys common goods and services through centralised management, standardisation of specification and aggregation of spend. </p> <p>This again will deliver significant and sustainable cost reductions across government.</p> <p>Finally, we need to update the way in which the MOD engages with industry itself. </p> <p>The relationship must take into account both the overlapping interests and the differences which government and industry have. </p> <p>We have a synergy to bring in areas such as defence exports where profits to industry also result in relationships and influence which can benefit the national interest. </p> <p>Yet we must also remember that industry is ultimately answerable to shareholders for their profits while government is answerable to the taxpayers for the management of their money.</p> <p>At present, the National Defence Industries Council acts as the body that represents the interests of the defence industry to Ministers. </p> <p>This body, however, is self appointed and excludes some of the department's major suppliers. </p> <p>And though our defence industry relies on many thousands of Small and Medium-Size Enterprises (SMEs), I believe they are currently under-represented.</p> <p>I can announce today that I am establishing a new Defence Suppliers Forum that I will chair which will include representatives of the full range of the Department’s defence suppliers from the UK and overseas and which will better reflect the defence industry as a whole.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion </strong></p> <p>We need to have the mechanisms to ensure value for money in the Ministry of Defence.</p> <p>The SDSR took the necessarily tough decisions to correct years of mismanagement under Labour.  </p> <p>The Ministry of Defence needs to have the structures and mechanisms to deliver the conclusions of that Review and ensure value for money for the tax payer. </p> <p>We need a new, frank and honest relationship between government and industry based on the national interest, mindful of commercial realities and sensitive market mechanisms.</p> <p>The measures I have set out today will help towards achieving these goals. </p> <p>Change, let’s face it, is seldom popular but the case for change in these areas is overwhelming. </p> <p>Let us just remember that there is no such thing as government money. </p> <p>There is only taxpayers’ money -- money raised from individuals and from businesses large and small.<br><br>They expect us to spend money wisely and properly and to enter into contracts that will deliver the equipment that our Armed Forces need when they need it while protecting taxpayers’ interests and sustaining industrial growth.</p> <p>Successive Labour Defence Secretaries have played pass the parcel with the black hole in the defence program. </p> <p>Each one has made the situation worse for their successor by failing to take the difficult decisions necessary.</p> <p>Well this is where the music stops. </p> <p>It has fallen to this government and to me as defence secretary to deal with Labour's appalling defence legacy. </p> <p>It cannot be done overnight and it cannot be done painlessly. </p> <p>But it can and will be done.</p> <p>In the first nine months of government we have already started implementing a programme of fundamental change and will not rest until the job is done.</p> <p>And the changes I have announced today will continue that process.<br> <br>In the months ahead we will set out further reforms-for the Armed Forces, including the Reserves and Senior Rank structures and for structural change within the Ministry of Defence itself, including as a result of Lord Levene’s work on Defence Reform.</p> <p>Our National interest requires that we continue to take difficult decisions. </p> <p>And, as promised, we intend to govern in the National interest.<br></p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20110222ValueForMoneyAtTheMod.htm Liam Fox 2011/02/22 - Value for Money at the MOD uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 22/02/2011 Ministry of Defence Civitas the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, Tufton Street, London
<p>With permission, Mr Speaker, I will report to the House the Government's assessment of progress towards UK objectives in Afghanistan.</p> <p>Before I begin my statement, I regret to have to inform the House that two British soldiers from the Royal Logistics Corps died early this morning at Camp Bastion. An investigation is under way into their deaths, but early indications suggest that they were caused by a fire. Their families have been informed, and I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with them at this very difficult time.</p> <p>International forces from 48 nations, including the United Kingdom, are in Afghanistan to prevent terrorists, including al-Qaeda, from again using Afghanistan to plot and launch terror attacks. The contributions of each nation to the international security assistance force are listed in the supplementary written information that I have provided for Members.</p> <p>Meeting our objectives requires working with Afghanistan's neighbours, and that includes helping Pakistan to tackle the problems on its side of the border. We are acting to provide the security space required for indigenous security and governance to grow, and we are supporting that growth through diplomatic, developmental and military means. The goal is for the Government of Afghanistan to provide, on a sustainable basis, the capability and governance required to manage their own security.</p> <p>Although international military forces have been in Afghanistan since 2001 and significant gains have been made, it is only since August last year that we have had the number of troops and the right level of equipment to fulfil the strategy set for them. The challenge lies in having the patience and will to see the mission through. </p> <p>The Foreign Secretary reported to the House in October. In this quarterly report, I will concentrate on the security progress being made in central Helmand, where the majority of UK forces operate. That is represented by the shaded area on the map of Helmand province that I have provided to Members.</p> <p>Afghanistan has 401 districts, but 60% of the violence occurs in just nine of them, and eight of those nine are in Helmand and Kandahar. So we need to remember that Helmand is not representative of Afghanistan as a whole, and that there are many places where progressively a sense of normality and security is returning. Before I turn to general progress, in keeping with our undertaking to keep Parliament better informed as far as operational restrictions allow, I should like to update the House on current force levels.</p> <p>The previous Government announced on 30 November 2009 that they had increased the endorsed UK force level to 9,500. It will not surprise the House to hear that that core number of 9,500 does not fully account for the actual force numbers we have deployed, given the complex and highly dynamic current situation on the ground. As the previous Government acknowledged, a sizeable contingent of our highly effective special forces operates in Afghanistan. In accordance with long-standing practice, we do not specify the scale or nature of their activities,, but, if we take them into account with the enabling support that they need, we see that they take our numbers to more than 10,000.</p> <p>For many years, UK forces have contributed to the protection of Kandahar airfield. In December 2009, it was expected that they would hand over that task to another ISAF partner within a matter of months. That did not happen, and we still have almost 200 extra troops protecting Kandahar airfield. That is constantly under review. Additionally, in September 2010, we announced the deployment of 200 personnel from the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps to ISAF Joint Command for 12 months. They will return by February 2012.</p> <p>To maintain operational flexibility, we also approve temporary deployments, or surges, of additional personnel to meet specific and time-limited tasks. These include personnel to provide key headquarters functions or to prepare infrastructure for the rigours of the Afghan winter. From time to time, we also deploy the Theatre Reserve Battalion. The number of UK military personnel on the ground in Afghanistan also fluctuates from day to day, reflecting the number of personnel on rest and recuperation breaks, as well the changes that occur as we hand over responsibility between units during the twice-yearly reliefs in place. So the actual number of military personnel currently in Afghanistan is regularly well over 10,000.</p> <p>We keep our force levels under constant review, and some reductions this year may be possible, dependent on conditions on the ground and implementation of the security transition process. I want every member of our armed forces deployed in Afghanistan to get the credit for the incredible job that they do, and I know that all those in the House will want to join me in paying tribute to their selfless courage and hard work.</p> <p>The efforts of our armed forces are supported by the work of many hundreds of civilians from the Ministry of Defence and other Departments, including staff in our embassy in Kabul, in our taskforce headquarters and provincial reconstruction team in Lashkar Gah, in district stabilisation teams across Helmand, and in units and facilities outside Afghanistan. Again, I am sure that the House will want to join me in acknowledging the valuable work that they do and their devotion to duty.</p> <p>In central Helmand, as General Petraeus has said, we have not yet seen success or victory, but we are seeing progress. It is fragile and not irreversible, but it is progress. The increase in Afghan and ISAF forces has enabled us to take the fight to the insurgency and, understandably, this has led to an overall increase in the number of violent incidents. But over the past three months, although the number is still higher than in previous years, we are seeing a trend of falling security incidents. For example, in the Marjah district of Helmand province, security incidents have fallen from a high of around 25 a day at the height of summer to just three or four a day at present. There is a seasonal pattern, as many insurgents, especially those fighting for financial rather than ideological reasons, return to their homes for the winter. This year, however, with the unusually mild weather and with winter arriving late, and the increased activity by ISAF and the Afghan national security forces, the fall in the number of incidents is more likely than in previous years to be an indicator of progress. However, I have to say to the House that casualty numbers are once again likely to rise in spring this year as insurgent activity increases.</p> <p>This year will be just as difficult as 2010, but there will be distinct differences. The increased number of ANSF and ISAF forces allows us to arrest the momentum of the insurgency in more areas. Afghan forces will also begin to take the lead for security as the first districts and provinces begin the process of transition. There are now over 152,000 Afghan national army and 117,000 Afghan national police. This is on schedule to meet the October 2011 growth target to deliver 305,600 Afghan national security forces. But as the quantity increases, quality must not be neglected. One example is improving literacy to ensure that orders can be communicated in writing as well as orally, so that there is less scope for misinterpretation. Currently, around 85% of ANSF recruits are illiterate on entry. Literacy training is now mandatory for all recruits. The training is to be conducted by Afghan teachers, creating employment and boosting the economy, and significant progress is being made.</p> <p>Progress has also been made in implementing the Afghan local police initiative. This is a temporary programme of village-owned security aimed at providing a security effect in areas with limited or no ANSF presence. The programme, established by presidential decree, comes under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior. Fourteen sites have been established, and 2,800 ALP have been recruited. Once the necessary security and capacity are established, these local forces will be integrated into the regular ANSF.</p> <p>In Helmand, our bilateral police mission has focused on training Afghan national police at the Helmand police training centre, from which the 2,000th officer graduated in December. The UK Government have funded the building of six new police stations in Helmand in the last six months, with 10 more in construction and 28 more in design.</p> <p>Following the Lisbon NATO summit, the transition process is on track. The joint Afghan-NATO transition board is set to deliver recommendations this month on which provinces will enter the transition process. President Karzai has confirmed that he will announce the first phase of transition on 21 March.</p> <p>The UK Government's development programmes work with the Government of Afghanistan to build capacity to direct and deliver their own development. Real progress is being made at the local level across Afghanistan. UK-funded teams from the provincial administration in Lashkar Gah have begun to create a district community council in Marjah, which this time last year was an insurgent stronghold. In Musa Qala, the newly elected council is developing a district plan for the Afghan Government to deliver with support from the UK. At national level, action plans have been developed for the Afghan Government's national priority programmes, and we have seen encouraging progress in some areas. For example, revenue collection has increased by 32% compared with the same period last year, albeit from a low base. That is 9% above the International Monetary Fund target and brings Afghanistan a step closer to self-sufficiency.</p> <p>The newly elected Afghan Parliament was inaugurated last month, with frictions between the Executive and legislature resolved democratically. However, we remain very concerned about levels of corruption, and in particular about the disturbing allegations about the Kabul Bank. We will continue to press the Afghan Government to translate their anti-corruption commitments into action.</p> <p>The Afghan Government are taking further steps towards peace and reconciliation for all Afghans. The High Peace Council has toured Afghanistan to publicise the Afghan peace and reintegration programme. It is early days, but in some areas of Afghanistan, particularly in the north, increasing numbers of insurgents are seeking a way out of the cycle of violence. The High Peace Council recently visited Pakistan to take forward dialogue on peace and reconciliation.</p> <p>Three hundred and fifty-six British servicemen and women have died on operations in Afghanistan - 15 since my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last reported progress to the House at the end of October. In the face of such sacrifice, we should be in no doubt about the importance to our national security of the mission and our support for it. We have seen progress over the past few months but the need for strategic patience remains. To paraphrase the US Defence Secretary, we need to stop pulling up the tree by its roots to see if it is growing. There is still a great deal to do, but I believe there is also cause for cautious optimism.<br></p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20110214QuarterlyStatementOnAfghanistan.htm Liam Fox 2011/02/14 - Quarterly Statement on Afghanistan uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 15/02/2011 Ministry of Defence None
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, since the formation of the new Coalition Government in the UK there has been an unprecedented amount of energy - and a renewed sense of urgency - in our engagement in this region.</p> <p>As many of you know the British Foreign Secretary visited Israel recently.</p> <p>During my years in Opposition I was regular visitor of Israel and to this conference. </p> <p>This is why it is such a great pleasure to visit Israel and address the conference as Defence Secretary. </p> <p>In fact, I am the first UK Defence Secretary to visit Israel in decades. </p> <p>We look forward to continuing this re-invigorated strategic relationship at all levels.</p> <p><strong>MUTUAL INTERESTS</strong></p> <p>Britain has long historical connections in the region and close relationships with many countries including Israel.</p> <p>These are bonds of friendship, understanding and respect that have endured for many years - through good times and bad.</p> <p>But even the best friendships need to be supported by mutual self-interest. </p> <p>Fortunately, we have many over-lapping self-interests with Israel - in trade, in tackling terrorism and nuclear proliferation, and a successful Middle East Peace Process.</p> <p>Israel is a key partner in the fight against international terrorism, alongside our allies and friends in the region, and we should assist each other to further develop intelligence and counter-terrorism capabilities. </p> <p>Israel also shares the concerns of the United Kingdom, as do other countries in the region and the international community as a whole, with regard to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.</p> <p>The United Kingdom is pushing for stronger sanctions to influence Iran, but the importance of the Middle East Peace Process should not be over-looked.</p> <p>Progress towards the two state solution - a secure and universally recognised Israel living alongside a viable Palestinian state  - is important in defusing the malign influence of Iran. </p> <p>The United Kingdom believes this is fundamental to regional security.</p> <p><strong>REGIONAL STABILITY</strong></p> <p>What happens here can have a direct impact on the national security of the United Kingdom, our prosperity and the safety our citizens.</p> <p>Today - with our economies linked, our peoples connected and our interests convergent - threats originating in one part of the globe, can become threats in all parts of the globe - and very quickly. </p> <p>That is why, after our recent Strategic Defence and Security Review, we have maintained our place among the very top rank of military powers supported by the fourth largest defence budget in the world.</p> <p>The outcome of our review also demonstrates that our commitment to security in the Middle East is undiminished.</p> <p>Working closely with our major European allies and the United States we will maintain the military capability and political will required to deter regional aggression.  </p> <p>This is underpinned by the maintenance of a significant UK military presence in the region as a whole which contributes to reassurance and deterrence.</p> <p>We maintain a sizeable maritime presence in the Gulf including a permanent task group of mine counter measure vessels to assist in the free movement of international shipping, up and down the Gulf.  </p> <p>This is a significant and enduring commitment which sends a very strong message of our continuing engagement, and the importance we attach to the region as whole.</p> <p>We enjoy a strong bi-lateral defence relationship with Israel. This is a relationship that thankfully is growing and maturing. </p> <p>It is a relationship that enables our operations and in some cases keeps British troops alive in Afghanistan. </p> <p>And this is a relationship that is greatly valued in the UK and I want to thank you all very much for it. </p> <p>Military to military engagement is important too. </p> <p>Last summer the UK Vice Chief of Defence Staff visited Israel and our new Chief of the Defence Staff recently met with your Chief of Staff at NATO. </p> <p>I hope it will be part of an enduring and structured dialogue between our two militaries. </p> <p>On a practical level the UK was recently able to offer Israel assistance in combating the recent forest fires in the north of the country using specially fitted Royal Air Force helicopters flying from our base in Cyprus. </p> <p><strong>Iran</strong></p> <p>As I have set out, part of dealing with the threats and challenges in the region is through deterrence.</p> <p>Deterrence seeks to avoid conflict.  </p> <p>It therefore has inherent legitimacy.</p> <p>It is about setting boundaries for action and communicating the risks associated with crossing those boundaries.</p> <p>But that does not mean it is cheap or easy.</p> <p>It relies on maintaining the capabilities to act, and crucially, the political will to do so.</p> <p>Some of the threats we face - support for terrorism and nuclear proliferation in particular - sit uncomfortably close together in Iran.</p> <p>Iran has a long history rooted in thousands of years of Persian identity and has a role in the region, and indeed, as a responsible member of the international community.</p> <p>But that role must be as a partner, not a problem.</p> <p>I noted the recent comments by Meir Dagan, the recently retired head of Mossad, on Iran’s nuclear weapons programme.</p> <p>When it comes to timescales, I do not think it is prudent to assume we are at the most optimistic end of the spectrum.</p> <p>We know from previous experience, not least from what happened in North Korea, that the international community can be caught out assuming that things are rosier than they actually are. </p> <p>We should therefore be clear that it is entirely possible that Iran’s nuclear weapons programme could be more advanced, and act in accordance with the fact that time is not on our side.</p> <p>So we need to resolve the concerns of the international community about Iran’s nuclear programme.  </p> <p>These are set out clearly in the latest report of the International Atomic Energy Agency and in the Resolutions of the UN Security Council.</p> <p>Iran needs to engage seriously and constructively. </p> <p>It did not do so at Istanbul.</p> <p>For our part, we will continue to keep the door open to talks if Iran is prepared to negotiate seriously, as well as keeping up the pressure on Iran through sanctions. </p> <p>Post-Istanbul, we shall be looking hard at how to strengthen the sanctions regime, both through tightening existing measure and looking at new ones. </p> <p>For sanctions to work regional powers and neighbours need to make sure that they are not used by Iran to help it avoid or water down the impact of economic sanctions.  </p> <p>Those who allow Iran avoid the effects of sanctions are an obstacle to the peaceful resolution of the Iran problem. </p> <p>It will be essential that all states play their part in this effort, in line with UN Security Council Resolutions. </p> <p>We are serious about reaching an agreement that recognises Iran’s legitimate civil nuclear interests.</p> <p>But, if Iran gets nuclear weapons it will be a disaster.</p> <p>It could destroy hopes for peace in the Middle-East, for international stability and could very well mean the effective end of the Non-Proliferation Treaty as we know it.</p> <p>It would lay the ground for a nuclear arms race in the region which would bring great instability, and ultimately diminish the security for the Iranian people themselves. </p> <p>We want a negotiated solution - but Iran needs to change its approach fundamentally if we are to achieve that outcome.  </p> <p>An Iranian nuclear weapons capability will not be tolerated by the international community. </p> <p>This means the international community needs to act as well as speak.</p> <p>We will not look away and we will not back down.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION </strong></p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, this new era should be one of beneficial partnership between nations, not optional isolation.</p> <p>Israel is a key partner for the United Kingdom with whom we share strategic challenges as I’ve set out. </p> <p>And be in no doubt, the UK understands that Israel has a unique set of security concerns. </p> <p>As the events of the last weeks in Tunisia and Egypt have shown, nothing is set in stone. </p> <p>Events can move with great speed and our ability to control or influence them can be limited. </p> <p>Change brings uncertainty, and yes it can bring new threats, but it also brings opportunities that should be seized.</p> <p>In Egypt we must work to see that the legitimate demands of the people for the freedom to determine their own governance and decide their own destiny occurs in an orderly way that does not threaten regional stability.</p> <p>We live in a dangerous and challenging world. </p> <p>Successful nations will be those that look forwards and outwards - not backwards or inwards.</p> <p>Who understand their history, but are not governed by it.</p> <p>Who seek peace, but have the courage to confront those who would threaten them.</p> <p>Who understand and seize the opportunities that history lays before them. </p> <p>We face many common challenges.</p> <p>We will all be stronger if we face them together with our friends. </p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20110206SharedSecurityChallenges.htm Liam Fox 2011/02/06 - Shared Security Challenges uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 09/02/2011 Ministry of Defence the 11th Annual Herzliya Conference, Israel
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>It is said that the key to success lies not in predicting the future but in shaping organisations that will thrive in a future that cannot be predicted.  Nowhere is this more important than in the architecture which determines and protects our national security.</p> <p>As well as understanding the potential for trade and prosperity that the global economy brings there is also, and there needs to be, an understanding that the complex and interdependent nature of this new reality brings unavoidable strategic risk. </p> <p>As the events in North Africa this week has shown, nothing is set in stone.  Change brings risk as well as opportunity and this is a world in which risk is increasing, not decreasing. Investment in security is insurance for future prosperity.</p> <p>I recognise the financial situation we all find ourselves is a tough one.  The UK has had to make some difficult decisions to bring balance to our Defence budget and we recognise that the strength of our defence and security partnerships will be critical in managing the choices we made. </p> <p>So, it is imperative that we find ways of sharing the burden of collective defence more equitably - because that is not the case at present.  In some cases this means spending more - in some cases this means spending differently - concentrating for instance on deployability, or those assets that are of greatest utility to our allies as well as for national defence.</p> <p>But it also means that we need to explore new ways of defending our interests and those of our allies in a world where we may be vulnerable in more places and to more adversaries. </p> <p><strong>MULTILAYERED SECURITY - THE BUILDING BLOCK APPROACH</strong></p> <p>We all want the legitimacy that multilateral organisations can provide.  But we must ensure that a lack of consensus does not lead to a lack of action and that we are able to deal with threats appropriately and in a timely manner.</p> <p>That is why we need multilayered security so that we can respond using the right means for the right occasion - through multi-lateral organisations wherever possible - but also through bi-lateral relationships - sometimes, even unilaterally. </p> <p>The United Kingdom belongs to a wide range of organisations and institutions allowing us to generate influence - the Security Council of the United Nations as a permanent member, NATO, the European Union, the G8 and G20 and the Commonwealth, and others. </p> <p>The recent Strategic Defence and Security Review we have undertaken makes clear that the UK’s membership of NATO and the Transatlantic Alliance have been and remain the bedrock of our collective security.  The European Union is also a key part of the means through which we promote security and prosperity in our neighbourhood - but it should be complimentary, and in addition, to NATO.</p> <p>The UK has also been instrumental in setting up the new Northern Group of nations, which includes the Baltic and Nordic countries, Germany, Poland and the UK recognising our position as a Northern European state.  The Northern Group is made up of nations some of whom are in NATO but not the EU and vice versa.</p> <p>All these different arrangements, and others farther afield such as the Five Power Defence Arrangements, create a range of levers to be used in a range of different security circumstances. </p> <p>This is what we might describe as a “building block” approach to defence and security in the Euro-Atlantic area and further afield. </p> <p><strong>ADDITIONALITY NOT DUPLICATION</strong></p> <p>I know that there has been criticism from some quarters about the recent Franco-British defence treaty - the criticism being that it is an attempt to "bilateralise defence arrangements".  I think this displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what we aim to achieve through this intensified co-operation.</p> <p>Partnerships will form between those with similar perspectives, similar capabilities, and similar political will to deploy them when necessary. A combination of strong bilateral ties and multilateral arrangements bring added strength to the whole. </p> <p>The relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States strengthens NATO - so does the UK-Germany relationship. So does the UK-French relationship. In the same way, UK-French co-operation will strengthen, not undermine Transatlantic and European Security particularly since France has rejoined NATO’s military command structure. </p> <p>Those who criticise this flexible approach argue that the United Kingdom should only concentrate on developing a greater defence profile in the European Union - I profoundly disagree with them.</p> <p>In these difficult times the money we spend has to achieve the greatest practical effect for our national and collective security.  We do not have the luxury of unlimited political energy or finances to indulge in unnecessary duplication, double-hatting or institutional empire building. We have to prioritise to achieve better interoperability, capability and efficiency to ensure additionality, not diversion of resources.<br><br>This does not mean that there is no military role for the EU - on the contrary - the Petersberg Tasks are wide ranging. But action through the EU must have clear objectives and offer value for money - and EU military missions can only happen where it is clear NATO cannot, or chooses not to, intervene. We may agree over some aspirations for the EU, and we may differ over others. But we must concentrate on what we agree on - boosting national capabilities to deliver collective security through NATO.</p> <p>With NATO at 28 members and the EU at 27, we have the capacity to do things we would not be able to do in smaller groups - missile defence is an obvious example - as is the mission in Afghanistan. But there are other projects which would be more cost-effective and faster to do in smaller groups. Our multilateral future will be stronger if it is underpinned by more effective bilateral and other smaller group co-operation.</p> <p><strong>New Strategic Concept</strong></p> <p>So let me give three reasons why implementation of NATO’s new Strategic Concept is so important.</p> <p>First - it reaffirms the importance of the bonds between us, in particular Article 5 and the pledge to defend one another, whether large or small, old or new members. But it also recognises that the threats to our territory and our way of life are evolving and that we need to have the right capabilities to deal with them. The new Strategic Concept should help drive co-operation in fields such as cyber security and indeed counter-terrorism where they require a military response.</p> <p>Second - the emphasis on deployability for both Article 5 and non-Article 5 activities is central to the effectiveness of NATO in the future. Allies ought to be focusing on their commitments to develop and sustain deployable capabilities for NATO. That is why I place a priority on the work we are undertaking in the UK on force generation. The new model for NATO command structure reform should help swift response but these HQs need deployable troops and capabilities to command. </p> <p>Third - as our experience in Afghanistan has shown, and the Strategic Concept acknowledges, NATO needs better capabilities in linking civilian and military effect when undertaking these kinds of missions. That civilian capacity will come from NATO’s partners -  especially the EU and UN - and from nations themselves.  But NATO needs to be able develop its own plans as it works with these partners and operate alongside them, so we need to get a civilian planning capability in NATO up and running.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION </strong></p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, this new era is one of beneficial partnership between nations not optional isolation. It is not a choice between multilateral or bilateral - the requirement is for both. We must make sure that all our focus is on practical effect for the security and defence of our people. Germany’s ambitious, radical and welcome reform plans for the Bundeswehr are part of that drive.</p> <p>Successful nations will be those that look forwards and outwards - not backwards or inwards. Who understand their history but are not governed by it. Who seek to strengthen their existing alliances, but seek new ones too. That is the approach pledged by the new the Government in the United Kingdom which I hope will be for the greater security of us all. </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20110204MultilayeredSecurityForCollectiveDefence.htm Liam Fox 2011/02/04 - Multilayered Security for Collective Defence uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 09/02/2011 Ministry of Defence the Transatlantic Forum of the Christian Social Union of Bavaria, Munich
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>I would like to begin by personally thanking His Majesty the King, His Royal Highness the Crown Prince, and His Excellency the Foreign Minister for the splendid hospitality we have enjoyed from the Kingdom of Bahrain. </p> <p>I would also like to thank John Chipman and his team at IISS for making the 7th Manama Dialogue such a success and for inviting me to speak here today.   </p> <p>Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, since the formation of the new Coalition Government in the UK there has been an unprecedented amount of energy - and a renewed sense of urgency - in our engagement in the Gulf. </p> <p>The British Government’s Gulf Initiative has focused on the traditional areas of economics, defence and security, and rightfully so. </p> <p>But in addition to these areas this Initiative has, uniquely, placed an emphasis on other areas such as education and cultural links.   </p> <p>The Prime Minister made an early visit to the region a priority and there has been a steady flow of Cabinet and other Ministers over the past six months. </p> <p>And the Gulf is a key focus for the Ministry of Defence.</p> <p>What happens here can have a direct impact on the national security of the United Kingdom, our prosperity and the safety our citizens.</p> <p>Yes, we have long historical connections with many countries in the Gulf.</p> <p>These are bonds of friendship, understanding and respect that have endured for many years - through good times and bad.</p> <p>But even the best friendships need to be supported by mutual self-interest. </p> <p>Fortunately, we have many over-lapping self-interests with our partners here in the Gulf - in trade and energy security, in tackling terrorism and nuclear proliferation, in regional stability and a successful Middle East Peace Process.</p> <p>These are a strong basis for our future partnerships and why the United Kingdom is committed, and will be committed to our engagement in the Gulf.</p> <p><strong>COMMITMENT TO GULF SECURITY</strong></p> <p>In the United Kingdom we have just completed the first comprehensive review of our security and defence needs in over a decade.</p> <p>We recognise the world is changing, and we have to change with it.</p> <p>Today - with our economies linked, our peoples connected and our interests convergent - threats originating in one part of the globe, can become threats in all parts of the globe - and very quickly. </p> <p>With economic security and national security inextricably linked, our approach must be one of necessary and beneficial partnership, not optional isolation. </p> <p>Perhaps nowhere is this more relevant than here in the Gulf. </p> <p>The successful nations of today will be those facing outwards and forwards - not backwards and inwards. </p> <p>We recognise that the world is a dangerous place. </p> <p>So that is why, after our recent Strategic Defence and Security Review, we have maintained our place among the very top rank of military powers supported by the fourth largest defence budget in the world.</p> <p>We will pursue an ‘adaptable posture’ which requires our Armed Forces to become a more flexible and agile force, maintaining global reach and capable of providing nuclear and conventional deterrence, but also ready to intervene when required.</p> <p>The outcome of our review also demonstrates that our commitment to security in the Gulf is undiminished.</p> <p>This commitment is underpinned by the maintenance of our significant military contribution which contributes to reassurance and deterrence in the region.</p> <p>Working closely with our Gulf allies and the United States we will maintain the military capability and political will required to deter regional aggression.  </p> <p>Currently, we have around 1,500 personnel in the region working with the Combined Maritime Forces, continuing our commitment to assist the Iraqi security forces through training and mentoring, and our airmen and others providing logistical and operational support to UK and coalition forces in Afghanistan. </p> <p>Most notably, we maintain a sizeable naval presence in the region including at least one frigate, a permanent task group of mine counter measure vessels, and various support ships.</p> <p>As part of a coalition this maritime presence is to assist in the free movement of shipping, up and down the Gulf.</p> <p>Our Maritime Component Commander, Commodore Fraser, here in Bahrain provides command and control for all our naval assets in the region and is also the deputy commander of the Combined Maritime Force under the US Navy’s Admiral Fox. </p> <p>This level of engagement and involvement on the military and security front shows the priority we place on the Gulf and the region. </p> <p>But it isn’t just about the number of ships or personnel in the area. </p> <p>It is also about building and strengthening relations with some of Britain’s closest allies.  </p> <p>Through our military engagement and our defence diplomacy the UK strives to improve the capabilities of our Gulf allies so all regional players can have a role ensuring regional security. </p> <p>A great example of this can be found right here in Bahrain.  </p> <p>We look forward to Bahrain taking command of Combined Task Force-152 later this month for the second time - the first Gulf state to do so. </p> <p>The history of the region has demonstrated the value of our enduring relationships with our friends here.</p> <p>Undertaking training and exercises with our partners demonstrates our capabilities and forges trust - and here in the Gulf the UK has robust bilateral defence relationships.</p> <p>We will continue to enhance these, and forge new relationships, wherever we can.  </p> <p>We cannot afford to disengage with one of the world’s most important strategic areas.   </p> <p><strong>DETERRENCE AGAINST FUTURE THREATS</strong></p> <p>We face many shared threats - including nuclear proliferation, piracy of the coast of Somalia and the potential of regional instability emanating from Yemen. </p> <p>In the Gulf of Aden we are part of a multi-national effort to provide maritime security. </p> <p>In Yemen, alongside Saudi Arabia and the UAE, we are helping to focus international attention on the challenges the country faces to prevent conflict through a comprehensive approach with development as its focus. </p> <p>The Friends of Yemen, in which the UK plays a leading role, is at the heart of this process.  </p> <p>Of course, the Main Effort for UK Defence at this moment is in Afghanistan where British Armed Forces are part of a 48 nation international assistance force acting to protect our national security by ensuring that trans-national terrorists cannot find safe and unhindered sanctuary there as they did before 9/11.</p> <p>Stability and development in Afghanistan is in all our interests and we are grateful for the ongoing support and partnership of our all allies including those in the Gulf and the wider region.</p> <p>But as you know only too well, Al-Qaeda and their affiliates are peddling their brand of violent extremism across many regions of the world. Trans-national terrorism has no geographical boundaries. </p> <p>In the region, this is exemplified by al- Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.</p> <p>The interdependent and globalised world in which we live means that terrorism affects us all in ways once not considered possible. </p> <p>As I have already said the Gulf nations are key partners in the fight against international terrorism and we should work ever more closely together to counter this threat - assisting each other to develop intelligence, counter-terrorism capabilities and de-radicalisation programmes. </p> <p>In fact, dealing with transnational terrorism is perhaps one of the best examples of mutual self-interest that I spoke about earlier. </p> <p>Part of dealing with these threats and challenges in the region is through deterrence.</p> <p>Deterrence seeks to avoid conflict.  </p> <p>It therefore has inherent legitimacy.</p> <p>It is about setting boundaries for action and communicating the risks associated with crossing those boundaries.</p> <p>The costs of deterring conflict will invariably be less than those of direct intervention at scale or the wider price we may pay when conflict destabilises a region.</p> <p>Effective deterrence of Saddam Hussein before the invasion of Kuwait would have avoided the much more severe costs that followed.</p> <p>So deterrence is also cost effective.</p> <p>But that does not mean it is cheap or easy.</p> <p>We must show that we are resilient and committed - and the UK is both of these in the Gulf. </p> <p><strong>Iran</strong></p> <p>But, we cannot discuss security in the Gulf without discussing Iran.</p> <p>There has been lots of discussion here at the Manama Dialogue about Iran and the concerns of the international community over the true purpose of its nuclear programme.  </p> <p>We must recognise that Iran has a long history rooted in thousands of years of Persian identity.</p> <p>Iran has a rightful place among the proud nations of this region, and indeed as a responsible member of the international community.</p> <p>But that role must be as a partner, not a problem.</p> <p>The international community’s dispute is not with the people of Iran but with a Government that seems intent on following a course which is in breach of international law. </p> <p>I welcome the news that Iran is to sit down with representatives of the Permanent 5 members of the UN Security Council plus Germany in Switzerland early next week.   </p> <p>The P5 countries plus Germany stand united in wanting a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue.  </p> <p>The talks next week need to make a serious start towards resolving the concerns of the international community about Iran’s nuclear programme.  </p> <p>These are set out clearly in the latest report of the International Atomic Energy Agency and in the Resolutions of the UN Security Council.</p> <p>Iran needs to engage seriously and constructively to address these concerns.    </p> <p>For our part, we will continue to talk, and keep up the peaceful pressure with targeted sanctions.</p> <p>We are serious about reaching an agreement that recognises Iran’s legitimate civil nuclear interests.</p> <p>An Iranian nuclear weapons capability will not be tolerated by the international community. </p> <p>It could destroy hopes for peace in the Middle-East, for international stability and could very well mean the end of Non-Proliferation Treaty as we know it.</p> <p>A nuclear arms race in the region would diminish Iranian security, not protect it.</p> <p>We want a negotiated solution, not a military one - but Iran needs to work with us to achieve that outcome. </p> <p>We will not look away, or back down.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, the United Kingdom is grateful for the support provided to our Armed Forces here.</p> <p>We value the close and unique defence relationships we have in the region.</p> <p>Our friendships here are not based on history alone, but on current requirements - not on sentiment, but on mutual interests - not looking backwards but forwards to a shared future.</p> <p>The UK’s enduring engagement with our key partners and allies here in the Gulf will remain a fundamental part of our approach to defence and security - as will Britain’s military contribution to regional stability.</p> <p>Your stability is our safety. </p> <p>Thank you. </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20101204DeterrenceAndReassuranceInTheGulf.htm Liam Fox 2010/12/04 - Deterrence and Reassurance in the Gulf uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 06/12/2010 Ministry of Defence the Manama Dialogue, 7th Annual International Institute of Strategic Studies Regional Security Summit, Kingdom of Bahrain
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>Samuel Johnson famously said: “Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been to sea.”</p> <p>I have never had the privilege of either of these. </p> <p>I did, however, serve for nearly five years as a civilian medical officer supporting the Armed Forces community around the Defence School of Languages in Beaconsfield. </p> <p>As a young doctor it gave me a unique insight into working with members of the Armed Forces and their families. </p> <p>Although it was some years ago, I still reflect today on the lessons learned from this experience.</p> <p>During this time I enjoyed the best of both worlds. </p> <p>Of course, I was a working as a civilian but with an honorary rank of major. </p> <p>This meant I could tell those below me what to do and tell those above me that I was a civilian! </p> <p><strong>THANK YOU</strong></p> <p>As Secretary of State, the first six months in the job have been a tremendous honour and at points pleasure-as well as a very steep learning curve.</p> <p>But it has brought some wonderful opportunities.</p> <p>Last weekend I had dinner on Astute, breakfast on Vanguard and lunch on HMS Dragon.</p> <p>So I wanted to begin this evening by saying thank you.</p> <p>The Royal Navy’s delivery on operations continues to be fundamental to the national security and prosperity of the United Kingdom.</p> <p>On Op HERRICK, the Main Effort for Defence, where 49 Royal Marines have been killed since 2001. </p> <p>Almost 300 naval personnel are currently serving there rising to around 3,000 in April with 3 Commando Brigade’s third tour.</p> <p>On Op TELIC continuing the training mission in Iraq.</p> <p>On Op CALASH in the Arabian Gulf.</p> <p>On Op ATALANTA and OCEAN SHIELD in the Gulf of Aden protecting vital sea lanes from piracy.</p> <p>On all the other standing commitments including, of course, operating our continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrent - a posture that is not only a strategic requirement but is also, I believe, the most cost effective option available for this country’s security in a very dangerous world and one I am determined we will maintain.</p> <p><strong>SDSR</strong></p> <p>I know that the period of the SDSR has been hard and unsettling -and that the period of implementation will be tough too.</p> <p>There is nothing worse than waiting for the axe to fall.</p> <p>And I recognise that speculation, played out in the media, and decisions being made public before the chain of command had the opportunity to inform people had a corrosive effect on the morale -  and for that I am sorry - though continued scaremongering by those senior enough to know better is also extremely harmful.</p> <p>We have had to take some very difficult decisions, decisions that I have taken no pleasure in, and decisions that I know have been painful for you and your colleagues across all three services.</p> <p>But I also know that you understand the reasons why we have had to act.</p> <p>Just as I am a hawk on defence, I am a hawk on deficit reduction too.</p> <p>Britain rose to global power on the basis of our economic power underwritten, in a large part, by the Royal Navy.</p> <p>More than most, you understand the inextricable linkage between economic power and national security.</p> <p>It is your history.</p> <p>This evening, I want to set out the reasons why it is your future too.</p> <p><strong>THREE QUESTIONS</strong></p> <p>The key point I want to make is this.</p> <p>Successful countries are not those who look inward or backward to former glory, but those who look outward and forward to future threats and future opportunities.</p> <p>Looking forward, the United Kingdom needs a powerful Royal Navy.</p> <p>This is why the maritime force that emerges ultimately from the SDSR will be one of the most powerful and sophisticated on the planet.</p> <p>It will not be plain sailing getting to that point - the gap in carrier-strike is only one example of some of the calculated risks we had to take - the reduction in amphibious capability and the cancellation of Nimrod are others.</p> <p>But what we need to concentrate on through this period of transition, with Future Force 2020 and into the future is making sure we make the best of our naval power in the interests of the country.</p> <p>That I know is what you will be discussing at the First Sea Lord’s Conference tomorrow.</p> <p>To help that process tonight, I would like to pose three questions.</p> <p>First, why should Britain remain a major maritime power?</p> <p>Second, if it should, how does our programme help do that?</p> <p>And third, how do we ensure that the maritime role gets the focus it deserves?</p> <p><strong>BRITAIN AS A MARITIME POWER</strong></p> <p>So why should Britain remain a maritime power?</p> <p>We hear a lot these days about how the information revolution has changed the game, connected the globe and made distance irrelevant.</p> <p>And in some ways it has.</p> <p>But no military mind can ever afford to ignore the cold, hard realities of geography - and of geopolitics.</p> <p>Britain is an island nation.</p> <p>The sea not only protects us, but, as a trading nation reliant on imports of goods and energy, the sea is a crucial artery that helps sustain our way of life and our prosperity.</p> <p>We can never afford to become ‘sea blind’ whatever other military priorities we may have in the short-term.</p> <p>Keeping the sea lanes and lines of communications open for the global transfer of goods and energy is vital.</p> <p>These arteries exist often in shared areas which are outside exclusive national jurisdictions.</p> <p>International law, including the laws of the sea, must be underpinned by methods of enforcement and that can only be secured by the capability to prevent, deter, coerce and ultimately intervene against those who would act against security and stability in the global commons.</p> <p>The sea is not only a highway.</p> <p>It holds many resources - energy, minerals and even food production - that in the years ahead, as the technology to exploit them and the need to do so grows, will mean that the competition for resources on land will be mirrored by competition on and under the sea.</p> <p>Other nations have recognised the importance of maritime power.</p> <p>China sources 80% of her oil imports through the Malacca and Lombok straits.</p> <p>So it is no surprise that the Chinese Navy has undergone a significant modernisation programme seeking to become a dominant regional naval force by 2020 and a global force by 2050.</p> <p>India too, which I visited last week, already has the fifth largest navy in the world.</p> <p>It is committed to a modernisation programme including indigenous nuclear submarines, up to three carriers, and has 39 new warships already on order.</p> <p>Britain must remain a maritime power.</p> <p>This is not only because of the capacity of maritime force to protect our security and prosperity in the ways I have mentioned, but because maritime power is an essential enabler to gain access and operate in other domains in far flung parts of the world.</p> <p>It provides choice and flexibility to decision makers as a focus for deploying and sustaining force - with mobility, range and endurance.</p> <p>As a politician and especially as Secretary of State for Defence, I can see the benefit provided by a naval force in measured escalation without necessarily committing to a footprint ashore.</p> <p>Sea basing can overcome the challenges associated with securing access, air basing and overflight permissions for combat operations.</p> <p>In a new era of competition, strong British maritime forces - to protect trading routes, to protect Britain’s interests in the exploitation of marine resources and to enable the projection of power in the air and over land - will remain a fundamental part of our national security posture.</p> <p>This brings me then to my second question.</p> <p>How does our forward Defence programme support the maintenance of maritime power?</p> <p><strong>COMPETING PRIORITIES</strong></p> <p>As we have seen in the SDSR, the requirement for maritime forces is not the only call on tight financial resources.</p> <p>The level of debt the new Government inherited meant that we had to make tough choices.</p> <p>The interest alone on the debt we inherited will be £46bn next year, compared to only £37bn for the defence budget.</p> <p>The difference in the 20th and 21st centuries compared to preceding ones has not been the diminution of the vitality of the sea or land domains to our national security but the addition of equally important new domains - in the 20th century the air - and in the 21st century increasingly space and cyberspace.</p> <p>This does not mean we no longer need sea or land power.</p> <p>It means we need air, space and cyber space power as well as what we have had in the past.  </p> <p>The last few decades, in particular the current one, have been difficult for the Royal Navy.</p> <p>Some poor decisions were made.</p> <p>The size of the fleet has shrunk considerably and the outcome of the SDSR will not reverse this quickly - though in my view it will in time.</p> <p>Clearly the SDSR, in the difficult economic conditions we inherited, and with a forward defence programme unfunded to the tune of some £38bn by 2020, has also had to be mindful of current operations in Afghanistan.</p> <p>A strategy that does not take account of fiscal or budgetary pressures is no strategy at all - it is simply a wish list.</p> <p>And a strategy that ignored the requirement to win the war we are currently fighting would be a betrayal of our national security.  </p> <p>Although we have adopted for the Future Force 2020 an Adaptable Posture which retains the ability to fight across all domains, certainly the period between now and 2015 we will remain at the committed end of the spectrum - not where we wanted to be but unavoidably where we find ourselves.</p> <p>This means we have to have a period of rebalancing with strategic direction as we make the reductions set out - and taking what the 1st Sea Lord has described as a “dip in our ability to deliver certain capabilities, either in scale or complexity.”</p> <p>I know the decisions such as the reduction in the frigate fleet, on the Harriers, and the Ark Royal - particularly given the fantastic service these ships and planes have provided over the years - are particularly painful for the Navy.</p> <p>As of course will be the reduction in manpower.</p> <p>I am acutely aware that behind each number is a person, who through no fault of their own face an uncertain future and that each person has aspirations, a career, a livelihood and a family to support.</p> <p>I regret that the uncertainty is not over as we work through the details.</p> <p>We will do this as quickly and as sensitively as we can so I can only ask for your forbearance as we do so.</p> <p>But we must create long term stability even if there are short term costs.</p> <p>The way operated in recent years was the opposite - not good for the Royal Navy or the United Kingdom.</p> <p>The Royal Navy that is re-grown in the period from 2015 onwards will be viable, powerful and centred around cutting edge people and cutting edge war fighting capabilities.</p> <p>The Queen Elizabeth carriers, the Joint Strike Fighter, the Type 45s, the Type 26 Global Combat Ship, the Astute Class submarines - all will be leaders in their field and represent the most capable, high-technology platforms the Royal Navy has ever had.</p> <p>The SDSR has confirmed that the Royal Marines sit in the right place in our Armed Forces - with the Navy.</p> <p>It has also confirmed the decisions made in the 2008 Dockyards Review to maintain our ports on the Clyde, at Plymouth and across the river in Portsmouth.</p> <p>Have we become sea-blind in this process? No.</p> <p>Will the next few years be difficult? Undoubtedly.</p> <p>But the prize for the Royal Navy at the end of this process is significant.</p> <p>That brings me to my final question - how do we ensure that the maritime role gets the focus it deserves?</p> <p><strong>COMMUNICATING THE FUTURE ROYAL NAVY</strong></p> <p>The centrality of maritime power to Britain’s future is by no means accepted in every quarter.</p> <p>I was accused by some of being the only dark blue suit in the SDSR apart from the First Sea Lord.</p> <p>My support for the Royal Navy is not based on historical legacy or sentiment, but on a hard-headed assessment of the future needs of national security.</p> <p>And this is what we must concentrate on in the years ahead.</p> <p>Not on past glories, but on future value that the Navy can bring to UK security.</p> <p>This means not only setting out the case for sea power, as I have sought to do tonight, but to demonstrate it to the British people regularly and to address the needs of the future by redefining the strategies of the past.</p> <p>Of course we can’t predict when the Royal Navy will be required in a hard-power capacity to deal with a future crisis.</p> <p>But we can communicate better what is being done now.</p> <p>Sometimes I get the impression that the Navy is less successful, even less willing, at selling itself than the other services.</p> <p>Let me give two linked examples.</p> <p>First - it was Oliver Cromwell who said “a man-of-war is the best Ambassador.”</p> <p>We need to update and redefine what might be described as the concept of ‘gunboat diplomacy’ for the 21st Century.</p> <p>The Royal Navy has, in my view, a central role in the drive to enhance partnerships around the world.</p> <p>The work that is done by the Navy - from humanitarian relief to extracting our citizens from hot zones, from exercising with our partners to piracy prevention - these operations needs to be better understood by the British public, because they won’t automatically see the link between these and how they benefit the influence of Britain in the wider world.</p> <p>Second - the Navy needs to be at the forefront of redefining deterrence in the 21st century.</p> <p>We underestimate the value of deterrence at our peril and we do ourselves a disservice if we merely confine it to the concept to nuclear weapons - which we have tended to do in the recent past.</p> <p>Deterrence only carries weight if our adversaries understand that we have the credible capability to intervene and crucially the political will to carry it through.</p> <p>That inevitably means maritime-enabled power projection.</p> <p>But in today’s world, threats to our national interest from state proxies, non-state actors or those emanating from ungoverned space have the highest likelihood to affect us.  </p> <p>These are less susceptible to traditional concepts of deterrence; in fact they demand an updated concept of deterrence.</p> <p>The bottom line is we must make sure that the signals we send are not perceived as a diminution of our commitment to engagement in world affairs, nor as curtailing our ability to respond to the threats we face.</p> <p>The Royal Navy’s presence and power around the world is absolutely central to this.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>Julian Lindley-French concluded recently that “Britain remains a great power - too small to affect strategic change alone but too powerful to hide from change.”</p> <p>He is right.</p> <p>The world is changing, we must change with it.</p> <p>No nation, no matter how powerful, can achieve their aims and meet the needs of their national security acting in isolation.</p> <p>Global reach, sustained presence, force protection and power projection - is likely to be achieved multi-nationally - therefore interoperability will be key.</p> <p>That is why we have taken the decisions we have to make the new Carriers more able to operate with our main partners and why we have recently agreed with the French to collaborate further in the maritime domain.</p> <p>The Royal Navy of the future will be a powerful, high-specification force, but one which is flexible, mobile and able to mesh on operations with partners across the globe.</p> <p>The First Sea Lord, a submariner, fought hard for you during the SDSR.</p> <p>Who knows, the Navy may finally come of age when we see a Royal Marine as First Sea Lord.</p> <p>I have no doubt that you are up to the challenge of weathering the current storm, achieving this vision and leading your service to success in a future that needs the Royal Navy more than perhaps in recent decades.</p> <p>Two weeks ago I attended the return of 40 Commando to Taunton in the pouring rain to a rapturous heroes’ welcome.</p> <p>On Monday I was with Vanguard’s crew on their return from months at sea.</p> <p>Both I found personally moving and impressive in their own ways.</p> <p>And it was a reminder that it is not ships or planes or submarines, but our people that make the Royal Navy great.</p> <p>And to all of them, through all of you I send my admiration and my thanks on behalf of the nation we all represent.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20101201NavalConferenceHmsCollingwood.htm Bob Ainsworth 2010/12/01 - Naval Conference HMS Collingwood uk.org.publicwhip/member/40185 03/12/2010 Ministry of Defence HMS Collingwood, Fareham
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>The United Kingdom is committed to an enhanced partnership with India - one that celebrates and recognises India’s position as a central player in contemporary world affairs.</p> <p>Yes, we have long historical connections.</p> <p>Yes, we have strong ties between our peoples.</p> <p>But as the Indian thinker Kautilya wrote: “There is some self-interest behind every friendship. There is no friendship without self-interests. “</p> <p>Fortunately, we do have over-lapping self-interests, such as in trade and in security, which are a strong basis for our future relationship.</p> <p>The aim of the Vivekananda International Foundation is to promote a stronger, secure and more prosperous India playing its rightful role in global affairs.</p> <p>The new British Government supports this aim, and it is why in Opposition we have long supported India’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council for a number of years.</p> <p>Our countries are in the middle of the most intensive political conversation we have had for many years.</p> <p>In July, our Prime Minister, David Cameron confirmed his respect for, and friendship with, Prime Minister Singh, heading one of the largest delegations from Britain to visit India in recent times.</p> <p>Our Defence ties are just one part of this but we are determined to make this an essential part of the relationship.</p> <p>The UK Chief of the Air Staff attended the successful joint air exercise held here earlier this month.</p> <p>And over the next six months my visit will be followed by a series of visits by my Ministerial team, the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Head of the British Army and Royal Navy, among others. So you better get used to seeing us here. </p> <p>In Britain we have just completed the first comprehensive and strategic review of our defence and security requirements for over a decade, and I would like to share some of our conclusions with you today - particularly on the security challenges that we share with India.</p> <p><strong>NECESSARY PARTNERSHIP</strong></p> <p>From terrorism to climate change, proliferation to energy security, no country acting in isolation can achieve their aims and meet the needs of their national security.</p> <p>The world is changing, and we must change with it.</p> <p>In today’s world, neither Britain, nor any other country, can afford to emulate the kupamanduka of the old Sanskrit texts - the frog who lives his whole life in a small, dark well seeking no enlightenment, shutting out the world, keeping his head down.</p> <p>Today - with our economies linked, our peoples connected and our interests convergent - threats originating in one part of the globe, can become threats in all parts of the globe-and very quickly. </p> <p>Our approach must be one of necessary and beneficial partnership, not optional isolation. In the world today nations have to be facing outward and forward-not inward and backward. </p> <p>So the UK National Security Strategy, which underpins our Strategic Defence and Security Review, both published last month, make it clear that our national interest requires our continued full and active engagement in world affairs.</p> <p>To do so we will use all of our national levers to project power by taking a cross government approach.  We will also use our unique network of alliances and relationships, starting with the United States and our partners in Europe, but increasingly with strategic partners across world - including with India here in South Asia.</p> <p>We recognise that India’s interests are not confined to this region, and that India too will need to use her unique international relationships, including her deep-rooted and historic relationship with Britain, to protect and promote her national and international security.</p> <p><strong>TERRORISM</strong></p> <p>As an example, let’s just take the threat from trans-national terrorism.</p> <p>Five years ago, on honeymoon with my wife, I spent a wonderful few days at the beginning of our honeymoon at the Taj hotel in Mumbai.</p> <p>Two years ago, almost to the day, that very same hotel was the epicentre of the horrific attacks across the city that killed or wounded over 450 people citizens from over 25 different countries, including Britain. </p> <p>Like 9/11 in New York and Washington, like the 7/7 suicide attacks on the London transport network - the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai are a stark reminder of the brutality and barbarism of trans-national terrorism.</p> <p>The UK government has repeatedly emphasised that the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks should be brought to justice.</p> <p>Our Prime Minister, David Cameron, has made crystal clear our country’s position.  </p> <p>A stable, democratic, successful Pakistan is in all our long-term best interests.  </p> <p>Our counter-terror strategy includes building on the UK’s long-term relationship with Pakistan and continuing to work with the Pakistani Government to tackle all violent extremist groups.  </p> <p>The only way the threat of trans-national terror can be met is through trans-national co-operation.</p> <p>We wish to ensure that we have learnt all we can from you in countering this type of threat.</p> <p>To give one example, Britain understands the security challenges India faced with the Commonwealth Games and welcomes your recent success in delivering a safe and secure Games.</p> <p>We look forward to building on the bilateral security cooperation between our intelligence and police services for the Olympics in London and Commonwealth Games in Glasgow.</p> <p>The UK National Security Strategy judges trans-national terrorism in the highest priority tier of risk.</p> <p>That is why our Strategic Defence and Security Review continues to prioritise counter-terror action - from policing, to intelligence, from detection to prevention.</p> <p>Co-operation on counter-terrorism should be a key part of our enhanced strategic partnership.</p> <p>It goes to the heart of our shared challenges because this shared threat is likely to be with us for some time to come.</p> <p><strong>LESSONS OF THE COLD WAR</strong></p> <p>The struggle against trans-national terrorism is our generation’s challenge, just as the Cold War was the previous generation’s challenge.  </p> <p>So it is worth reflecting on the strategic lessons from the Cold War.</p> <p>First, that when our adversaries are driven by an ideology that is in opposition to our own, the battle of ideas will be at least as important as the physical battle.</p> <p>We can and do act to disrupt terrorist capability.</p> <p>But the key to lasting success against terrorism is to remove terrorists’ underlying motivations - and that is much harder.</p> <p>You can’t shoot an ideology - you have to show why the alternatives are better.</p> <p>That is why the struggle, as now being played out in the form of a counter insurgancy operation in Afghanistan  is about people -  creating a better alternative for them and not simply killing those who threaten security.</p> <p>This requires partners determined to stand together with the patience to stay the course, however difficult it becomes. </p> <p>The second lesson from the Cold War is that economic strength underpins power and influence.</p> <p>That is why the UK National Security Strategy published last month recognises that economic security and national security are inextricably linked.</p> <p>The stability and openness of the global financial and trade system is a key part of the security and prosperity shared between partners.</p> <p>It is no surprise that the attacks of 9/11, 7/7, and 26/11 took place in global financial centres.</p> <p>The success of free markets and the rule of law, properly regulated both domestically and internationally, bring in their wake development, stability and wealth.</p> <p>This threatens those who stand in opposition to freedom and liberty and all that flows from them.</p> <p>On all these issues, the partnership between our two countries and mutual security would be enhanced by deeper co-operation.</p> <p>This is equally true when it comes to the international campaign to support the Afghan Government in its struggle with the Taliban-led insurgency.</p> <p><strong>AFGHANISTAN</strong></p> <p>British Armed Forces are in Afghanistan, first and foremost, to protect our national security by ensuring that trans-national terrorists cannot find safe and unhindered sanctuary there as they did before 9/11.</p> <p>With around 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, as well as a range of air assets, the UK is the largest troop contributor to the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) after the United States and a leading member of the broad 48 nation NATO-led coalition.</p> <p>The NATO Summit in Lisbon last weekend set out a clear plan for the transition of lead security responsibility for districts and provinces to be progressively handed over to the Afghan Government. Under this strategy the Afghans will take the lead for security across the country by the end of 2014. </p> <p>This is why British Forces will be out of a combat role in Afghanistan by 2015.  </p> <p>But that is not, and cannot be,  the end of the story.  </p> <p>We will of course be supporting Afghanistan in many ways including reconstruction, aid and through military support and training, for many years to come.  </p> <p>That is why NATO agreed at the Summit to a long-term partnership which will provide a framework for our continued support to the Government of Afghanistan well beyond 2015.</p> <p>The International community will not abandon Afghanistan again as we did in the early ‘90’s. </p> <p>Let me be clear, just as terrorism cannot be defeated by force of arms alone, so we recognise that there is no wholly military solution to the insurgency in Afghanistan.</p> <p>The ultimate solution is a political settlement that preserves Afghanistan’s territorial integrity, supports the Afghan Government’s ability to preserve its own security, and does not upset the regional security balance.</p> <p>It is for the Afghan people to shape a political settlement that reflects the needs, culture and aspirations themselves.</p> <p>Afghanistan will need the support of all its friends and neighbours, including India and Pakistan for years to come.</p> <p>India is already making a significant contribution to this through its aid programme. The $1.2bn India has generously pledged since 2001 to help rebuild Afghanistan makes India the world’s 5th largest bi lateral donor to Afghanistan - something the international community is extremely grateful for. </p> <p>Coalition forces in Afghanistan are neither colonisers nor occupiers.</p> <p>We are there under United Nations authority at the invitation of the Afghan Government.</p> <p>We are not in Afghanistan to create a carbon copy of a western democracy, and we are not there to convert the people to western ways.</p> <p>We insist only that it does not pose a threat to our security, our interests or those of our friends and allies.</p> <p><strong>THE UK STRATEGIC DEFENCE AND SECURITY REVIEW</strong></p> <p>The character of the conflict in Afghanistan has informed our thinking on the UK’s future defence posture as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review.</p> <p>But it has not defined it.</p> <p>We can never assume that the conflicts of the future will be the same as the conflicts of today.</p> <p>Afghanistan may be indicative of the asymmetrical nature of the challenges we may face from terrorism or in fragile states, but it is not a blueprint for all future conflict.</p> <p>Just as the threats we face are in rapid transition, so the character of the conflicts they may produce is in transition.</p> <p>So in support of the policy framework set out in our strategy, we will pursue an ‘adaptable posture’ which requires our Armed Forces to become a more flexible and agile force maintaining global reach and capable of providing nuclear and conventional deterrence, but also ready to intervene when required.</p> <p>We will retain our place among the very top rank of the world’s military powers supported by the fourth largest defence budget in the world.</p> <p>We have a military presence in many of the world’s most challenging places and we maintain a global military reach if required. </p> <p>We judge that asymmetric tactics, such as economic, cyber and proxy actions instead of, or in support of, direct military confrontation will play an increasing part in warfare of the future.</p> <p>So we will retain a full range of traditional capabilities.</p> <p>But we will also invest in advanced programmes that will provide flexibility for the future - for example in unmanned and cyberspace technology.</p> <p>In doing so we will, because we have to, cut back on those things that we are less likely to need in a world where the character of conflict demands precision weaponry.</p> <p>Our future Royal Navy will be among the most technologically advanced in the world.</p> <p>Our carrier strike capability operating the carrier variant of the 5th generation Joint Strike Fighter will be designed to be inter-operable with our major NATO partners.</p> <p>A surface fleet including the Type 45 Destroyer and the Type 26 Global Combat Ship will be supported by seven new nuclear powered hunter killer submarines.</p> <p>Britain and India share a number of common naval interests including countering piracy - an area where we are both very active.</p> <p>This was underlined only last week by the MV Orinoco incident when the INS Veer and INS Delhi went to the aid of a merchant ship being attacked by pirates.</p> <p>We intend to strengthen the excellent naval cooperation that already exists including through doctrine development and the annual KONKAN exercise.</p> <p>The UK’s future Royal Air Force will be configured around a fast jet fleet of Joint Strike Fighter and Typhoon - two of the most advanced aircraft in the world </p> <p>The RAF has been working with the Indian Air Force to develop long-term interoperability between our fleets.</p> <p>I was particularly pleased with the success of the last month’s Exercise Indra Dhanush.</p> <p>This joint Exercise including Britain’s Typhoons, Indian SU-30s and India’s new AWACS aircraft, has helped to improve mutual understanding and the skills of both air forces.</p> <p>Indeed, the Typhoon has just performed outstandingly in a technical assessment by the Indian Air Force in evaluation trials for your Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft programme. </p> <p>The future British Army will be consolidated around 5 new self-supporting multi-role Brigades with a wide range of capabilities from infantry to engineers, artillery to intelligence.  </p> <p>These are in addition to our two specialist role brigades of Paras and Royal Marines. </p> <p>We would like to build on the recent company level exercise SHAMSHEER BUGLE which was the first exercise including a British Army Unit in India in over 60 years. </p> <p>Companies from the UK’s 4 Rifles and India’s 18th Battalion Sikh Regiment shared experience in counter-insurgency operations.</p> <p>We hope to host an Indian Army company in the UK next year and are keen to share our experience gained in operations in Afghanistan.</p> <p>Overall, our Strategic Defence and Security Review ensures we maintain significant military power across the land, sea, air and cyber domains. </p> <p>Furthermore, it ensures that we maintain the autonomous capacity to sustain a considerable and commanding military force on an enduring basis for both intervention and stabilisation operations almost anywhere in the world.</p> <p>This ability is benefited from an Armed Forces, and the equipment that they use,  which is both combat tested and combat proven as a result of high intensity operations in Iraq and more recently in Afghanistan. </p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>In conclusion Ladies and Gentlemen, the relationship between our two countries has never been stronger and defence has a major role to play.</p> <p>As India’s defence transformation gathers pace, we offer practical support to India’s efforts to maintain stability in South Asia.</p> <p>We wish to accelerate the bi-lateral programme of exercises, exchanges, training and equipment co-operation wherever we can.</p> <p>We believe India matters not just because it is a significant power, but because it is a responsible power as well. The vibrancy and energy of India’s people, the dynamism of your economy, the contribution of your thinkers and doers, have placed this country at the centre of our globalised world.</p> <p>Ours is a partnership based on democratic values, mutual respect, and the shared challenge of the future.</p> <p>Nehru once said to Nikita Khrushchev “You don't change the course of history by turning the faces of portraits to the wall.”</p> <p>Britain and India should not turn our portraits to the wall - we cannot rewrite our shared history - both the good and the bad - but we can forge a new history together.</p> <p>As India moves forward with confidence, be assured Britain stands with you - as partner and friend.</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20101122AddressToTheVivekanandaInternationalFoundation.htm Liam Fox 2010/11/22 - Address to the Vivekananda International Foundation uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 22/11/2010 Ministry of Defence the Vivekananda International Foundation, New Delhi
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>It is a pleasure for me to be here today: in the company of friends, allies and partners - who all share common desire to work together for mutual benefit.</p> <p>In opposition, I was a very strong advocate of closer links to our Northern European neighbours because we have so many shared interests and now that we are in Government I intend to make that happen.  </p> <p>Britain's national interests are directly affected by the security and defence challenges in this region - not only through our shared belief in liberal democracy and the rule of law - not only because of our treaty obligations in NATO and the European Union - but because even in this era of globalisation, the cold, hard realities of geography exert an overwhelming influence on our defence and our national interests.</p> <p><strong>NORTHERN EUROPE</strong></p> <p>Notwithstanding widespread global interests in a multi-polar world, we cannot forget that geographically we are a Northern European country.  </p> <p>Here in the Northern European neighborhood it makes sense to work together to secure our own region, to keep our trade routes open, to exploit together new opportunities and to face together threats as they arise.</p> <p>For us this is not anything new.  </p> <p>In the Cold War, the British government stood shoulder to shoulder with those who sought to break free from Soviet tyranny.</p> <p>And I think it is worth pointing out the Cold War did not end.  </p> <p>The Cold War was won - won by those who believed in the triumph of liberty and human spirit.</p> <p>We face different problems today but we should do so with that same belief, the same resolve and the same optimism.  </p> <p>In recent years Britain has lost its focus on the regional issues which have shaped the agenda for so many of you here today. </p> <p> It is we who need to reconnect.</p> <p>Our goal is to deepen bi-lateral and multi-lateral relationships with our key partners - recognising and respecting sovereignty -but also recognising that today’s world is one of necessary partnership not optional isolation. </p> <p>In this multi-polar world, we need more and different levers if we are to act successfully in the interests of our national and joint security.</p> <p>Therefore, we want to create a new and wider framework that makes it easier for both NATO and non-NATO members to have a closer relationship in the region. </p> <p>In this region, membership of the different regional and security organisations is not uniform.</p> <p>We see that as a good thing.  </p> <p>Between us we represent all of the strands.  </p> <p>The United Kingdom is not only a member of the EU and NATO but a permanent member of the Security Council, a nuclear power, at the heart of the Commonwealth and with a particularly strong and vibrant relationship with the United States.  </p> <p>That’s what we bring to the party.</p> <p><strong>UK Strategic Defence and Security Review - Posture</strong></p> <p>In Britain, under the new coalition Government, we have just concluded the first strategic review of our Defence requirements and capabilities in 12 years - an almost unimaginably long gap.</p> <p>Of course, there has been a lot of interest from many of our friends and allies.</p> <p>I would like, if it is helpful, to set out for you the broad conclusions of that review and to relate them to the purpose before us today. </p> <p>I think all of us are aware that financially we live in difficult times.</p> <p>Not only are our resources generally constrained for many of us as we work to address the consequences of the global financial crisis and bring our fiscal positions back into balance.</p> <p>But the threats to our way of life are simultaneously growing.</p> <p>While by some measures, the United Kingdom is, territorially, more secure than at many points in our history, we recognise that our national security is indelibly affected by what happens outside the Euro-Atlantic zone.</p> <p>For example:</p> <p>We recognise that these real and potential threats cannot be addressed by one arm of Government acting in isolation from others - and all of us have tended to have had a rather pigeon-holed view of how government works - or indeed by any country acting in isolation from others. </p> <p>That is why the development of our National Security Strategy and the Strategic Defence &amp; Security Review, has been a thorough, cross-Government strategic effort, overseen by our new National Security Council, in consultation with our allies and partners, looking at all aspects of security and defence.</p> <p>We have concluded that Britain’s defence requires an adaptable posture that means our Armed Forces need to become more flexible and agile force while retaining global reach:</p> <p>Proper strategic thought encompasses ends, ways and means -matching ambition and policy, to commitments and resources.</p> <p>If we learned anything from the Cold War, it is that a strong economy equals strong Defence.</p> <p>Our economic strength underpins our military strength.</p> <p>So we have had to take account of the fiscal and budgetary pressures facing British Defence.</p> <p>The new coalition Government is determined to tackle the position we inherited from the previous Labour Government - the record budget deficit and the significant gap in the MOD between planned acquisition and realistic resources in the forward equipment programme.</p> <p>And when I say that, the amount of interest the UK will pay next year on the national debt is £44Bn, compared to an entire Defence Budget of £37Bn.</p> <p>That has meant we have to take some very difficult decisions, that in other circumstances we would not have made.</p> <p><strong>UK Strategic Defence and Security Review - Results</strong></p> <p>The result means that, as we transform our force structure, the UK’s Armed Forces will be smaller than previously, and we are taking calculated risks against certain capabilities.</p> <p>But the Strategic Defence and Security Review has brought defence plans, commitments and resources into balance to ensure that the UK has a powerful defence capability and a sustainable defence programme for the future. </p> <p>Afghanistan is our top defence and security priority at present so we have protected the campaign.</p> <p>Collectively the 11 countries participating here today contribute around 19,000 troops to ISAF’s mission in Afghanistan and provide the lead in six Provincial Reconstruction Teams.</p> <p>And if I may say, we are very proud that in Helmand today British troops are serving alongside our Danish and Estonian partners with whom we have the best possible working relationship and the highest national regard.</p> <p>Together, under the strategic leadership of the NATO Secretary General and in Afghanistan by General Petraeus, we have the right strategy in place to succeed.</p> <p>The UK Strategic Defence and Security Review ensures we maintain very powerful capabilities across land, sea and air including the autonomous capacity to sustain a considerable and commanding military force on an enduring basis for both intervention and stabilisation operations.</p> <p>Although we might be smaller than at present, we will still be able to deploy, at best effort, a one off intervention force of 30,000 including maritime and air support, or for enduring operations a force of 6,500 plus enablers - not dissimilar to the level of effort in Afghanistan now.</p> <p>Our Defence spending will remain above NATO’s minimum of 2% of GDP and we have we believe in no way diminished our enduring commitment and responsibilities to our NATO partners, including through our continuous at sea nuclear deterrent - part of the NATO nuclear posture - and I know this is particularly important to some of our NATO allies round this table.</p> <p>We have acted to increase our ability to operate alongside our partners.</p> <p>For instance, the decisions to acquire the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, different to the plans we inherited, and to equip our new aircraft carriers with an arrestor system will make our planes and platforms a considerable asset to NATO and our partners in a way that would not have been the case if we had not changed the plans we inherited.</p> <p>In taking decisions, we have given significant weight to the fact that we and our NATO allies consciously rely on each other for particular capabilities.</p> <p>So where we have reduced our holdings, for instance in heavy armour, we have done so with the confidence that our allies maintain significant capabilities in these areas.</p> <p><strong>Sharing the Burden</strong></p> <p>The recognition of burden sharing is at the core of our thinking.</p> <p>We are determined that our response to the challenges and opportunities ahead are coordinated to make the most of our combined resources.</p> <p>NATO will continue to be the bedrock of our transatlantic defence architecture, but we will seek opportunities to enhance our mutual security wherever benefits can be accrued by all parties and we can achieve more by combining our resources. </p> <p>We very much welcome the strategic concept and look forward to taking that forward in Lisbon.</p> <p>Last week the UK coalition Government proved, with our new bi-lateral relationship with France, that our relationship with Europe doesn’t always have to be about political Europe or the EU - that we can and should work with geographical Europe.  </p> <p>We view Europe differently, not just in terms of its institutional structures, but as a geographically united group of sovereign nations. </p> <p>Northern Europe is a perfect example of why multilateralism outside traditional institutions is sometimes a better way to work together. </p> <p>The countries of Northern Europe possess a unique and irregular pattern of affiliations to NATO, the EU and the EDA.</p> <p>We need to understand how we each view regional security and defence challenges.</p> <p><strong>NORTHERN GROUP</strong></p> <p>So today we join this gathering to discuss many aspects of our mutual interests.</p> <p>I want to mention just two.</p> <p>One is cyber security.</p> <p>The UK’s new Defence Cyber Operations Group will seek to form strong international alliances to increase our mutual resilience and joint operational capabilities.</p> <p>The NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in Tallinn, has, of course, been working to enhance the capability, cooperation and information sharing among NATO allies and partners since 2006.</p> <p>The Nordic nations have an enduring history of national resilience rooted in the holistic concept of Total Defence, from which we all can learn; but this concept, developed during the past 50 years, must be remodeled to meet new threats, and here collaboration will be valuable.</p> <p>Another area would be energy security.</p> <p>Stable bilateral relations will be an insufficient safeguard of our mutual energy security without measures to preserve the physical integrity of supply routes and sources in Europe and beyond.  </p> <p>The scale and complexity of these networks will increasingly require our combined efforts to protect them.</p> <p>Essential to achieving our shared goals will be work to improve our operational interoperability, such as within the Nordic and UK-Sweden EU Battlegroups, both of which are to have their Operational Headquarters hosted by our Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood - and on the ground in Afghanistan with our Danish and Estonia partners.</p> <p>Our interoperable capabilities can be further strengthened by undertakings to provide joint support to our supply chains and equipment in Afghanistan, through initiatives such as the Northern Distribution Network which has its Baltic anchor in Riga and the growing number of Memoranda of Understanding we hold on Defence Materiel Cooperation.</p> <p>So, where we identify a shortfall in measures to allay a given threat, this Group has the potential to act as a clearing house for the capabilities which might be marshalled to address it.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>In conclusion colleagues, the UK’s National Security Strategy provides the context for our place in the world and our assessment of the risks that we face.  </p> <p>The Review provides the high level direction for Britain’s Defence and security capabilities and structures, but there is much work still to be done to work through the detailed implications.  </p> <p>Reform is not a goal but is a continuous process.  </p> <p>And the same is true of our bi-lateral and multi-lateral relationships.</p> <p>We have been brought together by tradition, history and mutual need - but we will only remain together if we continually seek to strengthen our relationships and seek new areas and ways to co-operate as the international environment changes.</p> <p>We should not, indeed cannot, rest on our laurels as both opportunities arise and threats evolve.</p> <p>It is my hope that today at this meeting we have the beginning of a new opportunity.</p> <p>For the United Kingdom this isn’t about telling our friends what we will do for them, or what they can do for us.</p> <p>This forum is about seeing what more of what we can do together. </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20101110SharingTheBurdenOfSecurityInNorthernEurope.htm Liam Fox 2010/11/10 - Sharing the Burden of Security in Northern Europe uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 12/11/2010 Ministry of Defence the Address to the Northern Group, Oslo
<p>Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning. </p> <p>Last month, the Government published the results of the Strategic Defence and Security Review. </p> <p>The task we set ourselves was to produce a thorough, cross-government review overseen by the National Security Council, looking at all aspects of security and Defence – no easy matter even in the most benign circumstances. </p> <p>But this Review, the first fundamental rethink in 12 years, has been undertaken:</p> <p>And we had to do all of this without seriously undermining capabilities, the military covenant, or UK industrial capacity.<br><br>I know that the past few months have been an uncertain time for everyone connected with Defence because, with this backdrop, we all knew that change must come. </p> <p>The choices we have made in the SDSR about the future structure of our Armed Forces inevitably mean changes to our equipment and support requirements, and therefore to what we will be buying from industry.</p> <p>So it is right that we explain what we are doing to enhance our relationship with industry to make sure that we fulfil our primary aim of acquiring the right kit for our Armed Forces, at the right time, and at the right cost.</p> <p>First, let me explain the broad thrust of the SDSR.</p> <p>The new National Security Strategy sets out the policy framework that was the force driver of SDSR.</p> <p>It is a coherent outcome that ensures that we have an overarching ‘adaptive posture’, providing the right capabilities and structures to respond to the highest priority risks over the next five years, and to begin the transformation of our Armed Forces and security services to meet the challenges of the future.</p> <p>We specifically rejected a “Fortress Britain” posture or one that assumed that the wars of tomorrow would inevitably be like the wars of today.</p> <p>And this adaptive posture demands that our Armed Forces become a more flexible and agile force with global reach:</p> <p>Achieving this in the circumstances we inherited means smaller armed forces, some painful decisions, and a degree of sacrifice.</p> <p>If I had a clean sheet of paper, unencumbered by existing contractual or operational commitments, and without the financial pressures facing all government departments, the results would undoubtedly have been different.</p> <p>But as I’ve often said recently, just as I’m a hawk on Defence, I am a hawk on deficit reduction too.</p> <p>I didn’t come into politics to make Defence cuts.</p> <p>But the economic legacy of the previous Government is a national security liability. </p> <p>Labour left us with a toxic legacy. </p> <p>They doubled the national debt and left us with the biggest budget deficit in the G20. <br><br>The interest we will pay next year on the national debt is £46bn – significantly more than the entire annual Defence budget – and we will get absolutely nothing for it.</p> <p>If we learned anything from the cold war, it is that you cannot have strong Defence without a strong economy. </p> <p>Without regaining economic strength we will be unable to sustain in the long-term, the capabilities required, including military capabilities, to keep our citizens safe and maintain our influence on the world stage.</p> <p>Tackling the deficit and bringing the Defence budget back into balance is a vital part of how we will contribute to this country’s national security into the future.</p> <p>And because of the priority we place on security, the Defence budget is making a more modest contribution to deficit reduction relative to almost all other Departments.</p> <p>It has been difficult, but the SDSR meets twin priorities of, first, protecting front-line capability for Afghanistan and, second, beginning the process of transforming our Armed Forces to meet the challenges of the future – setting the path to a coherent and affordable Defence capability in 2020 and beyond.</p> <p>Let me take these in turn, starting with Afghanistan. </p> <p>Our Armed Forces are in Afghanistan first and foremost to protect our national security by ensuring that transnational terrorists cannot find safe and unhindered sanctuary there, as they did before 9/11. </p> <p>We now have the right force levels in theatre, with the right equipment, and at the NATO summit in Lisbon in a couple of weeks’ time we hope to agree the programme for the transition of key security responsibilities to the Afghan Government. </p> <p>There is still some way to go before the Afghans are ready to take responsibility for their own security.</p> <p>But I believe we have the right strategy, steady progress is being made, and we can be proud of what our people are achieving. </p> <p>We must be patient and let the strategy take its course. </p> <p>Afghanistan is the top foreign policy priority for the Government, and remains the Main Effort for Defence. </p> <p>We will do all that is necessary to achieve operational success, and ensure that our Armed Forces have the tools they require to do the job. </p> <p>Where proposed changes in the SDSR had implications for operations, we have ensured that the success of the mission was given priority. </p> <p>The men and women of our Armed Forces risk an awful lot to keep us safe, sometimes making the ultimate sacrifice. </p> <p>We owe them our respect and gratitude, but most of all we owe them our support. </p> <p>Our other priority was to chart a course to Future Force 2020 and beyond, which is why I want to emphasise that the SDSR marks the start, not the end, of that process. </p> <p>We will focus our work on two five-year phases. </p> <p>The first period, from 2010 to 2015 is necessarily a period of re-balancing the strategic direction. </p> <p>We must tackle the unfunded liability in the Defence programme; live within our means as the deficit is addressed; and focus our efforts on Afghanistan. </p> <p>The second period, from 2015 to 2020, will be about re-growing capability and achieving our overall vision. </p> <p>It will include the re-introduction of a carrier strike capability, with the Joint Strike Fighter, and an escort fleet including the Type 45 destroyer and, soon after 2020, the Type 26 Global Combat Ship, about which more in a moment. </p> <p>We will also reconfigure the RAF fast-jet fleet around the JSF and Typhoon, and consolidate the multi-role brigade structure of the Army. <br><br>Throughout this decade, we will reduce the number of equipment types used to provide the same or similar capability, because it reduces costs overall when you take into account the complex training and support requirements each individual piece of kit requires.</p> <p>Nevertheless, it is my strong belief, one shared by the Prime Minister, that the structure we have agreed for 2020 will require year-on-year real terms growth in the Defence budget beyond 2015. </p> <p>There is a difficult road ahead, but at the end of the process Britain will have the capabilities it needs to keep our people safe, to live up to our responsibilities to our allies and friends, and our national interests will be more secure.</p> <p>Of course the choices we have made will result in changes to our equipment and support requirements and therefore what MOD will be buying from industry in future. </p> <p>In some cases, where particular programmes will be stopped altogether, there will sadly be job losses – and just as with the reductions in manpower in the Armed Forces and civilians in the MOD, these are a matter of great regret. </p> <p>The industrial implications of the key SDSR choices were given careful consideration. </p> <p>We will now undertake, as many of you already know, an extensive programme of commercial negotiations with our suppliers in the coming months, as part of the SDSR implementation process. <br><br>This will focus on the areas where there have been the most significant changes, but I expect it to involve all of the MOD’s key suppliers.</p> <p>To achieve what we want to do means we must change the way we do business. </p> <p>Let me take the MOD side first. </p> <p>I’ve asked the Defence Reform Unit, under Lord Levene, to undertake a fundamental review of how the MOD delivers capability. </p> <p>To deliver this, we will be ruthless in over-turning barriers to success and reducing the cost of doing business with the MOD. </p> <p>The cycle of over-committed plans, short-term cuts, and re-profiling of expenditure must be broken.</p> <p>I recognise the need for a more measured, strategic consideration of MOD’s industrial and technology needs, together with industry’s contribution to broader economic competitiveness. </p> <p>So we will help create a more stable base for industry, less dependent on the UK economy alone.</p> <p>That’s why we’ve announced that we will publish a Green Paper by the end of this year, which will set out our intended approach to industrial policy and technology policy in the context of the National Security Strategy.</p> <p>Our main priorities will be:</p> <p>Additionally, we must thoroughly re-examine all the relevant industrial sectors and have as clear and unambiguous a strategy as possible for each. </p> <p>We will examine the range of factors in our acquisition decision making to ensure that we have got the balance right. </p> <p>And the resulting White Paper, which we will publish next Spring, will set out our sovereign requirements, and how we will protect associated industrial capabilities, though they will reflect the overall financial constraints that we will have to work within. </p> <p>We have also, as many of you will have noticed, embarked upon the biggest Defence exports drive in decades. </p> <p>With exports contributing £7,200 million to our balance of trade last year, we have one of Britain’s greatest success stories. </p> <p>We in the MOD will play our part. </p> <p>Embedding exportability from the outset can bring considerable benefits.</p> <p>That’s why the Type 26 Global Combat Ships present us with tremendous opportunity for establishing a partnership with other nations which have a similar requirement.  </p> <p>We also recognise the new reality that partner nations will require technology transfer, though I have to say that in Britain we are ahead of the game, for example on the Hawk programme in India. </p> <p>And we are also looking to work closely with other nations, as you have seen from the recent Anglo-French summit and the ratification of the US-UK Defence Trade Co-operation Treaty. </p> <p>Britain’s prosperity and security are unavoidably bound up with those of others. </p> <p>Defence exports are a key driver in securing our Defence Diplomacy objectives. </p> <p>The Foreign Secretary has insisted on a sharper focus on promoting our national security and prosperity through our global diplomatic network. </p> <p>And from the Prime Minister down, the schedule of international engagement is expansive. </p> <p>So that’s what we will do for industry, what can industry do for us?</p> <p>With the new realities we face, affordability and capability must share equal billing.</p> <p>Let me be clear about my approach to industry. </p> <p>Having a strong and viable industry in the UK is a formidable strategic asset, and a key part of our international security relationships. </p> <p>It provides jobs, maintains skills, and makes a considerable contribution to the exchequer. </p> <p>The defence industry actually makes and sells things abroad at a time when the Government wants growth, an export-led recovery, and a re-balancing of the economy. </p> <p>It helps drive technological innovation which gives our Armed Forces their cutting edge, and can benefit society as a whole as the same innovation is applied more widely. </p> <p>But Defence procurement is not a job creation project, or a cushion against competition and innovation.   </p> <p>Its prime purpose is to provide the Armed Forces with the equipment and support they need, at the right time, and at a cost that represents value for taxpayers’ money. </p> <p>I understand that industry has to be concerned about profit and shareholders dividends – incidentally not dirty words anymore.  </p> <p>What Government and industry want are not mutually exclusive, but they are not exactly the same.  </p> <p>Over the next four years, we will be spending around £50 billion on equipment and support. </p> <p>This is not the Government’s money. </p> <p>There is no such thing as Government money. </p> <p>There is only taxpayers’ money. </p> <p>It is the money that hard-working people and companies big and small have entrusted to us through their taxes, so that the country can be more secure. </p> <p>And they expect us to spend money wisely and properly, and enter into contracts with industry that will deliver the equipment that we need while protect the taxpayers’ interests and sustaining industrial growth. </p> <p>The long-term prosperity of British industry therefore depends on two things – offering better value for money to the British taxpayer; and being competitive and market sensitive so that the successful export of what is produced is more likely. </p> <p>Let me put this another way.</p> <p>We have to diminish the dependence of the British defence industry on the MoD budget so that it is not exposed to the vagaries of the budgetary cycle.</p> <p>But to do so too quickly would have profound implications and potentially damage the national interest.  </p> <p>So we will seek as a matter of policy to broaden the customer base, and this is demonstrated in our commitment to supporting British exports.  </p> <p>This will give the necessary headroom to make a transition to the future.</p> <p>Yes I do want to see more buying off the shelf but I want to see the shelves stocked with more British goods first.</p> <p>Ladies and gentlemen, in Opposition I set out on a repeated basis four aims and five tests for Defence procurement and I intend to follow these.  </p> <p>The aims are:</p> <p>First, as I said, to provide the best possible equipment to our Armed Forces when they need it, where they need it and at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer. </p> <p>Second, to use Defence procurement to underpin Britain's strategic relationships. </p> <p>Third, to provide better stability to the Armed Forces and better predictability to the Defence industry to enable manpower decisions to be made on a more rational basis. </p> <p>And fourth, to preserve UK Defence jobs by maximising exports. </p> <p>To meet these aims we will test any future equipment programme against five criteria:  does it provide equipment and support that is capable, affordable, adaptable, interoperable, and exportable?</p> <p>While we cannot, as much as we would like to, provide certainty in Defence in an unstable world, we can provide better management of the unpredictability in which we find ourselves, to enable better management and investment planning for both the military and industry.</p> <p>My Ministerial team and I will now increase our focus to an even greater level on this process and we will be unrelenting in the pursuit of the goals we have set.</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20101109SpectatorDefenceProcurementProgramme.htm Liam Fox 2010/11/09 - Spectator Defence Procurement Programme uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 09/11/2010 Ministry of Defence the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, London
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>This year the country celebrated the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain.</p> <p>It reminded us, not only of the valour of those who fought and the sacrifice of those who didn’t make it through, but also that there have been times in our history when the light blue line was the only thing that stood between us and defeat.</p> <p>I was determined that we would also use this occasion to throw a light on what the modern Royal Air Force was doing today, in the skies over Afghanistan and in the skies over Britain, and remind us all of the undiminished utility of air power in keeping our country safe and secure.</p> <p>I am a self-confessed hawk on defence - in more ways than one -and I always take consolation from the fact that hawks have a far greater life expectancy than doves - more than 2 to1..</p> <p>Your delivery on operations continues to be fundamental to the success of the UK’s commitment in Afghanistan and elsewhere.</p> <p>Ensuring that we don’t take our eye off this ball will be a major challenge as we progress through the post-SDSR change programmes.</p> <p>Let me be clear, there was never any doubt that the Strategic Defence and Security Review would do anything other than confirm the requirement for an independent RAF fit and able to operate in the key air power roles - control of the air and space; air mobility; intelligence and situational awareness; and attack.</p> <p>But we have had to take some very difficult decisions, decisions that I have taken no pleasure in, and decisions that it is only right I come and talk to you about today.</p> <p>I am acutely aware that behind each number is a person, who through no fault of their own face an uncertain future and that each person has aspirations, a career, a livelihood and a family to support.</p> <p>I regret that the uncertainty is not over as we work through the details - including on basing and redundancies.</p> <p>We will do this as quickly and as sensitively as we can so I can only ask for your forbearance as we do so.</p> <p>There is nothing worse than waiting for the axe to fall - and for that I am sorry.</p> <p>Indeed, the weekend’s activity, in support of RAF Lossiemouth, highlights this issue. </p> <p>And I recognise that the impact of this speculation, played out in the media, has a corrosive effect on the morale of our personnel.</p> <p><strong>THE BACKDROP TO SDSR DECISIONS</strong></p> <p>But we have all known that some tough choices have been coming for some time.</p> <p>It has been 12 years since there has been a fundamental rethink on Defence - and in that time the future Defence programme, inherited by the new Government, had grown wildly out of balance, overdrawn by some £38bn.</p> <p>We also have to contend with the biggest financial crisis in a generation.</p> <p>History has clearly shown how fundamental a strong economy is for effective national security and defence over the long term.</p> <p>So when you are faced with a situation where the interest we will pay next year on national debt is £46bn - significantly more than the entire annual defence budget - and when we will get absolutely nothing for that money - we had no choice but to tackle the deficit.</p> <p>Without regaining economic strength we will be unable to sustain, in the long-term, the capabilities required, including military capabilities, to keep our citizens safe and maintain our influence on the world stage.</p> <p>We cannot allow the economic situation to become a national security liability. </p> <p>Because of the priority we place on security, the Defence budget, although being reduced, is making a more modest contribution to deficit reduction relative to almost all other Departments in Whitehall.</p> <p>But because of the already overheated Defence programme, because of the frankly byzantine system of contractual obligations on equipment, and because we have necessarily protected operations in Afghanistan, it means that our room for manoeuvre has been severely constrained.</p> <p>It is fair to say that if we’d had a blank piece of paper without these constraints, the results after the SDSR would have undoubtedly been different.</p> <p>We would not, for instance have had to take the difficult and finely balanced decisions we did on Harrier and Nimrod - which I will come back to later.</p> <p>But, as you know, proper strategic thought encompasses ends, ways and means - matching ambition and policy, to commitments and resources.</p> <p>So I want to make clear - we have, I believe, met the twin priorities of, first, protecting front-line capability for Afghanistan and, second, beginning the process of transforming our Armed Forces to meet the challenge of the future - setting the path to a coherent and affordable Defence capability in 2020 and beyond.</p> <p><strong>WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE RAF</strong></p> <p>So what does this mean for the future of UK air power?</p> <p>The new National Security Strategy set out the policy framework which was the force driver of the SDSR.</p> <p>The ‘adaptable posture’ which was decided upon by the NSC demands that our Armed Forces become a more flexible and agile force with global reach capable of providing nuclear and conventional deterrence, containment, coercion and intervention.</p> <p>I don’t need to tell anyone in this audience about the inherent flexibility of Air Power. </p> <p>Your focus on Combat ISTAR, together with your involvement with Cyber and Space, are particularly good examples of how the RAF continues to maintain its relevance, not to mention ‘mission critical’ role.<br> <br>In the last 6 months alone I have witnessed just how ‘agile and adaptable’ the RAF is; from GR4s in Theatre to C17s re-rolling from Afghanistan to Pakistan aid relief - it’s a very long list.</p> <p>And as you know, we will look to the Royal Air Force to continue to provide:</p> <p>To achieve this against competing demands it means we have had to make the tough decision to rationalise our aircraft fleets and estate, and to reduce the establishment of the RAF by around 4,900 over the next 4 years.</p> <p>The implications to the Service of such personnel changes are not lost on me - and in this I include Regular, Reserve and civil-servants.   </p> <p>We have seen before the compound effect on people of concurrent change and it’s critical that the unique demands placed upon Armed Forces are properly recognised.</p> <p>We have also had to take calculated risks against some capabilities.</p> <p>The plan over the next ten years is two fold.</p> <p>First, from 2010-2015, we have to have a period of rebalancing with strategic direction as we make these reductions.</p> <p>Second, from 2015-20, we will have a period of re-growth to meet our strategic vision.</p> <p>This will include the re-introduction of a carrier strike capability with the JSF carrier variant aircraft manned by a joint RN and RAF force, the consolidation of the transport fleet around C17, A400M and FSTA, and the reconfiguration of the RAF fast jet fleet around JSF and Typhoon. </p> <p>One of my goals as part of the SDSR was to reduce the types of equipment used to provide the same or similar capability.</p> <p>Achieving this by 2020 will mean less duplication, and less expense overall when you take into account the complex training and support requirements each individual piece of kit requires.</p> <p>This includes reducing the number of different types in the air transport, helicopter and fast jet fleets.</p> <p>Nevertheless, it is my very strong personal belief, one shared by the Prime Minister, that the structure we have agreed for 2020 will require year-on-year real terms growth in the defence budget in the years beyond 2015. </p> <p>Ultimately this is about securing our national interests and protecting our national security.</p> <p>There will undoubtedly be a difficult road ahead, but at the end of the process Britain will have the capabilities, including the air power capabilities, to keep our people safe and to live up to our responsibilities to our allies and friends.</p> <p><strong>CARRIER, HARRIER, NIMROD</strong></p> <p>Let me address some of the more difficult decisions and be straightforward about why we took them.</p> <p>The first thing I would say is that we had to act objectively, based on the military advice.</p> <p>As CAS will tell you, we spent many long hours going over the programme.</p> <p>We did not have the luxury of self-indulgence or sentimentality.</p> <p>The decision between Tornado and Harrier was exactly of this nature.  </p> <p>I couldn’t begin to tell you the number of hours we spent on that decision alone.</p> <p>There have been many magnificent British Aircraft down the years - Spitfire, Vulcan, Lighting - and the Harrier is definately in that class. </p> <p>I understand the consequences of the retirement of Harrier in terms of livelihoods and basing and the emotiveness of this beautiful and iconic aircraft - particularly in relation to the Falklands Conflict of 1982.</p> <p>In Afghanistan, the Joint Force Harrier did wonderful work.  </p> <p>During its deployment to Afghanistan between 2004 and 2009 it is my understanding that every Harrier pilot from every Harrier Squadron took part at some point in operations. </p> <p>But these operations had taken their toll on the Harrier Force.</p> <p>By the time the aircraft was withdrawn from theatre, the Force’s ability to recuperate and regenerate a fully operational carrier strike capability, notwithstanding the strenuous efforts to do so by Joint Force Harrier, had understandably been affected.</p> <p>The decision taken by the last Government in 2009 to reduce the number of Harriers meant that even if we had wanted to we couldn’t sustain our current fast-jet requirement in Afghanistan using Harriers. </p> <p>The military advice was that Tornado was the more capable aircraft to retain due to its wider capabilities and force size, not only for Afghanistan but for other significant contingent capabilities as well.</p> <p>I believe we have made the right decision based on unsentimental military logic.</p> <p>This was essentially triage - and the dice had been loaded against the Harrier for some time before.</p> <p>But the withdrawal of Harrier means that we will be without a carrier-strike capability until the Queen Elizabeth class carrier comes into service. </p> <p>The Carrier-strike capability we plan will give the UK the ability to project military power over land as well as sea from anywhere in the world without reliance on land bases in other countries to achieve this.</p> <p>Buying 65,000 tonnes of sovereign British territory is a good investment.</p> <p>Britain will require the strategic choice and flexibility in force projection that carrier-strike offers.</p> <p>That is why we have taken three decisions.</p> <p>First, we have decided to take a capability gap in carrier strike because we assess that the risk of not having access to basing and overflight for our fast jet force in the next decade is low - but the same cannot be said looking further ahead. </p> <p>Second, to install catapult and arrester gear which will allow greater interoperability, particularly with US and French carriers and jets and maximise the through life utility of our carrier strike capability.  </p> <p>And third, to acquire the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter.</p> <p>Adding the “cats and traps” will allow us to use the carrier variant of the JSF.</p> <p>The judgement between JSF CV and JSF STOVL was not straightforward, but what we lose in versatility, we make up for in heavier payload, longer range and greater interoperability with our allies. </p> <p>Because of its expected lifespan, the last RAF pilot to fly off a Queen Elizabeth Class carrier has not even been born yet. </p> <p>So any decisions regarding carriers have to be seen in the context of their expected service life of 50 years or even more. </p> <p>I believe we have made the right decisions, based the future needs of British security.</p> <p>Cancelling the Nimrod MRA4 programme was a finely balanced judgement too.  </p> <p>This, I have to say, was the most difficult decision we took in the SDSR.</p> <p>I recognise that this means taking some risk on the capability Nimrod was to provide.</p> <p>Since the withdrawal of the Nimrod MR2 in March this year, the gap in capability has been mitigated through the use of other military assets on a case by case basis, including Type 23 Frigates, Merlin Anti Submarine Warfare helicopters and Hercules C-130 aircraft, and by relying on assistance from allies and partners.  </p> <p>I regret the impact of this on the people who have dedicated their careers to delivering this capability, or who depend on it for their livelihoods, and for RAF Kinloss in particular.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>When I was a GP for the Army at Wilton Park, I learned very quickly that if you want unhappy service people, make their families unhappy.</p> <p>I know this has been a gruelling period, and I know that uncertainty remains for you and your families, and it will be a difficult few years.</p> <p>But you are committed, highly-skilled and professional people, who have to make tough decisions too, sometimes split-second ones on which lives depend.</p> <p>This is happening now in Afghanistan, as we speak.</p> <p>I have no doubt that the RAF that will emerge from this transformation will be strong, committed and above all powerful.</p> <p>I know, that just like your predecessors, whenever the time comes for you to take the fight to the enemy, no matter the cost, you will do so.</p> <p>The people of Britain know that the RAF will never let them down.</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20101109RafConferenceCranwell.htm Liam Fox 2010/11/09 - RAF Conference Cranwell uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 10/11/2010 Ministry of Defence RAF Cranwell, Lincoln
<p>The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox): I beg to move,<br><br>That this House has considered the matter of the Strategic Defence and Security Review.<br><br>Last month, the Government published the strategic-<br><br>Mr Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State should resume his seat. Given that he was manifestly late for the debate, I thought that, as a matter of straightforward courtesy, he would begin his remarks with a fulsome apology to the House. That is what he will now do.<br><br>Dr Fox: Mr Speaker, I completely apologise for any inconvenience to you or the House as a result of my late attendance.<br><br>Last month, the Government published the strategic defence and security review. This was a thorough, cross-Government strategic effort, overseen by the National Security Council, looking at all aspects of security and defence. It describes the adaptable posture that we have chosen to meet the threats and exploit the opportunities that we identified in the national security strategy.<br><br>Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): I intervene to assist the Secretary of State. He should pour a cup of water and catch his breath, so that he can be fully refreshed as he makes his statement. I hope that my intervention has been helpful.<br><br>Dr Fox: There always had to be very good reasons for the coalition; my hon. Friend shows how collegiate we have become in the past few months.<br><br>I pay tribute, after a long and complex process, to Lord Stirrup and Sir Bill Jeffrey, the outgoing Chief of the Defence Staff and the permanent secretary at the MOD. I would like to thank them for all their hard work on behalf of the Department and the armed forces over many years.<br><br>The fiscal environment that we inherited from the previous Government has required us to make some very difficult and complex decisions in the SDSR. That should not come as a surprise to the Labour party. In his Green Paper, my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), who is in his place today, wrote with characteristic understatement that defence faced<br><br>"challenging financial pressures...which will constrain Government resources."<br><br>His Green Paper, a cross-party effort, said:<br><br>"We cannot proceed with all the activities and programmes we currently aspire to, while simultaneously supporting our current operations and investing in the new capabilities we need. We will need to make tough decisions".<br><br>We have had 12 years without a fundamental rethink and we are in the midst of the biggest financial crisis in a generation, with an inherited defence budget that is in overdraft to the tune of some £38 billion and is tied up by a byzantine system of contractual obligations. There was a record in-year increase of £3.3 billion in the equipment programme during Labour's last year in government alone. All that has come at a time when our armed forces are fighting at a high tempo in Afghanistan. It has fallen to this Government to take the tough decisions required without undermining serious capabilities, the military covenant or the UK industrial capacity.<br><br>If we had a clean sheet of paper without the financial pressures that face all Government Departments as a result of the inherited fiscal deficit, and if we were unencumbered by existing contractual obligations and in different operational circumstances, the results would undoubtedly have been different. Nevertheless, although difficult, the decisions that we have made are coherent and consistent, and will provide us with the capabilities that we require for the future.<br><br>We now know that, as the former Chief of the Defence Staff has said, Labour Ministers were offered advice on which cuts to make to get the defence budget back into balance, but that advice was rejected owing to the lack of political will in the run-up to the general election. Only the coalition Government have had the political courage to do what was financially and militarily right with defence. We have had to implement the cuts that Labour Ministers lacked the courage to make.<br><br>Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op): The Secretary of State said that if he had had a clean sheet of paper, he would have made different decisions. Does that mean that the agreement with the French that was signed this week would not have happened?<br><br>Dr Fox: Quite the reverse. In opposition, we spent considerable time discussing with the French what we would want to do in terms of greater co-operation were we to win the general election. What we saw this week were the fruits of considerable labour on both sides for a considerable time.<br><br>It is rational and reasonable simply to want greater co-operation with our biggest military ally in continental Europe. What has been amazing in the last few days is the level of agreement, which seems to have occurred across the political spectrum, that this is not a drastic threat to UK sovereignty, but a common-sense use of both our nations' resources.<br><br>Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab): As the Defence Secretary for the last year of the Labour Government, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in that year we took £900 million out of the defence budget, rather than increase the deficit by £3 billion, and that that was met with howls from the then Opposition. Without wanting to fall out with the then Chief of the Defence Staff, I have to say that I cannot remember his ever having said anything to me about defence cuts that I was not prepared to make. I say that on the record.<br><br>Dr Fox: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point very clearly. Obviously, I am unable to say what discussions might have taken place. However, the point is that, as the National Audit Office said, there was an added overspend of £3.3 billion in the final year alone in the projects budgets. That is very clear.<br><br>As the Prime Minister has said, the SDSR was about taking the right decisions to protect national security in the years ahead, not simply a cost-saving exercise to get to grips with the biggest budget deficit in post-war history. However, let us be absolutely clear that those are not two separate things. Proper strategic thought encompasses ends, ways and means, matching ambition and policy to commitments and resources. A strategy that does not take account of fiscal or budgetary measures is no strategy at all; it is simply wishful thinking.<br><br>As Lord Ashdown recently put it, we cannot defend a country on flights of fancy. Furthermore, history has clearly shown how fundamental a strong economy is for effective national security and defence over the long term. We were left an economically toxic legacy by the previous Government. They doubled the national debt and left us with the biggest budget deficit in the G20. We are spending £120 million every single day just to pay off the interest on Labour's debt. The interest we will pay next year on the debt is some £46 billion, significantly more than the entire annual defence budget, and we will get nothing for that money. Without regaining economic strength, we will be unable to sustain in the long term the capabilities required, including military capabilities, to keep our citizens safe and maintain our influence on the world stage.<br><br>If we learned anything from the cold war, it is that a strong economy equals strong defence. The economic legacy of the previous Government is a national security liability. We were left with a situation in which the country's finances were wrecked while the world is a more dangerous place than at any time in recent memory.<br><br>Every Department must make its own contribution to deficit reduction and the MOD is no exception, but because of the priority we place on security the defence budget is making a more modest contribution to deficit reduction relative to almost all other Government Departments.<br><br>The SDSR meets twin priorities of protecting front-line capability for Afghanistan and beginning the process of transforming our armed forces to meet the challenges of the future, setting the path to a coherent and affordable defence capability in 2020 and beyond.<br><br>Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): As the right hon. Gentleman knows, decisions still have to be made on the future of the joint combat aircraft and RAF Lossiemouth, which the MOD recently concluded to be the ideal JCA base because it provides excellent access to training areas and modern facilities and is the most cost-effective. The Secretary of State is in Oslo next week meeting Nordic partners. Will he discuss the opportunities for air defence co-operation with the Norwegians, who will have the same aircraft and will station them closest to RAF Lossiemouth?<br><br>Dr Fox: The hon. Gentleman makes a useful point. We will be discussing a wide range of future issues, including air defences and the common threats that we face. The hon. Gentleman's point is important but, as he recognises, it will have to be balanced against a number of other interests. We fully recognise the problems and anxieties that the uncertainties will create until the decisions are taken, but we will try to expedite them as best we can while fully understanding the issues involved.<br><br>As I said, the SDSR dealt with Afghanistan and the future 2020 force so, if I may, I shall take them in turn. Our armed forces are in Afghanistan first and foremost to protect our national security by ensuring that transnational terrorists cannot find safe and unhindered sanctuary there, as they did before 9/11. There is no difference across this House and those who seek to do ill to British forces or British interests should understand that there is a united House of Commons behind our armed forces.<br><br>Under the leadership of, first, General McChrystal and now General Petraeus, we have the right strategy in place to succeed. We now have the right number of troops in theatre with the right equipment and we will soon agree a plan for the transition of key responsibilities to the Afghan Government at the NATO summit in Lisbon in a couple of weeks' time. We now have to be patient and let the strategy run its course.<br><br>The Foreign Secretary set out to Parliament last week the steady progress that is being made in the security mission. Afghanistan is the top foreign policy priority for the Government and the main effort for defence and we will do all that is necessary to achieve operational success and ensure that our forces have the tools they require to do the job. I am grateful to the shadow Defence Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary for showing such an interest in detailed briefing on the subject so early in their time in office.<br><br>Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): Of course the Opposition support what the Government are doing in Afghanistan but, as we saw from the events of this week, as al-Qaeda is displaced from Afghanistan, it ends up in places such as Yemen. May I urge the Secretary of State to recognise that when we take action in one country it affects another, and can we please also pursue a strategy to ensure that Yemen is as stable as possible?<br><br>Dr Fox: I am not sure that I accept the basic premise that it is an either/or situation. We have to deal with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even if we deal with them effectively, that does not mean that there will not be a terrorist threat from elsewhere. We need to be ever vigilant and to recognise that the problem of dealing with an ideology is that it can occur in any part of the globe. We also need to be aware that it is most likely to be present and to have effect where there are failed states.<br><br>I believe that proper joined-up government that is willing to consider how we support failing states and how we get improved governance, resources and development into those countries is one of the best ways of ensuring that the ideology never takes route. It is true in whatever dispute we are talking about that people who have nothing to lose may gamble with it, whereas people who have a stake are far more likely to be circumspect about what happens. That is one of the best ways to deny territory to those with that sort of fanatical ideology.<br><br>Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): I agree with the Secretary of State's assessment of Afghanistan and that there is a united House. However, could he enlighten the House by telling us at what stage the Prime Minister consulted him on the withdrawal date of 2015?<br><br>Dr Fox: We have so many ongoing discussions, not just inside the Government but, as the hon. Lady knows, with our NATO partners and with our American partners. It is essential that when we set these dates we are also cognisant of what the Afghan Government want. The Afghan Government have for some time-as the previous Government fully understood-had the ambition to manage entirely their own security apparatus by the end of 2014. The approach that has been taken by this Government and more widely in NATO has been to ask how we tie our timetables in with the ambitions of the Afghans. It is perfectly reasonable. As the NATO summit in a couple of weeks' time will show, it is increasingly the view of NATO that we should transition out of a combat role and allow the Afghan Government to have control by the end of 2014, but that we should maintain the resources required to give them support. For example, whether the Afghans will be able to develop any sort of meaningful air wing according to their timetable of 2014 is something that we must consider.<br><br>Bob Russell: May I take the Secretary of State back to his comments on last week's statement by the Foreign Secretary? So far, his speech has concentrated, quite rightly, on the military, but may I press him on the importance of joined-up government across Departments here so that in Afghanistan the political and economic sides-the other two sides of the triangle-get equal weight? Does joined-up thinking happen in Government here?<br><br>Dr Fox: It is increasingly happening, not only here but on the ground. To be fair, I must say that it is increasingly happening within NATO. The planning to co-ordinate military activity with the civilian reconstruction element is increasingly successful. There remains a gap which is what people talk about as "hot" construction, "hot" intervention or "hot" reconstruction, however we want to define it, which is at the initial period when we have military success, how do we begin the reconstruction process early enough and maximise the benefits from our own actions there? There are many people who would look at the example of Afghanistan in recent years and say that between 2003 and 2006 we perhaps did not ensure that we had in the optimal way joined the different elements that my hon. Friend mentions. However, we are seeing regular improvements in that regard, both nationally and internationally.<br><br>Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con): As the Secretary of State is probably aware, the Foreign Affairs Committee visited Afghanistan last week, when we had an opportunity to see the components of the settlement that he has described put in place. We welcome the indications of cautious optimism that are coming out of that country. As for 2015, does he accept that when that pledge was made, it related to a period that was almost the length of the second world war? Does he agree that that provides an ample opportunity for a solution and a settlement to be realised?<br><br>Dr Fox: My hon. Friend makes a very constructive point. I think that the time scales are realistic.<br><br>Where proposed changes in the SDSR had implications for operations in Afghanistan, we have ensured that the success of the mission was given priority. Consequently we have made no changes to combat units involved in Afghan operations and have postponed changes in other key capabilities such as the RAF's Sentinel ground surveillance aircraft for as long as they are required there. This is in addition to the enhancements planned in capabilities such as counter-IED, protected vehicle surveillance and remotely piloted aircraft. And of course we have doubled the operational allowance, as we promised.<br><br>The men and women of our armed forces risk an awful lot to keep us safe. In Afghanistan, their sacrifice has been significant, and it will continue to be a dangerous place in which to operate. All of us in this House owe them our respect and gratitude, but most of all we owe them our support. This Government will not let them down.<br><br>Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says about the debt of gratitude that we owe to our armed forces; that will be endorsed on both sides of this House. We also owe a huge debt of gratitude to their families. When the Prime Minister brought the defence and security decisions before this House, he said that there were decisions to be made about the allowances made to the armed forces and their families. When will we have that information? Can we have an assurance that those families will not be worse off as a result of the ongoing sacrifice of their family members on the front line?<br><br>Dr Fox: The hon. Lady makes a very important point. Indeed, when we recently met a number of our armed forces coming home from Afghanistan, we both pointed out that without the support of families it would be infinitely more difficult for our service personnel to be engaged in Afghanistan. It is important that when we look at allowances we strike a balance between what will enable our personnel and their families to get an adequate standard of living, particularly when they face the unique difficulties of postings abroad or extended periods away from family. However, we must also ensure, in the very difficult financial climate we inherited, that we get value for money. We will carry out the review as quickly as we can, but I have to say to the hon. Lady that I would much rather get it right than get it quickly. We need properly to understand the implications for changes to the allowance, and any changes that are made must be phased in in a way that makes it possible for families to adjust to and absorb any of the financial changes that we are forced to undertake.<br><br>Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con): My right hon. Friend has rightly won admiration for the very difficult settlement that he has had to reach in this review. He is clear from his remarks that the Afghan campaign, which may be costing the British taxpayer up to £8 billion a year, has significantly skewed the shape of the core defence programme. Can this be quantified? Should not those distortions to the core defence programme also be funded from the reserve so that defence policy in the long term is not affected by what we are doing in Afghanistan?<br><br>Dr Fox: If my hon. Friend is saying that defence should permanently have more money than it gets in any one year, neither I, nor-I suspect, as I look at him-the shadow Defence Secretary would disagree with that. We have to live within the financial constraints that we have. When we say that there were inevitable distortions because of Afghanistan, that is merely to state the blindingly obvious. We need to have a regular period of review so that we are able to take account, on a constant basis, of changing circumstances. That is why we want to have a five-yearly defence review that is able to do that, so that we are not having to wait for disproportionately long periods before making any adjustments that we might need. The 2015 review will be a very useful point at which to try to assess what the legacy of Afghanistan may be on our armed forces and what adjustments are required in the light of that.<br><br>Let me now turn to the detail of the SDSR in relation to defence. The new national security strategy set out the policy framework that was the force driver of the SDSR. The adaptive posture demands that our armed forces become a more flexible and agile force with global reach, capable of providing nuclear and conventional deterrence, containment, coercion and intervention.<br><br>The Government are committed to the maintenance of the UK's minimum effective nuclear deterrent. We will proceed with the renewal of Trident and the submarine replacement programme, incorporating the changes set out in the value-for-money study published in the SDSR. The decision to extend the life of the current Vanguard class submarines and changes in the profile of the replacement programme mean that initial gate will be approved in the next few weeks. The next phase of the project will commence, and the main gate decision will take place in 2016. This programme does not in any way alter the continuous nature and credibility of the nuclear deterrent.<br><br>James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con): There has been a lot of discussion about the renewal of Trident. Irrespective of the decisions about gates, can my right hon. Friend confirm the absolute centrality in his thinking of the fact that we need to maintain a continuous at-sea deterrent?<br><br>Dr Fox: I have absolutely no problem in agreeing with my hon. Friend about the importance of continuous at-sea deterrence. Let me make two simple points about that. First, having a continuous at-sea deterrent has a diplomatic utility. It means that because it is a background and consistent deterrent, we do not have the problem of choosing when to deploy it at a time of rising tension, which could exacerbate a difficult situation. Secondly, if we do not have continuous at-sea deterrence, we have to decide at what point we are physically going to put the deterrent to sea. That may require our having additional military assets effectively to fight it out to sea if required. Those who think that taking risks with continuous at-sea deterrence because it is a cheap option economically might need to think again in the light of what I have said.<br><br>The adaptable posture required by the NSC also means that we will be investing in new technology and capabilities more suited to the likely character of future conflict, such as cyber-security, while reducing our stockholdings and capabilities that have less utility in the post-cold war world, such as heavy armour and non-precision artillery. We will, however, maintain the ability to regenerate capabilities that are not needed now if threats change. Capabilities that we have the option of regenerating include increased amphibious capability as well as heavy armour and artillery in the event that more is required. We have taken less risk against those capabilities that are more difficult to regenerate, such as submarines, to take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris).<br><br>Alliances and partnerships remain a fundamental part of our approach. In taking decisions in the SDSR, we have given significant weight to the fact that we and our NATO allies consciously rely on each other for particular capabilities. Sometimes even our biggest allies do that. I think, for example, of the United States and the British mine-hunting capabilities in the Gulf.<br><br>Ms Gisela Stuart: Our biggest ally always retains certain sovereign capabilities. What would be the Secretary of State's thinking and planning on which of our sovereign capabilities we need to maintain as opposed to where we just share?<br><br>Dr Fox: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I shall deal later with our thinking about what the United Kingdom needs to be able to do itself and in what circumstances.<br><br>We rely on our allies, and we will deepen our multilateral and bilateral defence relationships. This week, we set out our deepened relationship with France. On Wednesday, as I intimated to the House the other day, I will have a meeting with the new British-Scandinavian NATO group. That is very important for a number of reasons. We want a closer bilateral relationship with Norway, which is one of our key strategic partners. We want to create a NATO framework that makes it easier for Sweden and Finland to have a closer relationship, and as a nuclear power we want to give even greater reassurance to the Baltic states about the reality of article 5 of the NATO treaty. We also want to create regional structures to make it easier to engage with Russia, where we can, on regional problem solving. It is a useful lesson for the UK that in a world in which there is a multi-polar power base, we need more different levers to act in the interests of our national security.<br><br>The UK has unique national interests, however, and we cannot always expect to depend on our partners when Britain's direct national interests are threatened. I wish to make it clear that we will maintain an autonomous capability to sustain a considerable and capable military force on an enduring basis, if required, for both intervention and stabilisation operations. That means, at best effort, a one-off intervention force of some 30,000, including maritime and air support, or a force of some 6,500 plus enablers for enduring operations. That is not hugely dissimilar to the level of effort in Afghanistan today.<br><br>As delivering effective defence capability in the 21st century becomes more expensive at a time when budgets are under growing pressure, we should exploit economies of scale and increase co-operation where national security allows it and sovereign capability is not jeopardised. That means exploring deeper co-operation with NATO members, as demonstrated with France this week, and with partners further afield in key regions around the world.<br><br>I wish to set out the future shape of our armed forces and the process by which we have made our decisions. I will then deal with specific issues, particularly those on which we have taken calculated risks with capability.<br><br>The SDSR is a point of departure, not the end of the line. We have set a path to 2020 and beyond, with regular reviews every five years. The first period, from 2010 to 2015, is necessarily a period of rebalancing our strategic direction, in the light of the factors that I outlined earlier. That is required to tackle the unfunded liability in the defence programme, to live within our means as the deficit is addressed and to focus our efforts on Afghanistan. Overall, the resources allocated for the spending review period will allow us to pursue today's operations and prepare for tomorrow, but that means scaling back the overall size of the armed forces.<br><br>To make those judgments, we have contrasted cost savings and capability implications with the risks that we face in the real global security environment and our ability to reconstitute or regenerate capabilities that we might need in future. We have taken the tough decisions that the previous Government ducked. The Prime Minister has set out to Parliament in his statement and in the White Paper the implications for the structure and establishment of the armed forces, and I will not tax the patience of the House or yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, by repeating each of them here. I will, though, address specific issues later.<br><br>There are still difficult decisions to be taken for the coming period as we implement the SDSR, including the basing decisions mentioned by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who is no longer in his place, and the rationalisation of the defence estate. As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said, we will also have the issue of allowances to deal with in the coming months. I can assure the House that we will take those decisions as quickly as possible, to minimise uncertainty, but in a way that is sensitive to economic and social pressures and the needs of our people and their families. In addition, three further reviews are being undertaken to bring other areas of defence into line with the new force structure.<br><br>Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): Will the Secretary of State give us a little more colour about how shocked he was by Labour's legacy?<br><br>Dr Fox: In the interests of brevity, I will say that I knew it was going to be bad, and it was much worse.<br><br>Bob Russell: Will the rationalisation of the MOD estate include such things as the scandal in 1995 of the sale of the married housing stock to Annington Homes, and the ongoing revenue rip-off that Annington Homes is enjoying at the expense of the public purse?<br><br>Dr Fox: There is no doubt that we need to deal with armed forces accommodation. We will want to do so as quickly as possible and in a way that produces the best and quickest improvement, at the best deal for the taxpayer. We will learn all the lessons from the previous Government, and even from times before them.<br><br>The three further reviews that I mentioned are the six-month study of the future role and structure of reserve forces; a review of force generation and sustainability by the service chiefs and the defence reform unit; and the remodelling of the MOD itself, which is overseen by Lord Levene's defence reform unit. Let me be very clear: I entirely agree with Lord Levene's view about the staff in the MOD, who are among the most able people I have worked with. I am sure that former Ministers would concur. However, I wish to be equally clear that the Department must be restructured to serve the interests of the new national security posture, and smaller armed forces will require a smaller system of civilian support.<br><br>I am acutely aware that behind the bare numbers of the reductions that we plan are loyal people, with livelihoods and families, who face an uncertain future through no fault of their own. We will do everything we can to manage the process sensitively and with care and support, but manage it we must if we are to meet our vision of the future force structure. The Government are determined to reinvigorate and respect an enduring military covenant. We cannot shield the armed forces from the consequences of the economic circumstances that we face, but we will make progress wherever we can. I look forward to receiving soon the report of the independent armed forces covenant taskforce that we set up earlier this year.<br><br>The second period, from 2015 to 2020, will be about regrowing capability and achieving our overall vision. That will include the reintroduction of a carrier strike capability, with the joint strike fighter carrier variant aircraft manned by a joint Royal Navy and RAF force, and an escort fleet including the Type 45 destroyer and, soon after 2020, the Type 26 global combat ship, which used to be called the future surface combatant-the names keep changing. We will also reconfigure the RAF fast jet fleet around the JSF and the Typhoon, and consolidate the multi-role brigade structure in the Army.<br><br>One of my goals as part of the SDSR was to reduce the number of types of equipment used to provide the same capability. Achieving that by 2020 will mean less duplication and less expense overall, when we take into account the complex training and support requirements of each piece of kit. That will include reducing the number of types of equipment in the air transport and helicopter fleets, and of destroyers and frigates.<br><br>Nevertheless, my very strong belief, which the Prime Minister shares, is that the structure that we have agreed for 2020 will require year-on-year real-terms growth in the defence budget beyond 2015. It would be nice to do more sooner, but as the great hero of the Labour party, Tony Benn, once said, albeit in different circumstances,<br><br>"the jam we thought was for tomorrow, we've already eaten."<br><br>How well he understood his own party.<br><br>There is a hard road ahead, but at the end of the process Britain will have the capabilities that it needs to keep our people safe and live up to its responsibilities to our allies and friends, and our national interests will be more secure.<br><br>I turn to some specific issues. The carrier strike capability that we plan will give the UK the ability to project military power over land as well as sea, from anywhere in the world, without reliance on land bases in other countries. Britain will require the strategic choice and flexibility in force projection that carrier strike offers. I also believe that that capability should be as interoperable as possible with the allies with whom we are most likely to work in future. The inherited design of the carriers would not have achieved that.<br><br>The House and the country must understand that any decisions regarding the carriers must be taken in the context of their extended service life of 50 years. The final captain of a Queen Elizabeth carrier has not even been born yet. When they go out of service, I will be 109 years old and the shadow Defence Secretary a sprightly 103. We are taking decisions now on what will be best for us as a country in the middle of the century. That is why we have taken three decisions. First, we have decided to take a capability gap in carrier strike, because we assess that the risk of not having access to basing and overflight for our fast jet force in the next decade is low. However, the same cannot be said looking further ahead.<br><br>Secondly, we have decided to install catapult and arrester gear, which will allow greater interoperability, particularly with US and French carriers and jets, and maximise the through-life utility of our carrier strike capability. Thirdly, we have decided to acquire the carrier variant of the joint strike fighter. Adding the "cats and traps" will allow us to use the carrier variant of the JSF, which has a bigger payload and a longer range than the STOVL variant planned by the previous Government. Overall, the carrier variant will be significantly cheaper, reducing the through-life cost compared with the STOVL version.<br><br>Contrary to popular belief, there will not be a new Queen Elizabeth class carrier in service without the planes to go on it, apart from in the period required by law for us to have the carrier properly crewed up and ready to accept the planes. The idea I have come across in some parts of the media-that we can get brand-new carriers and the brand-new planes to fly off them almost on the same day-simply defies the complexity of the operation involved.<br><br>When the carrier enters service towards the end of the decade, the JSF will be ready to embark on it. Yes, there will be a delay to the programme as a consequence of the decisions I have mentioned, but unlike the previous Government's delay to the carrier programme in 2008, which added £1.6 billion to the overall cost-more than the whole Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget next year-and gave us nothing in return, our delay will give us a carrier that is best configured for the next 50 years.<br><br>Mr Ainsworth: I am seriously concerned about the decision that the Government have taken. They have not only scrapped the Harrier, but retreated from STOVL, going back to what is basically today's and yesterday's technology of "cats and traps". They have left themselves potentially reliant on two aircraft that do fundamentally the same thing, giving up the ability to use short-take-off and vertical-landing aircraft. This is about more than the capability of the carrier. We are giving up-not temporarily, but permanently-the capability that the Harrier has given us. We will have two fleets of aircraft that fundamentally do the same thing.<br><br>Dr Fox: First, "cats and traps" are not yesterday's technology. In fact, considerable expense is going into ensuring that there are more modern, more effective "cat and trap" systems. The United States is spending a great deal of research and development money on that at present. Secondly, if we are to have genuine interoperability, it makes sense to have carriers that the American navy or the French can land on and, in the case of the French, use when their carrier is in refit and they require ongoing training. It is perfectly rational to buy the plane with the longer range and bigger payload, which is in fact cheaper. In the past, it was decided, for whatever reasons, to build 65,000-tonne carriers without a "cat and trap" system, and that decision was augmented by the STOVL decision. That would have been the most expensive variant, with the shortest range and the smallest payload. We are bringing those greater capabilities into better alignment with the carrier itself.<br><br>The right hon. Member for Coventry North East mentioned the Harrier. We had to face up to the difficult choices that the previous Government put off. Regrettably, we have decided to retire HMS Ark Royal three years early and to retire the Harrier force-both in 2011. Of course, that is not unprecedented. The UK's carrier strike capability was gapped during the late 1970s, as we transitioned from Buccaneer to Harrier itself. While Harrier was operating in Afghanistan between 2004 and 2009, our ability to generate carrier strike was at best severely curtailed.<br><br>Over the next five years, life-saving combat air support to operations in Afghanistan has to be the overriding priority. In Afghanistan, the Joint Force Harrier did wonderful work, and I pay tribute to the Harrier aircraft, the crews that have serviced them and the pilots who have flown them since they entered service. During its deployment to Afghanistan, the Joint Force Harrier flew in excess of 22,000 hours on more than 8,500 sorties, more than 2,000 of which were close air support missions. It is my understanding that every Harrier pilot from every Harrier squadron took part at some point during the Harrier's deployment to Afghanistan.<br><br>Tough and unsentimental choices had to be made, however, and the military advice was that Tornado was the more capable aircraft to retain, due to its wider capabilities and force size, for not only Afghanistan but other significant contingent capabilities. Operations in Afghanistan between 2004 and 2009 took their toll on the Harrier force. By the time the aircraft was withdrawn from theatre, the force's ability to recuperate and regenerate a fully operational carrier strike capability-notwithstanding the strenuous efforts to do so by Joint Force Harrier-had understandably been affected.<br><br>The decision taken by the previous Government in 2009 drastically to salami-slice the number of Harriers meant that, even if we had wanted to, we could not sustain our current fast-jet requirement in Afghanistan using Harriers alone. The decision in 2009 reduced the number of Harriers from 18 force elements at readiness to 10, but the military advice is that we require 40 force elements at readiness of Harriers to maintain our fast-jet contribution in Afghanistan on an enduring basis and without breaching harmony guidelines.<br><br>Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con): What steps does my right hon. Friend intend to take to retain the critical mass of flying skills of the absolutely admirable and remarkable Fleet Air Arm?<br><br>Dr Fox: The Fleet Air Arm will require something of a transitioning with the new joint strike fighter when we get towards the end of the decade. I have had discussions with my American counterparts, who have made it clear that, should we require help to maintain skills in any way in the run-up to that period, the United States will make the facilities available to us, and we fully understand that. Let me make it clear, as I did earlier, that the joint strike fighter will be flown from our carriers by both Royal Navy and Air Force pilots. We will maintain a joint force, which is an important message to both services at a time of uncertainty.<br><br>Some of the things we have read about Harrier have been hugely over-simplistic. As a result of decisions taken in recent years, I am afraid that the previous Government loaded the dice against Harrier a long time before the last election. I fully understand the consequences of retiring Harrier for livelihoods and basing, and the emotiveness of this beautiful and iconic aircraft, particularly in relation to the Falklands conflict of 1982, as everyone in the House will appreciate. However, I believe that we have made the right decision, based on unsentimental military logic.<br><br>The Falklands have been the subject of some comment in recent days. The Government are unequivocally committed to the defence of our overseas territories and dependencies, but the situation now is far removed from that of the early 1980s. First, we maintain a far more robust and capable force in the Falklands to act as a deterrent and to secure our interests there, and that force is able to be reinforced as the need arises. Secondly, and more importantly, Argentina is no longer ruled by a military junta that is repressive at home and aggressive abroad. Argentina is now a vibrant, multi-party democracy, constructive on the world stage and pledged to peaceful resolution of the issues that undoubtedly remain between us. Of course, we maintain robust contingency plans for times of crisis, and there is no questioning our resolve to defend the Falklands whenever required and from whatever quarter.<br><br>The decision to cancel the Nimrod MRA4 programme was extremely difficult due to the nature of the military tasks to which the aircraft was designed to contribute, the amount of public money that had been spent on it and the impact of such a decision on the people who have dedicated their careers to delivering this capability or who depend on it for their livelihoods. However, the severe financial pressures faced by the Government and the urgent need to bring the defence programme into balance meant that we could not retain all our existing programmes, as recognised by the previous Government in their Green Paper.<br><br>I recognise that this decision means taking some risks on the capability that Nimrod was to provide. Since the withdrawal of the Nimrod MR2 in March-a decision taken by the previous Government-the Ministry of Defence has sought to mitigate the gap in capability through the use, on a case-by-case basis, of other military assets, including Type 23 frigates, Merlin anti-submarine warfare helicopters and Hercules C-130 aircraft, and by relying on assistance from allies and partners. In view of the sensitive and classified nature of some of those military tasks and the implications for the protection of our armed forces, including the nuclear deterrent, it is not possible for me to comment on those measures in detail, but as the previous Government did, I am happy to make the Opposition spokesman fully aware, as far as the classification allows, of our decisions and the military advice upon which we take them.<br><br>As Defence Secretary, I have concentrated today on issues within my remit, but the guiding principle of the SDSR has been to join national security efforts across the Government, flowing from the direction that the new National Security Council now delivers. The SDSR covers far more ground-from conflict prevention to counter-terrorism, energy security, cyber-security and border security, and resilience at home and overseas-and I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to raise those wider issues today.<br><br>The Government had to take some difficult decisions, and the transformation will be painful, but we will emerge with a robust national security structure and a coherent set of capabilities that supports our foreign policy goals of rebuilding our prosperity and safeguarding our security both overseas and at home, but I should like to end by restating my commitment to sustaining operations in Afghanistan. We must succeed there-that must be our main effort. At the heart of those operations are the men and women of our armed forces, the civilians and families who support them, the intelligence and security agencies, and all those who stand between us and those who would do us harm. The whole House will agree that they are the best of the best and thank them for their dedication, professionalism and selfless commitment. All of us in this country owe them a very deep debt of gratitude.</p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20101104StrategicDefenceAndSecurityReview.htm Liam Fox 2010/11/04 - Strategic Defence and Security Review uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 05/11/2010 Ministry of Defence the House of Commons
<p>I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to SSAFA for all the hard work you do to make the lives of our service personnel, their families and veterans that little bit easier. </p> <p>This Government is determined to reinvigorate and respect an enduring military covenant.</p> <p>And the most important thing to remember is that it is not a covenant between just the Government and the Armed Forces, but between the UK people and the Armed Forces.</p> <p>Of course a public covenant as we intend will not in itself solve all the problems faced by personnel and their families.</p> <p>And as hard as we work across government to fulfil our promises, choosing a life in the Armed Forces will continue to mean choosing a challenging future for those who serve, but also for the families who sacrifice so much to support them.</p> <p>So the generosity that people like yourselves show in giving to charitable organisations like SSAFA will remain a critical part of the covenant.</p> <p>Over the six years these annual dinners have been running they have contributed £700,000 to supporting SSAFA's valuable work.</p> <p>So thank you for coming this evening - and thank you for the support you give SSAFA.</p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, I know this is a social occasion, and that would usually call for some light remarks - but it would be wrong to duck the tough messages that inevitably come from the tough reviews we have just completed - the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) and the Comprehensive Spending Review.</p> <p>Over the last six months I have had a 'simple' task - to help produce a thorough, cross-government strategic defence and security review:<br></p> <p>There is no need to explain to anyone in this room the complexity of this undertaking - working through the multi-dimensional knock on effects of each decision, and picking over the byzantine contractual arrangements in the equipment programme left by the previous government.</p> <p>And of course this review comes against a backdrop where the wider risks to our interests and way of life are growing.</p> <p>In the UK, with the difficulties we have at home, there is a danger of becoming more introverted - particularly when it comes to recognising the dangers that are growing outside our relatively safe Euro-Atlantic bubble.</p> <p>This is not just a problem in the UK.</p> <p>Across Europe we tend to see the world through this lens.</p> <p>The world maps on the walls of European capitals place the Greenwich Meridian at the centre - technically correct, but often betraying a very Eurocentric view of the world.</p> <p>But we must in future take a wider, more global view of the world, for example:</p> <p>That is why the National Security Council agreed the adaptive posture.</p> <p>This was the force driver of the SDSR and is the basis upon which our Armed Forces will be configured in the coming years.</p> <p>This posture demands that our Armed Forces become a more flexible and agile force with global reach:</p> <p>This is what I believe we have achieved in the Defence settlement as part of the SDSR - meeting twin priorities of protecting front-line capability for Afghanistan and beginning the process of transforming our Armed Forces to meet the challenges of the future - setting the path to a coherent and affordable Defence capability in 2020 and beyond.</p> <p>Achieving this in the circumstances we inherited means smaller armed forces, some painful decisions, and a degree of sacrifice.</p> <p>For instance, politically it would have been easier to support the requirement for carrier strike in the future by maintaining the harrier force.</p> <p>But the military advice was to do what was politically more difficult - to maintain Tornado.</p> <p>If I had a clean sheet of paper, unencumbered by existing contractual or operational commitments, and without the financial pressures facing all government departments, the results would undoubtedly have been different.</p> <p>But just as I'm a hawk on defence, I am a hawk on deficit reduction too.</p> <p>And I always take consolation from the fact that hawks have a far greater life expectancy than doves.</p> <p>I didn't come into politics to make defence cuts.</p> <p>But there can be no security without a strong economy.</p> <p>Tackling the deficit and bringing the defence budget back into balance is a vital part of how we protect this country's national security into the future.</p> <p>And because of the priority we place on security, the defence budget is making a more modest contribution to deficit reduction relative to almost all other Departments.</p> <p>Let me just say this to those who argue we should have placed resources to one side when formulating the SDSR.</p> <p>Proper strategic thought encompasses ends, ways and means - matching ambition and policy, to commitments and resources.</p> <p>To do otherwise is strategically illiterate. </p> <p>A strategy that does not take account of fiscal or budgetary pressures is no strategy at all - it is simply wishful thinking.</p> <p>And frankly, that was the fatal flaw at the heart of the 1998 Strategic Defence Review.</p> <p>It was widely regarded as an excellent review.</p> <p>But from the off, ambition was not matched with the resources required to achieve it.</p> <p>And when planning assumptions were swept aside after the strategic shock of 9/11, no serious recalibration was undertaken.</p> <p>This has been a recurring theme throughout the Chilcot Inquiry.</p> <p>In short - you cannot go on a procurement binge, increase commitments and squeeze spending all at the same time - because the results are inevitable.</p> <p>The outgoing Labour government bequeathed us an overheated equipment programme, an overcommitted budget and overstretched forces. </p> <p>We do not intend to fall into the same trap.</p> <p>That is why the SDSR is a point of departure not the end of the line.</p> <p>We have set a path to 2020 and beyond, with regular reviews every five years.</p> <p>And with the focus on adaptability, we have sought to ensure that where cuts have been made, we are be able to regenerate cost-effectively should the need arise.</p> <p>It is my strong belief, one shared by the Prime Minister, that the structure we have agreed for 2020 will require year-on-year real terms growth in the defence budget beyond 2015. </p> <p>It would be nice to do more sooner, but that great socialist Tony Benn could have been commenting on our budgetary inheritance when he said 'some of the jam we thought was for tomorrow, we've already eaten.'</p> <p>The reality is that implementation of what we have set out will be no easy ride, there remain hard decisions to take, and there is no new money.</p> <p>So if the penny has yet to drop, let it drop now.</p> <p>Of course the choices we have made will result in changes to our equipment and support requirements and therefore what MOD will be buying from industry in future. </p> <p>In some cases, where particular programmes will be stopped altogether, there will sadly be job losses - and just as with the reductions in manpower in the Armed Forces and civilians in the MOD, these are a matter of regret. </p> <p>The industrial implications of the key SDSR choices were given careful consideration. </p> <p>We will now undertake an extensive programme of commercial negotiations with our suppliers in the coming months, as part of the SDSR implementation process. </p> <p>This will focus on the areas where there have been the most significant changes, but is expected to involve all of the MOD's key suppliers.</p> <p>Let me be clear about my approach to industry.</p> <p>Having strong and viable industry in the UK is a formidable strategic asset and a key part of our international security relationships. </p> <p>Successful industry provides jobs, maintains skills and makes a considerable contribution to the exchequer. </p> <p>The defence industry actually makes and sells things abroad at a time when the Government wants growth, and export-led recovery and a rebalancing of the economy.</p> <p>It helps drive technological innovation which gives our Armed Forces their cutting edge and can benefit society as a whole as the same innovation is applied more widely. </p> <p>But none of us should forget that Defence procurement is not a job creation project.</p> <p>Its prime purpose is to provide our Armed Forces with the equipment and support they need, at the right time, and at a cost that represents value for taxpayer's money. </p> <p>And this is all the more important because there simply isn't the money there was before.</p> <p>The long-term prosperity of the UK defence industry therefore depends on two things - offering better value for money to the British taxpayer; and being competitive and market sensitive so that the successful export of what is produced is more likely. </p> <p>Over the next four years we will be spending around £50bn on equipment and support. </p> <p>This is not the Government's money.</p> <p>There is no such thing as Government money.</p> <p>There is only taxpayer's money. </p> <p>It is the money that hard-working people and companies big and small have entrusted to us through their taxes so that our country can be more secure.</p> <p>That requires our Armed Forces to be the right size and shape - and to have the right equipment.</p> <p>I do believe in free trade, and in buying off the shelf. </p> <p>Often that shelf will be stocked with British products.</p> <p>But if we don't get value for money at home we will buy elsewhere.</p> <p>Sometimes we forget that the right kit is central to fulfilling the military covenant.</p> <p>Equipment is a welfare issue - not only to the men and women in Afghanistan who I must look in the eye but families at home who worry about their safety.</p> <p>However, industry will not be alone in meeting this challenge.</p> <p>We have pledged our full support to a re-invigorated export strategy as the best way to protect and promote the best of British industry. </p> <p>I will chair the new Defence Exports Group, fully supported by Gerald Howarth and Peter Luff.</p> <p>We need to create a more stable base for industry, less dependent on the UK economy alone</p> <p>Over the next few weeks my ministerial team will be engaging with you to get the best from both Government and industry in support of Defence.</p> <p>Next week Peter Luff will be launching a wide ranging discussion with industry and others to provide a more measured, strategic consideration of UK Defence industrial needs and broader economic competitiveness.</p> <p>This will mark the beginning of the formulation of a comprehensive defence industrial and technology policy.</p> <p>At the UKTI DSO Symposium Gerald Howarth will be updating you on our plans for greater export support.</p> <p>And under the umbrella of the Defence Reform Unit, led by Lord Levene, we will continue to build on the work of the acquisition reform programme to drive through further reform to the acquisition process.</p> <p>Ladies and gentlemen, I do not need to tell you the scale of the economic difficulties we face or the challenges that lie ahead.</p> <p>But I also know how passionate and committed you all are to the defence of our nation, to supporting our Armed Forces and their families, and to making sure they have all they need to keep the country safe.</p> <p>And I again want to say thank you for all the hard work you have done - in helping to look after our people, and in making sure they have the best equipment for the dangerous and difficult job they do.</p> <p>We are in a process of transformation towards a more balanced and stronger economy where industry will play a major role.</p> <p>While we cannot provide certainty in Defence in an unstable world, we can provide better management of unpredictability to enable better management and investment planning for both the military and industry.</p> <p>As difficult as it has been over the last few years, and as difficult as it will remain, I believe that the SDSR has set our Armed Forces on a path towards a sustainable future - in tune with the foreign policy requirements of the country and meeting the needs of national security.</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20101025SsafaIndustryDinner.htm Liam Fox 2010/10/25 - SSAFA Industry Dinner uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 14/09/2010 Ministry of Defence the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association (SSAFA) industry dinner
<p>Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to such an august body.</p> <p>Of course, today marks the 9th anniversary of the Al-Qaeda attacks on Washington and New York that killed almost 3,000 innocent people from over 50 countries, including 66 British citizens.</p> <p>It was a well planned and well executed attack by a well financed and organised group of fanatics against highly symbolic targets.</p> <p>It was designed to create the maximum loss of life and maximum misery.</p> <p>It was an attack not just against people or property, but against a whole way of life; not just against the United States, but against all free peoples.</p> <p>The carnage did not discriminate between nationality, colour or religion.</p> <p>The atrocity of 9/11 changed the lives of thousands of families and it changed the way political leaders saw the world.</p> <p>The horror and pain of those dreadful hours is forever etched on the memories of those who witnessed them.</p> <p>We will not and must not forget.</p> <p>It is what trans-national terrorism looks like.</p> <p>For the first and only time in its 60 year history, NATO invoked Article V of the Washington Treaty – an attack against one being an attack against all.</p> <p>In Afghanistan today, the operations of NATO and the other Coalition allies are a direct consequence of 9/11.</p> <p>It was there that the Taliban rulers gave Al-Qaeda sanctuary, allowed it to run terrorist training camps, and made it a base for terrorist attacks across the world.</p> <p>That is why the Taliban were driven out of power by Afghan and international forces, and it is why Al-Qaeda were forced to flee to the border areas of Pakistan.</p> <p>Although reduced and under considerable pressure, they are still there and continue to pose a real and significant threat to us.</p> <p>However, I think that we need to be frank in our analysis of how we have come to the point in which we find ourselves today.</p> <p>The attacks of 9/11 changed our thinking so profoundly that it is difficult to make objective judgements about what went before; but there can be no doubt that 9/11 signified a failure, at least to some degree, of intelligence and policy.</p> <p>Although the threat from Al-Qaeda was recognised, it was not given the prominence it required.</p> <p>In the UK for instance, we assessed that Afghan-grown narcotics posed a greater threat than Afghan-based terrorism.</p> <p>On the basis of the sporadic attacks from Al-Qaeda and their limited effect, it looked as if the threat was being contained.</p> <p>Well, we were wrong, and our presence in Afghanistan now is a consequence of this misjudgement.</p> <p>9/11 is what failure in Afghanistan looks like, and 9/11 is what the failure to confront trans-national terrorism will look like.</p> <p>As we learn the lessons of our engagement in Afghanistan, we must be careful not to use them dogmatically as exemplars of other current challenges or those that we may face in the future.</p> <p>We can never assume that the conflicts of the future will be the same as the conflicts of today.</p> <p>Afghanistan is a country with a difficult history, complex ethnic makeup and a culture of fierce independence.</p> <p>I think that it would be a reasonable critique to say that in 2002/2003 the international community’s plan to grow security and governance in Afghanistan was too optimistic and too unrealistic when set against the Taliban’s ability to regenerate and adapt.</p> <p>It would also be a reasonable critique to say that since that time, and up to the reinvigoration of strategy and the military and political surge of the last year, our collective ambition was not complemented by a collective willingness to commit the necessary military, political and civilian effect to achieve our aims.</p> <p>In particular, we should rue the lost opportunities between 2002 and 2006 to build up the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) so that there were indigenous forces alongside ISAF strong enough to confront the gathering strength of the Taliban, particularly in the South.</p> <p>Therefore, let me suggest three lessons for the future.</p> <p>First, that the threats to international security and our national interests from trans-national terrorists, who have access to all the tools of our networked and globalised world, are less susceptible to traditional responses and strategies; they demand an updated concept of deterrence.</p> <p>Let us remember that to terrorists who seek martyrdom and do not value their own lives, let alone those of civilians, the simple threat or use of force may not be a deterrent.</p> <p>In fact, it may be exactly what the terrorists are seeking.</p> <p>We have to demonstrate that our response to any attacks is measured and targeted, will reduce their ability to operate, and take them further from their political goals.</p> <p>Second, that when the international community chooses intervention over deterrence or containment, we must match our aims and ambitions with the political, military and civilian resources commensurate with the task.</p> <p>Third, when intervention becomes necessary, it is not enough for our armed forces to provide externally mediated security.</p> <p>That can bring only temporary relief and buy us time.</p> <p>Our focus must also be on the building of the capacity of indigenous governance, and specifically to build local and culturally acceptable follow-on forces to provide the foundations of lasting security.</p> <p>Almost nine years on, longer than World War Two, the job in Afghanistan remains unfinished.</p> <p>The Government of Afghanistan is not yet capable of securing its own territory.</p> <p>Without the presence of ISAF, Al-Qaeda could return to Afghanistan and the threat could rise again.</p> <p>Not only would we risk the return of civil war in Afghanistan, creating a security vacuum, but we would also risk the destabilisation of Pakistan and other neighbouring states with significant consequences for regional and international security.</p> <p>If we were to leave before 2015, a point at which on current progress we expect to have achieved our security aims, it would be a shot in the arm to violent jihadists everywhere, re-energising violent radical and extreme Islamism.</p> <p>It would send the signal that we did not have the moral resolve and the political fortitude to see through what we ourselves have described as a national security imperative.</p> <p>Premature withdrawal would also damage the credibility of NATO that has been the cornerstone of our defence for more than half a century, and also undermine the United Nations under whose authority we are operating there.</p> <p>Let me be very clear.</p> <p>We do not seek a perfect Afghanistan, but one able to maintain its own security and prevent the return of Al-Qaeda.</p> <p>This aim also requires working with Pakistan to enhance their ability to tackle the threat from their side of the border.</p> <p>In Afghanistan, success means, first, continuing to reverse the momentum of the Taliban-led insurgency.</p> <p>Second, containing and reducing the threat from the insurgency to a level that allows the Afghan Government to manage it themselves.</p> <p>Third, supporting the Afghan Government to develop a stable and capable enough system of national security to provide internal security for its people on an enduring basis.</p> <p>That is why we are supporting more effective Afghan governance at every level, and building up the capacity of the ANSF and the institutions that manage them as rapidly as is feasible.</p> <p>Many ISAF patrols are conducted with Afghan forces, as ISAF and the ANSF operate together, living and working side by side.</p> <p>There are risks in partnering; we have sadly seen some of them.</p> <p>We try to reduce them to a minimum, but partnering is the quickest, most effective and ultimately the safest way to build a capable ANSF, which is the key to bringing our forces home.</p> <p>In Afghanistan now, I believe we have the right counterinsurgency strategy, and the tools to implement it are increasingly being put in place.</p> <p>We measure its success not in the number of dead terrorists or insurgents, but in the number of the local population protected and in the number of Afghans who believe we and they are gaining the upper hand and have the will to see the campaign through.</p> <p>However, while our aims cannot be achieved without the necessary military means, they cannot be achieved by military means alone.</p> <p>Defence, diplomacy and development are all part of the same solution, seeing Afghanistan in its regional context as Henry Kissinger pointed out last night.</p> <p>Insurgencies usually end when there is political settlement and when government is able to provide a brighter future for its own people.</p> <p>Therefore, bringing peace and stability in Afghanistan is a process and not an event.</p> <p>Supporting and facilitating the Afghan Government's political process for reconciliation and reintegration initiatives must be an imperative.</p> <p>To progress this, an Afghan High Peace Council will oversee a process towards a political settlement for all the Afghan people, underpinned by the Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund.</p> <p>Progress is being made on the security, governance and development fronts; it is hard and it is slow but it is real.</p> <p>Only three weeks ago I revisited Lashkar Gah in the south of Helmand.</p> <p>Six months ago I would have been in body armour and an armoured vehicle; you can now walk around Lashkar Gah.</p> <p>The civilian airport is open with three flights a day to Kabul.</p> <p>The ice factory is open, not a great deal for us, but for them it is the most obvious sign that economic normality is returning, with the ability to maintain fresh produce in the local markets in the villages around.</p> <p>As Afghan sovereignty grows, so the nature of ISAF operations and the role of our forces will continue to evolve.</p> <p>The incremental process of handing over security responsibility to Afghan control in all provinces and districts by the time of President Karzai’s stated ambition, by the end of 2014, must be based on an assessment [of] conditions on the ground.</p> <p>It also means that there will have to be adaptable transition along the way to meet our commitment to withdraw combat forces by 2015, and we should not raise expectations about the speed with which this change of role will happen.</p> <p>In fact, unrealistic expectation has sadly been a hallmark of far too much of the approach to policy on Afghanistan in the previous years.</p> <p>Even as transition takes place, there will be capability weaknesses inside the ANSF that need to be addressed, and our forces – and we must accept this - may have to be there in a mentoring and a training role for some considerable time.</p> <p>On top of that, the wider elements of reconstruction and governance in Afghanistan will require the non-governmental organisations and the wider international community to be there for a long time.</p> <p>All of us want our troops home as quickly as possible, but to achieve this goal the gradual drawdown in ISAF force levels so that the Afghans can take responsibility for themselves must be done in a coherent way.</p> <p>It must be done as an alliance, not as individual nations.</p> <p>This is about phasing out, not walking out.</p> <p>We are six months into an 18-month military surge designed to deliver the counterinsurgency strategy, and we are not yet at the point where we can pass definitive judgment.</p> <p>However, over the last few years the strategic position of the insurgency has begun to deteriorate.</p> <p>Pakistan is taking the threat seriously, and the safe havens in Pakistan are being squeezed by Pakistani Security Forces.</p> <p>The ISAF coalition has increased its commitment to the mission, in manpower and equipment.</p> <p>The Taliban have lost significant ground in their southern heartland, including the key population centres.</p> <p>We have been targeting their bomb-making networks and their leadership and command structure.</p> <p>Their network is under significant pressure, with the senior leadership isolated, training deficient, and supplies limited.</p> <p>They are incapable of stopping the expansion of the ANSF, which is bringing closer the potential collapse of their strategic position.</p> <p>Their only realistic hope is that international resolve to continue the war will collapse before the Afghan Government itself is effective enough to stand on its own.</p> <p>The message we must send as an international community is that this hope is an empty one.</p> <p>We remember the lessons of 9/11.</p> <p>We will not let that threat to our people re-emerge and we are committed to finishing the task.</p> <p>Ladies and gentlemen, we in this audience tonight understand the importance of the national security case for our commitment in Afghanistan.</p> <p>However, we should not take for granted that the images of 9/11 still resonate with the public in the same way they did six, seven or eight years ago.</p> <p>An 18-year-old American Marine in Helmand was only nine years old at the time of the attacks of 9/11; a 22-year-old British Lieutenant was only 13.</p> <p>Across the alliance we need to do much better at reminding our publics why we are fighting in Afghanistan and why the cost of failure is a price we cannot afford to pay.</p> <p>We need to have clear messages for the Afghan people, and those messages need to be communicated by our deeds as well as our words.</p> <p>We are neither colonisers nor occupiers.</p> <p>We are there under United Nations authority at the invitation of the Afghan Government.</p> <p>We are not in Afghanistan to create a carbon copy of a western democracy, and we are not there to convert the people to western ways.</p> <p>We seek the government of Afghanistan by the Afghans for the Afghans.</p> <p>We insist only that it does not pose a threat to our security, our interests or those of our allies.</p> <p><br> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20100911TheStrategyForAfghanistan.htm Liam Fox 2010/09/11 - The Strategy for Afghanistan uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 14/09/2010 Ministry of Defence the 8th International Institute for Strategic Studies Global Strategic Review in Geneva
<p>For many of us, the weeks after the election have produced mixed feelings. </p> <p>Relief that our long period in opposition is over - and a few of us spent all 13 years on the opposition front bench - and hope that we can produce something better for our country.</p> <p>But these positive notes are tempered by the growing knowledge that dealing with the dangerous deficit left behind by Labour will be difficult and painful. </p> <p>I set out at the Farnborough air show the two tasks which I believe I have as Secretary of State for Defence in addition to the war in Afghanistan. </p> <p>The first is to help deal with the deficit as part of the coalition cabinet, which understands that without healthy finances we can create neither the public services nor the national security we desire. </p> <p>The second is to carry out a long overdue Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR). </p> <p>It is a disgrace that Labour allowed 12 years to elapse without conducting a Defence review despite committing our Armed Forces to conflicts in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan and with the enormous changes in the global security picture. </p> <p>This Government will not shirk our responsibility however hard the task may be.</p> <p>Now, I didn't come into politics wishing to see a reduction in our Defence budget. </p> <p>Neither did David Cameron. </p> <p>Indeed, we have both often argued in the past that in a dangerous world – the world in which we live - there is a strong case to increase our spending on national security. </p> <p>But while we can never predict where events will take us or the unavoidable bills we will have to pay as a consequence, we must confront the ghastly truth of Labour's legacy. </p> <p>Next year the interest bill alone for Labour’s debt will be over £46bn – more than the entire Defence budget for the UK.</p> <p>The cuts that we are facing are Labour's cuts. </p> <p>If it had not been for the policies of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown they would not have to happen at all. </p> <p>There is an unfunded liability in Defence of around £37 billion over the next 10 years.</p> <p>The equipment and support programme alone makes up over £20 billion of this - that is equipment they planned without ever having an idea whether the budget would be able to afford it. </p> <p>During their time in office Labour pushed projects ever more desperately into future years to try to make an impossible budget balance in year, only to increase the overall cost of the Defence programme still further. </p> <p>They behaved like someone who has just received a catalogue in the post and who keeps ordering more and more items from it without once considering whether they might have the income to pay for any of them when the goods arrive. </p> <p>The price of this irresponsibility will ultimately be paid for by short-term reductions as we try to return Defence to a sound footing.</p> <p>So we face the SDSR with unavoidably constrained finances. </p> <p>There are three ways to conduct a Defence Review in the circumstances.</p> <p>First, you could just cut a bit of everything. </p> <p>This is what the Department sometimes refers to as the equal pain option across the Services. </p> <p>When I practised medicine I would have regarded giving patients the same treatment irrespective of their diagnosis as profoundly unethical. </p> <p>It is a lazy option.</p> <p>It does not differentiate between capabilities or assess real risk, and I believe it to be intellectually indefensible and strategically dangerous. </p> <p>We cannot continue living hand to mouth with endless salami slicing without any sense of security or stability in either the Defence industry or the Armed Forces. </p> <p>That has too often been the solution in the past and we must do better now and in the future.</p> <p>The second option is to protect current capabilities within a tight financial envelope and trim away any other spending including spending on innovative and future programs. </p> <p>This would merely have the result of fossilising what we are currently able to do at the expense of capabilities we need to invest in for the future.</p> <p>The third option is what I call the 2020 option. </p> <p>It means looking ahead to the end of the decade and deciding what we want our Armed Forces to look like at that time based on the foreign policy goals we have set ourselves, our assessment of the future character of conflict and anticipating the changes in technology that we will need to incorporate. </p> <p>The National Security Council has agreed that the overarching strategic posture should be to address the most immediate threats to our national security while maintaining the ability to identify and deal with emerging ones before they become bigger threats to the UK.</p> <p>This flexible, adaptable posture will maintain the ability to safeguard international peace and security, to deter and contain those who threaten the UK and its interests, and where necessary to intervene on multiple fronts. </p> <p>It will also, crucially, keep our options open for a future in which we can expect our highest priorities to change over time.</p> <p>For Defence this means taking decisions for the long-term and breaking away from the crippling short-termism which was the hallmark of Labour. </p> <p>We need to invest in programs that we will require to put our Defence on a sound footing for the years ahead and divest ourselves of the capabilities which we are unlikely to need in a world where the moral climate demands precision weaponry and where the battle space increasingly embraces the unmanned and cyber domains.</p> <p>So the SDSR is not simply a random selection of cuts but the objective process by which we will shape the Armed Forces we will need at the end of this decade. </p> <p>This review needs to be judged in 5 and 10 years time not the weekend after it is announced.</p> <p>So, let me set out the process of analysis we are going through at the moment. </p> <p>We are contrasting cost savings and the capability implications with the risks that we face in the real global security environment.</p> <p>This means assessing any proposed change in a current programme or platform, against a series of criteria including:</p> <p>First, the cost saving in years zero to 5, 5 to 10 and 10 plus. </p> <p>Second, the capability implications - what capability will be lost as a result of this decision and what other assets do we possess that might give us the same or a similar capability? </p> <p>Third, the operational implications - what operations that we currently undertake, or are likely to undertake, will we be unable to undertake as a result of this change?</p> <p>Fourth, the ability to regenerate the capability, at what cost and in what timeframe.</p> <p>And fifth, the risk in the real world that this capability currently protects us from or is likely to protect us from in the foreseeable future.</p> <p>This is done under the strategic framework set by the National Security Council who will be responsible for decision making on the SDSR as whole.</p> <p>But the SDSR alone will not be enough to sort out the problems facing Defence.</p> <p>As well as setting out the mechanics of the SDSR process, I am today launching a full review of how the Ministry of Defence is run and how we can reform the Armed Forces to produce more efficient provision of Defence capability, and generation and sustainment of operations.</p> <p>There are two broad principles to be followed in the MOD review. </p> <p>The first is a structural reform which will see the Department reorganised into three pillars of Policy and Strategy, the Armed Forces, and Procurement and Estates. </p> <p>The second is a cultural shift which will see a leaner and less centralised organisation combined with devolved processes which carry greater accountability and transparency.</p> <p>The reason behind the first change is that in Opposition we set out why we believed that the management structure was wrong. </p> <p>A logical management structure would be Foreign Policy leading to a Defence strategy, then portfolio management which identified capability gaps followed by specific program identification and finally physical procurement. </p> <p>The new three pillar structure is designed to make this easier and to stop the constant over specification and then re-specification of programs which has led to so many cost overruns and program delays.</p> <p>To ensure oversight and implementation of this programme, I am today setting up the Defence Reform Unit.</p> <p>A heavy hitting Steering Group of internal and external experts will guide the hard thinking and challenge preconceptions.</p> <p>I have asked Lord Levene to Chair this Group and I am grateful for his acceptance.</p> <p>He will be supported from outside the MoD by Baroness Sheila Noakes, George Iacobescu, Dr David Allen, Björn Conway, and Raymond McKeeve. </p> <p>I will announce other members of this team in due course.</p> <p>An MOD implementation team will complete the blueprint for reform by September 2011.</p> <p>We will also review how the Armed Forces undertake the tasks of force generation and sustainability. </p> <p>It has been widely commented upon that it takes our Armed Forces of over 180,000 to sustain a combat force of under 10,000 in Afghanistan.</p> <p>We need to challenge some of the fundamental assumptions which drive force generation, such as tour lengths and intervals, taking into account the varying pressures on our personnel resulting from widely varying missions to see if we can update our practices and produce greater efficiency while implementing the military covenant.</p> <p>A few weeks ago I announced changes to the Rest and Recuperation (R&amp;R) arrangements for Afghanistan. </p> <p>It reduced the length of short tours to less than four months, a duration which does not require a mid-tour R&amp;R break, thus removing an unnecessary pressure on the air bridge.  </p> <p>However, it not only maintained the two week entitlement for those serving six month tours but also gave new rights to post-deployment leave if the two weeks are not achieved, thus fulfilling a promise that the Prime Minister made before the election.</p> <p>We need to review all our current practices to ensure that we are using our greatest asset - our people - to the best of their ability. </p> <p>I have asked the First Sea Lord, Sir Mark Stanhope, the new Chief of the General Staff, Sir Peter Wall and the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Stephen Dalton, to begin this review once the SDSR has been delivered with a view to completing their work by the spring of 2011.</p> <p>I will also ask the Defence Reform Unit to work with the Permanent Secretary, Chief of the Defence Staff and the Service Chiefs to find ways of devolving greater responsibility for the running of the Services themselves. </p> <p>We must get away from the over centralising tendency that has become the hallmark of the MOD in recent years. </p> <p>They will also consider whether the current Senior Rank structure across the Services is appropriate for the post-SDSR world. </p> <p>We cannot demand efficiency from the lower ranks while exempting those at the top.</p> <p>Taken together the SDSR and these changes represent a radical agenda for change. </p> <p>They will turn the appalling legacy of Labour into a once in a lifetime opportunity and demonstrate clearly the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Coalition Government to the long term view. </p> <p>It will reshape the MOD and the Military for the challenges of the future and give greater certainty to those who depend on our defence industries. </p> <p>It is a clear example of how we will govern, not in our own interest, but in the national interest.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20100813TheNeedForDefenceReform.htm Liam Fox 2010/08/13 - The Need for Defence Reform uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 14/06/2010 Ministry of Defence The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors
<p> <strong>Introduction</strong> </p> <p>Go anywhere in the Defence world and say 'Farnborough', and everyone will know what you mean.</p> <p>It means cutting-edge science, innovation, and technology.</p> <p>It offers unique global business opportunities set against one of the best air shows in the world.</p> <p>Here, you have the opportunity to see the best that UK Defence industry has to offer.</p> <p>The UK is uniquely placed in Europe as an attractive investment destination, because we combine large domestic Defence and Security markets with the business friendly environment all investors want.</p> <p><strong>The Realities</strong></p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, as Secretary of State for Defence I am committed to two things.</p> <p>First, to play my part in improving the country's fiscal position, bearing down on the huge budget deficit inherited from the Labour Government.</p> <p>The Government's plans announced in the budget to reduce the deficit announced in the Budget will eliminate the structural current deficit and put the public finances on a firm footing.</p> <p>This is necessary, not optional.</p> <p>The British state is now borrowing one pound for every four pounds it spends, which is increasing the national debt by £3 billion every week.</p> <p>This is not sustainable. We must create the conditions where the wealth creators can strengthen and grow.</p> <p>Without economic strength we will be unable to sustain in the long-term the capabilities required, including military capabilities, to keep our citizens safe and maintain our influence on the international stage.</p> <p>My second commitment is to ensure that in this rapidly changing and dangerous world, and in this tough fiscal climate, the UK has appropriate defences for the threats we face.</p> <p>It is true that we live in a period in which direct conventional military threats to the UK are low, but the security environment can change rapidly.</p> <p>The wider risks to our interests and way of life, whether from terrorists, failed states, conflict between other states, nuclear proliferation, climate change or competition for resources, are growing.</p> <p>We know from historical experience the difficulty of predicting future conflict and we cannot be confident about how, and how quickly, these trends might evolve.</p> <p>We must break away from the recent habit of planning for the best case scenario and then hoping the worst never happens.</p> <p>So I am determined to ensure the UK retains robust and well equipped Armed Forces capable of intervening abroad where necessary to protect our security and interests at home.</p> <p>That would mean, when the national interest demands, maritime-enabled power projection, the capacity to control air-space to guarantee freedom of manoeuvre and the ability to deploy land power with the logistical strength to sustain it.</p> <p>But thanks to the mess left by the last Government, the current Defence programme is entirely unaffordable, especially if we try to do what we need to do in the future while simultaneously doing everything we have done in the past.</p> <p><strong>Support for the Defence Industry</strong></p> <p>These are the unavoidable realities which govern the Strategic Defence and Security Review [SDSR].</p> <p>So change is coming.</p> <p>We do not have the luxury of time, money, or a benign threat environment.</p> <p>The fiscal realities will unavoidably limit the amount of money the Government has available for Defence procurement in the years ahead.</p> <p>So in this austere climate, to ensure this process is not detrimental either to our national security or to the prospects of one of our most profitable and successful industries, the Government is looking to find new ways of encouraging business.</p> <p>So there is a deal here to be struck.</p> <p>The British Government will support the UK Defence Industry as a strategic asset; we will support the drive for exports with an active and innovative programme of Defence Diplomacy.</p> <p>We will ensure that our licensing system works efficiently while ensuring responsible exports.</p> <p>We will develop innovative training and exercise support in conjunction with industry.</p> <p>We will ensure that our own requirements for new equipment are designed from their inception with exportability in mind.</p> <p>We will continue to ensure a dedicated focal point for Government support to exports, and let me pay tribute to the achievements the UKTI [UK Trade &amp; Investment] Defence and Security Organisation [UKTI-DSO].</p> <p>Britain is the second most successful Defence exporter behind the US, sustaining our long-term share of the global market at 20%.</p> <p>Today I can announce that last year we achieved £7.2 billion of new business - a 70% increase over the 2008 figure.</p> <p>But we will aim to grow the UK's share of the Defence Market further.</p> <p>Despite its success, we cannot be complacent about the great work of UKTI-DSO - so we must keep under review the respective roles played by MOD and BIS [Business, Innovation &amp; Skills] in promoting Defence exports.</p> <p>We will reform our acquisition processes and provide our suppliers with increased clarity and predictability including a 10-year planning horizon agreed with the Treasury, audited by the NAO every year.</p> <p>And I am pleased to confirm that a new Defence Industrial Strategy will be published after the SDSR has concluded.</p> <p>Now that's what we can do for you - now what can you do for us?</p> <p><strong>Quid Pro Quo</strong></p> <p>Let me be clear to our suppliers - we demand, and the nation expects, that our Armed forces are provided with the equipment and support they require to do the jobs we ask them to do.</p> <p>But in addition, we demand, and the nation expects, that we can demonstrate value for money on defence expenditure.</p> <p>So we expect to see the benefits of Government support to industry in our own acquisition.</p> <p>Having a strong Defence Industry is a formidable strategic asset.</p> <p>It is a key part of our international security relationships.</p> <p>We want and need a resilient Defence industrial base.</p> <p>So yes, for industry, it is about profit and shareholder dividends - these are no longer dirty words.</p> <p>A resilient Defence Industry provides jobs, tax revenues and an improved balance of payments.</p> <p>But industry's long-term prosperity also rests on offering better value for money to the British taxpayer.</p> <p><strong>Tough Decisions</strong></p> <p>The Strategic Defence and Security Review is underway and we expect that the Defence section of the SDSR to report in the autumn, to coincide with the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review.</p> <p>As part of this work there are three things that must be understood between us.</p> <p>First, without cost containment in the current programmes we have no option but to either cut the programmes currently underway or curtail investment in future programmes.</p> <p>Second, we must reduce fleet numbers that provide any one capability because we cannot afford the luxury of multiple supply chains and the associated training and infrastructure costs.</p> <p>Third, too often in the past we have simply replaced old platforms with an upgraded version of the same sort of equipment.</p> <p>If we continue to spend money on the next generation of what we already have, we will never give ourselves the opportunity to reshape expenditure plans to take into account the need to invest in the technology that is necessary to maintain our advantage in the constant battle for the upper hand in national security.</p> <p>So we will all need to think differently - and this is part of my challenge to you today.</p> <p>We need to make a conceptual leap and develop new capabilities that help us stay ahead of our opponents - particularly when faced with asymmetrical threats.</p> <p>We need to think carefully about what the 21st century battle space requires.</p> <p>In the Second World War, RADAR transformed the way we fought.</p> <p>We need the same kind of transformative innovation for the new era.</p> <p>For example, ISTAR [Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance] and communications can provide critical understanding of the battle space - but only if the information gets to the right people, in the right place, at the right time.</p> <p>New technology, such as instant messaging and 'Satcom on the move', are becoming tools of choice, drawing on established civilian technology and applying it in a military context.</p> <p>We need this kind of agile approach to capability if we are to succeed.</p> <p>This kind of new thinking about the character of warfare and what gives us a technological edge provides an opportunity for industry - particularly, I would venture, Small and Medium size Enterprises who will play a central role in Defence Industrial Strategy.</p> <p><strong>Acquisition Reform &amp; Defence Industrial Strategy</strong></p> <p>In order for industry to take advantage of these opportunities, I will make sure that the MOD's Defence Acquisition Reform Programme is driven by the need to define and then maintain a programme that is affordable in the long-term and sustainable year by year.</p> <p>There's no doubt that in the past there has been a culture of mutual over-optimism on costs, timing and performance.</p> <p>We will need much more hard-headed estimates in future programmes.</p> <p>I do recognise that there are some areas where sovereignty of action for our Armed Forces requires particular industrial capabilities to be protected, as a matter of national security.</p> <p>But we will continue to use open competition on the global market for many of our own major acquisitions - a global market, incidentally, where UK companies compete as global leaders already.</p> <p>We have a close relationship with the United States in a broad range of capabilities and acquisition programmes.</p> <p>And we will step up our engagement with other partners - notably France.</p> <p>Our new Defence Industrial Strategy will explain our priorities and our key policies on supporting both exports and Small and Medium Enterprises.</p> <p>It will also set out our sovereign requirements, and how we will protect the associated industrial capabilities.</p> <p>There will be a wider consultation process that will be announced later this week.</p> <p>By doing so, we will provide governments and industry around the world, with a firm, sustainable basis for planning credible relationships with the UK.</p> <p><strong>Defence Team</strong></p> <p>Today we have a full Defence Ministerial team, and I'd like to give a big welcome to Nick Harvey - one of our Liberal Democrat coalition partners - and Lord Astor. I would like particularly to mention Peter Luff, and Gerald Howarth, and not just because we are in Gerald's constituency but because both have a central role in the reform process.</p> <p>Peter will be pressing ahead with acquisition reform and DIS [Defence Industrial Strategy] as well as his primary role of equipping and supporting our Armed Forces in the wake of the SDSR.</p> <p>Gerald as you know has always been a strong supporter of Defence exports and in giving a specific Ministerial role to exports, he will be your champion in the MOD.</p> <p>But let me say that you can count on the whole team to lend our personal support to export campaigns whenever we can.</p> <p>I'm off again on Sunday to Saudi Arabia. We intend to push at every opportunity to maximise every chance we have for Defence in the United Kingdom.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, I hope I have been clear today about what we face.</p> <p>The Armed Forces must be reconfigured to meet the needs of the evolving security environment and satisfy the needs of the country.</p> <p>The MOD itself will undergo very wide-ranging structural reform and there will be major reform to our procurement practices.</p> <p>I do recognise that the UK Defence industry is a special strategic asset that underpins our strategic relationships.</p> <p>But industry must bring more to the table.</p> <p>If you help us reduce costs - and that includes reduced prices.</p> <p>If we all take difficult decisions now we can avoid having to take bad decisions later.</p> <p>Then I promise if we do so, the rewards for us, you and our country will be worth it.</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20100720FarnboroughInternationalAirShow.htm Liam Fox 2010/07/20 - Farnborough International Air Show uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 14/06/2010 Ministry of Defence the Farnborough International Air Show
<p> <b>Introduction</b> </p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen,</p> <p>With their "UK and the World" programme, Robin Niblett and the Chatham House team are making a serious and welcome contribution to the discussion of British foreign and security policy.</p> <p>I welcome their robust conclusion that "a global role for the UK is ...a necessity, not a luxury". </p> <p>This accords closely with the view of this Government, that Britain must help shape a changing world, rather than merely react to it. </p> <p>The Foreign Secretary set out at the beginning of this month the background to the distinctive Foreign Policy this Government intends to pursue.</p> <p>The Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) will set out how this will be pursued, including the capabilities we will need to protect our security.</p> <p>We are consulting widely with the Armed Forces and their families, civilians working in Defence, our allies, the academic community and others.</p> <p>Details of how to contribute to this can be found on the MOD website.</p> <p><b>The SDSR Opportunity</b></p> <p>We undertake this Review at a testing time.</p> <p>First - our Armed Forces are engaged in a vital struggle in Afghanistan to ensure that trans-national terrorists cannot find safe and unhindered sanctuary as they did there before 9/11.</p> <p>Today's incident is a reminder of the risk taken, and sacrifice made, by our forces everyday in Afghanistan on our behalf. </p> <p>The murder of three brave troops by a rogue ANA officer was a despicable and cowardly act and my thoughts go out to the family and friends of those who have lost their lives. </p> <p>However, this will not affect our resolve to see the mission through in Afghanistan and to train the Afghan National Security Forces so they can one day takeover the security of their country so our forces can come home.</p> <p>Second - the national finances are severely constrained, particularly as we act to reduce the huge budget deficit left by the previous Government which threatens the health of our economy.</p> <p>Third - we face a sobering international environment in which geopolitical balances are shifting and where the risks to our national security are complex, diverse, and characterised by uncertainty.</p> <p>So we are seizing this opportunity to realign our defence and security capabilities with our foreign policy.</p> <p>It enables us to reset and revitalise relationships with our traditional allies and forge new relationships with emerging nations.</p> <p>And it offers us an opportunity to make a clean break from the mindset of Cold War politics and dispense with the conceptual and physical legacies that persist.</p> <p><b>Lessons from The Cold War</b></p> <p>But while we need to put the Cold War behind us, we should not forget the fundamental and timeless lessons that were applied during that long struggle and that are equally applicable in the 21st century.</p> <p>Let me pull out just three for the purposes of our discussions today.</p> <p>First - economic strength underpins the power and influence that we are able to exert on the world stage.</p> <p>Economic stability and prosperity in Britain is the top priority for the Government. </p> <p>It is at the heart of the Coalition agreement.</p> <p>Without economic strength we will be unable to sustain in the long-term the capabilities required, including military capabilities, to keep our citizens safe and maintain our influence on the world stage.</p> <p>Second - the legitimacy enjoyed by the West during the Cold War was in part a product of the developing rules-based international system.</p> <p>The alliances we formed - militarily through NATO, economically through the European Economic Community, and politically through the United Nations - played a key part in restraining, containing and ultimately defeating the Soviet Union.</p> <p>As an open trading nation, Britain's future security and prosperity will be delivered primarily through maintaining a rules-based and stable international order in which there are significant constraints on the use of force.</p> <p>In facing this complex and unpredictable world therefore, it is in our national interest to build and strengthen international governance, not weaken it.</p> <p>But we must also recognise that today, the main threats and risks to our security come from failing states, non-state sources and other asymmetrical challenges. </p> <p>By definition these operate outside the international system and international law - arms smugglers, terrorists, warlords, pirates, international criminal gangs - and of course, worst of all the nuclear proliferators.</p> <p>We will need to work hard to retain a commitment from like minded states to support and if necessary defend the rules based system on which global security and prosperity depends.</p> <p>This will require the political will to invest our national power and prestige in international institutions, in strengthening international law, in maintaining our alliances and in forging new ones.</p> <p>The third lesson from the Cold War I want to raise today is an overarching one and it is this: warfare is not, and never has been, solely about the art of war-fighting.</p> <p>Success in warfare in its most expansive sense requires the application of all levers of power - diplomacy, development, economic strength, trade, cultural influence, and military capability - underpinned by intelligence and information to ensure they are used as effectively as possible.</p> <p>That is why we have brought together the three policy pillars of defence, diplomacy and development in our new National Security Council.</p> <p>Success in warfare also includes having national resilience and political determination to face down threats, to accept the risks to life and limb that that entails, and to have the self-belief, patience and determination to stay the course.</p> <p>We all know, there is no such thing as a risk free war, a casualty free war or a fatality free war.</p> <p>Our Armed Forces accept that - yet they volunteer for the task - that is what makes them truly special.</p> <p>And success means using our power to prevent or dissuade our adversaries from acting against our interests in the first place - which we define as deterrence - or if they do act against our interest to force them to change their behaviour - which is more properly called coercion.</p> <p>The concept of deterrence is as old as warfare itself and is far broader than just nuclear deterrence with which the concept came to be linked during the Cold War.</p> <p>At its most fundamental level, deterrence works by dissuading an opponent from taking action because of the fear that subsequent retaliation will be of sufficient scale as to outweigh any benefits that might have come from the initial action.</p> <p>A broad deterrence posture, particularly conventional deterrence, has not outlived its usefulness with the end of the Cold War, but we must update our understanding and bring our concept of deterrence into the 21st Century.</p> <p><b>Prevention to Intervention</b></p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen,</p> <p>When we talk about deterrence we need of course to place it within a continuum of escalating posture and action which necessarily requires action from across government.</p> <p>Prevention, deterrence, coercion, intervention and stabilisation.</p> <p>At one end is conflict prevention, using all the levers of power short of force - aid, trade, diplomacy and sanctions among others.</p> <p>Defence contributes significantly to this process.</p> <p>We must not forget the utility of Defence Diplomacy in building up understanding and reassurance.</p> <p>For instance undertaking training and exercises with our partners demonstrates our capabilities and forges trust.</p> <p>And let us not forget the enduring links that defence exports can bring.</p> <p>An essential aim of the new Government is to support and enhance Britain's defence exports.</p> <p>Further along the spectrum we move from deterrence, through containment to coercion, the threat of the use of force and ultimately forceful intervention where necessary and stabilisation to prevent a recurrence of the threat.</p> <p>Of course this continuum is not linear - in dealing with crisis situations we many need to apply different measures at the same time with positive inducement aligned to negative consequence.</p> <p>Let me be clear: We must be prepared to defeat threats if necessary when deterrence and containment have not succeeded.</p> <p>We must have a war-fighting edge.</p> <p>As we used to say in my old profession, while prevention is better than cure, cure is a lot better than letting a virulent infection spread.</p> <p>In my view, the benefits we get from being a permanent member of the UN Security Council, from being a lead nation in NATO, in the EU, in the Commonwealth and from membership of other international institutions such as the G8, means we have a responsibility to contribute fully to enforcing the will of the international community.</p> <p>We must stand ready to do just that.</p> <p>These are tough economic times, but whatever the specific outcomes of the SDSR, I am determined to ensure the UK retains robust and well equipped Armed Forces capable of intervening abroad where necessary to protect our security and interests at home. </p> <p><b>Capabilities for Deterrence</b></p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, </p> <p>Deterrence seeks to avoid conflict. </p> <p>It therefore has inherent legitimacy.</p> <p>It is about setting boundaries for action and communicating the risks associated with crossing them.</p> <p>This is primarily about influencing the perceptions and calculations of our adversaries.</p> <p>It may be invisible - we may not always know an opponent has been deterred from damaging our interests because he calculates our response would outweigh his gains.</p> <p>In some cases precision about consequences will be necessary; in others ambiguity may be required.</p> <p>But in all cases, our military capability, combined with those of our allies, will be part of the calculation of those we wish to deter or contain.</p> <p>The costs of deterring conflict will invariably be less than those of direct intervention at scale or the wider price we may pay when conflict destabilises a region.</p> <p>So deterrence is also cost effective.</p> <p>But that does not mean it is cheap or easy.</p> <p>Deterrence only carries weight if our adversaries understand that we have the credible capability to intervene and crucially the political will to carry it through.</p> <p>From a military point of view no other means can provide greater conventional deterrence than the capacity, either independently or with allies, to project credible land, air and maritime power with considerable geographic reach.</p> <p>That would mean, when the national interest demands, maritime-enabled power projection, the capacity to control air-space to guarantee freedom of manoeuvre and the ability to deploy land power with the logistical strength to sustain it.</p> <p>And just let me be clear, the capability to deploy land forces provides an unambiguous signal that the UK and our allies are prepared to meet threats to our interests and security that lie beyond the reach of maritime or air-power.</p> <p><b>The Deterrence Effect of Alliance</b></p> <p>Maintaining capable Armed Forces with the credibility to project and sustain combat power is expensive, but it provides nevertheless the bedrock for general deterrence as a clear sign of a commitment to guard our interests.</p> <p>But the UK will rarely require, or indeed be able to afford, the conventional power to deter every threat to our national security by acting in isolation.</p> <p>This is not new. </p> <p>For the last three hundred years the UK has consistently pursued national security through building international coalitions, from the days of the Duke of Marlborough to the Cold War. </p> <p>Splendid isolation may have an attractive ring for some, but we know it does not work.</p> <p>So let me be clear.</p> <p>A Defence policy that invests considerable weight in deterrence needs to be bound to an international framework, formal alliances and bilateral partnerships that allow us to use diplomatic, economic and military levers of power in combination with others.</p> <p>The UK's capacity to build coalitions, to form and maintain alliances - and importantly, to encourage forward engagement - would be the lynchpin of an effective deterrence posture.</p> <p>NATO has long sustained a credible general deterrence against state threats.</p> <p>And while the direct threat to UK territory is low, we cannot rule out the re-emergence in future of a state-led threat to our homeland - or more likely, to our allies.</p> <p>This risk is mitigated through our membership of NATO's collective defence.</p> <p>The transatlantic alliance is the UK's most important strategic relationship and NATO will remain the UK's instrument of first choice for collective security challenges, and the cornerstone of our defence.</p> <p>But that also means that we need a rational approach to our contribution both to Article 5 commitments and to NATO missions out of area - and that has consequences when reforming our Armed Forces in the SDSR.</p> <p>For example, we need to think carefully if, and if so where, it is necessary to duplicate in quantity capabilities held in large numbers by our NATO allies - and relate that to the need to defend our overseas territories which are not covered by NATO guarantees.</p> <p><b>Deterrence for the 21st Century</b></p> <p>But in today's world, threats to our national interest from state proxies, non-state actors or those emanating from ungoverned space have the highest likelihood. </p> <p>These are less susceptible to traditional concepts of deterrence; in fact they demand an updated concept of deterrence.</p> <p>For instance, to terrorists who seek martyrdom and do not value their own lives, or the lives of civilians, the general use of force may not be a deterrent - in fact it may be exactly what they are seeking. </p> <p>Instead, we have to demonstrate that our response to attacks is measured, will reduce their ability to operate and take them further from their goal.</p> <p>That may mean depriving terrorist groups of space to operate or deny them their support network. </p> <p>It might mean concerted action to undermine their finances. </p> <p>Or it might mean diplomatic action.</p> <p>The best possible insight and understanding, based on good information and intelligence are required to judge what action would be most successful - including when the use of force would be appropriate.</p> <p>None of this is easy, but we will only have any hope of being effective if we retain effective capabilities, strong intelligence and united international political will.</p> <p>We must show resolve because this acts as a deterrent to people who may otherwise be drawn to the same methods.</p> <p>We must show that we refuse to be terrorised.</p> <p>We must show that we are resilient in the face of attack. </p> <p>This is the responsibility of all of us, not only those of us in government. </p> <p>Terrorists threaten whole societies, and we all - government, public, media, business - must defend our freedoms and our way of life. </p> <p>So deterring some 21st century threats most definitely requires the comprehensive approach - cross-cutting, cross-government, multi-disciplined and multi-pronged. </p> <p>Our Defence policy will need to be better integrated with all the levers of national power and influence, and our Armed Forces will need to have an improved ability to operate side by side with civilian agencies in a conflict zone, just as they are doing today in Afghanistan.</p> <p>Deterrence in the 21st century will require our Armed Forces, in alliance with others, to provide the capacity for a broad and flexible spectrum of possible responses, adopting postures and capabilities that will be relevant in deterring and, if necessary, dealing with both state and non-state threats. </p> <p>This means they will need to be more agile and more adaptable.</p> <p>More mobile strategically, operationally and tactically.</p> <p>And better integrated across land, sea and air with improved access to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance technology, informed by critical situational awareness on the ground.</p> <p>The ability to deploy Special Forces will be very essential.</p> <p>Such a posture would provide decision makers with as wide a range of options for deterring, containing or dealing with a threat - up to and including the use of force.</p> <p><b>Nuclear Deterrence</b></p> <p>The nuclear deterrent is of course fundamental to our ability to deter the most destructive forms of aggression. </p> <p>This Government played a strong role in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and will continue to press for continued progress on multilateral disarmament.</p> <p>But in an unpredictable world where we cannot see very far into the future, where nuclear weapons will not be dis-invented, where we are seeing wider proliferation, this Government will not take a gamble with the country's future.</p> <p>The coalition agreement is clear.</p> <p>The current policy of maintaining the UK's essential minimum deterrent remains unchanged.</p> <p>Yes, I accept the capital costs of the successor programme are likely to be up to £20bn spread over the next decade or so.</p> <p>But that seems to me to be pretty good value when compared with the amount spent every year by Government - over £650bn annually.</p> <p>Where we can reduce the costs of the current policy we will.</p> <p>That is why we have agreed the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money.</p> <p>That work is being undertaken and is looking at whether this policy can be met while reducing the cost of the successor submarine and ballistic missile systems, including by shifting the balance between financial savings and operational risk.</p> <p>This work will cover the programme timetable; submarine numbers; numbers of missiles, missile tubes and warheads; infrastructure and other support costs; and the industrial supply chain.</p> <p>It is important also to consider the role of NATO in the context of nuclear deterrence. </p> <p>As I mentioned during my last speech here at Chatham House last December, NATO remains an alliance with a "nuclear culture" that should be reflected explicitly in the upcoming Strategic Concept.</p> <p><b>Conclusion</b></p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, the SDSR will be watched closely by our adversaries and allies alike.</p> <p>We must make sure that the signals we send are not perceived as a diminution of our commitment to engagement in world affairs, nor as curtailing our ability to respond to the threats we face.</p> <p>So where we can deter we will, where we cannot deter we will contain, where we cannot contain, we will deploy force and seek to defeat the threat.</p> <p>What we will not do is place at risk the British people, our interests, or our allies.</p> <p>We will not bend to the will of those who threaten our values, our liberty or our way of life.</p> <p>Our opponents need to be convinced that we have the political will to oppose them, the support of our people and the means to follow through. </p> <p>We would put this country at risk if we did not make every effort to make deterrence credible, on all counts.</p> <p>That means updating our concepts, as well as our capabilities. </p> <p>A stable international order and security of the global commons is essential if our interests are to prosper. </p> <p>For freedom of action to defend our interests, we depend on the legitimacy we have as a positive and active member of the international community.</p> <p>With power comes responsibility.</p> <p>The starting point for Britain to exercise that power and fulfil that responsibility is through a strong international system, a strong alliance structure, a strong economy and ultimately strong defence.</p> <p><b></b> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20100713DeterrenceInThe21stCentury.htm Liam Fox 2010/07/13 - Deterrence in the 21st Century uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 14/06/2010 Ministry of Defence Chatham House, London
<p>First, let's remember why we went to Afghanistan. </p> <p>In each generation, there are moments of history that people remember vividly – where they were, what they were doing and how they felt.</p> <p>9/11 was one of those moments.</p> <p>I was in the House of Commons in London.</p> <p>On hearing about the first crash, I switched on my television as the second plane smashed into the South Tower. That was the moment my disbelief turned to horror.</p> <p>It was soon clear that was not an isolated act by a small group of individuals, but a well planned and well executed attack by a well financed and organised group of fanatics against a highly symbolic target. </p> <p>It was designed both to create maximum loss of life and to diminish the American people's faith in their own government.</p> <p>It was an attack not just against people or property, but against a whole way of life – not just against the United States, but against all free peoples.</p> <p>A few days later I saw Ground Zero for myself - the ruins of the World Trade Centre still smouldering, marking the graves of over 2,500 innocent people.</p> <p>The carnage did not discriminate between nationality, colour or creed.</p> <p>It changed the lives of thousands of families and it changed the way political leaders saw the world.</p> <p>On 9/11 the world not only watched – the world then acted.</p> <p>For the first and only time in its 60 year history, NATO invoked Article V of the Washington Treaty – an attack against one being an attack against all.</p> <p>So in Afghanistan today, the operations of NATO and other Coalition allies are a direct consequence of 9/11.</p> <p>It was there that the Taliban rulers gave Al-Qaeda sanctuary, allowed it to run terrorist training camps, and made it a base for terrorist attacks across the world.</p> <p>The Taliban were driven out of power by Afghan and international forces.</p> <p>Al-Qaeda fled to the border areas of Pakistan.</p> <p>Although reduced and under considerable pressure, they are still there and continue to pose a real and significant threat to us.</p> <p>So the first reason we cannot bring our troops home immediately is that their mission is not yet completed. </p> <p>Were we to leave prematurely, without degrading the insurgency and increasing the capability of the Afghan National Security Forces we would probably see the return of the destructive forces of trans-national terror. </p> <p>Not only would we risk the return of civil war in Afghanistan creating a security vacuum but we would also risk the destabilisation of Pakistan with potentially unthinkable regional, and possibly nuclear, consequences. </p> <p>The second reason is that it would be a shot in the arm to jihadists everywhere, re-energising violent radical and extreme Islamism. It would send the signal that we did not have the morale resolve and political fortitude to see through what we ourselves have described as a national security imperative. </p> <p>Premature withdrawal would also damage the credibility of NATO which has been the cornerstone of the defence of the West for more than half a century.  </p> <p>To leave before the job is finished would leave us less safe and less secure. Our resolve would be called into question, our cohesion weakened, and the Alliance undermined. </p> <p>It would be a betrayal of all the sacrifices made by our Armed Forces in life and limb.</p> <p><strong><br>Shoulder to shoulder</strong></p> <p>On 9/11, Britain stood shoulder to shoulder with America.</p> <p>In Afghanistan today, Britain stands shoulder to shoulder with America.</p> <p>Shoulder to shoulder too with more than 40 other nations who have troops on the ground there.</p> <p>We stand alongside the Afghan Government, with the Afghan National Security Forces who are growing in size, capability and experience every day.</p> <p>And we stand with ordinary Afghans, tired of decades of war, tired of the violent fanatics in their midst, and who crave the security to be able to get on with their lives in peace.  But freedom and security come at a price. </p> <p>In Britain we remain eternally grateful for the sacrifice made in the last century by the millions of people from the US, from across Europe, and from the Commonwealth, near and far, who stood resolutely with us in two world wars - in defiance of tyranny, in defence of freedom. </p> <p>Over the last decade, with our countries engaged in war in Iraq and Afghanistan, remembrance has taken on a new poignancy.</p> <p>This year alone in Afghanistan, 264 US and UK troops have been killed - the Coalition as a whole has lost 321.  </p> <p>But the Afghans themselves are also paying an even higher price – a recent Congressional research report estimates that the Afghan National Security Forces have suffered over 3,000 casualties since 2007. They, and countless, thousands of civilians have been victims of the Taliban. </p> <p>But violent extremism and terrorism are not just a problem with Afghanistan.  </p> <p>On the other side of the border the Pakistani security forces, too are making significant sacrifices too as they hunt down al-Qaeda and violent extremists in their own country.</p> <p>We cannot take the risk of a destabilised Pakistan. We must support their Government in defending the security of their population.  </p> <p>Make no mistake, al-Qaeda and their Taliban supporters are taking considerable hits—their global core has been severely degraded.</p> <p>In Afghanistan, the counterinsurgency strategy is increasingly being put in place. Measuring its success not in the number of dead terrorists or insurgents but in the number of the local population protected and in the number of Afghans who believe we and they are gaining the upper hand and have the will to see the campaign through. </p> <p>A safer, more secure population means better intelligence—intelligence on where IEDs are planted and by whom, where arms are stored and where the local insurgents are. </p> <p>As we challenge the insurgents on their vital ground we are bound to meet resistance and increased violence. </p> <p>That is why, I am afraid, we are likely to see an increased number of ISAF casualties over this summer.</p> <p>The political and military leaders across the ISAF nations need to prepare our publics for us. </p> <p>But we must hold our nerve, maintain our resolve, and have the resilience to see the job through.</p> <p><strong><br>Strategy to succeed</strong></p> <p>So what will success look like? Let us remember that our mission in Afghanistan is first, foremost and in its finality a mission of national security.</p> <p>Our purpose is to degrade and manage the terrorist threat emanating from the region to ensure al-Qaeda cannot once again have sanctuary in Afghanistan.</p> <p>So in Afghanistan success means first continuing to reverse the momentum of the Taliban-led insurgency. </p> <p>Second, to contain and reduce the threat from the insurgency to a level that allows the Afghan Government to manage it themselves. </p> <p>And third creating a stable and capable enough system of national security and governance so the Afghan Government can provide internal security on an enduring basis.</p> <p>This is necessarily a comprehensive effort.</p> <p>So we must remember this is not a classic war of attrition.</p> <p>Our aims will not, and cannot, be achieved by military means alone.</p> <p>There is no cliff edge towards which the Taliban are being herded.</p> <p>There will be no decisive Napoleonic battle.</p> <p>There is no group of commanders sitting patiently in a tent awaiting a delegation under a white flag offering a formal surrender.</p> <p>Insurgencies usually end with political settlements.</p> <p>So bringing peace and stability in Afghanistan will be a process and not an event. </p> <p>An effective Government—on both the local and national level, and an inclusive political settlement will be vital to lasting peace.</p> <p>Supporting and facilitating the Afghan Government's political reconciliation and reintegration initiatives such as the recent Peace Jirga must be an imperative.</p> <p>But we must also keep pressure on the Afghan Government to make progress on the pledges made at the London Conference – to tackle corruption and to improve its efficiency.</p> <p>The aim of these initiatives is to provide confidence in the Afghan people for a better future. </p> <p>By showing the Afghan people that their path leads away from the Taliban.</p> <p>By supporting brave individuals and villages who stand up to intimidation.</p> <p>By encouraging local shuras to seek and support the stability and security that ISAF, the ANSF and the Afghan Government can bring.</p> <p>That is why the work of the Provincial Reconstructions Teams is so important, with civilian experts from a wide range of Government Departments operating alongside the military to help local Afghans bring improved governance, services and development.</p> <p>Improvements which reduce the need for ordinary Afghans to turn to the Taliban for work, money or justice, make security and lasting stability more likely.</p> <p>Can it be achieved? </p> <p>I believe it can.</p> <p>We are making real progress.</p> <p>The British effort has been focussed in Helmand since 2006, alongside troops from Denmark, Estonia and most recently Georgia and now with the significant resources of the US Marine Corps.  Afghan Government authority now extends to over three quarters of Helmand districts compared to less than half only two years ago.</p> <p>Areas that were once overrun by insurgents, such as Nad 'Ali, are now slowly returning to a semblance of normal life. I walked round the market there myself just a few weeks ago. </p> <p>In Marjah the situation is more difficult and complex, with the Taliban still attempting to exert influence through intimidation and brutality.</p> <p>This was always going to be the most difficult challenge.</p> <p>In a campaign which has the allegiance of the population at its heart, it is going to take time to build confidence, for Afghan government institutions to develop and see the improvements that have been made elsewhere. </p> <p>Across Afghanistan stabilisation advisers, political officers and governance experts are on the ground alongside the military and the UN: establishing community councils; dealing with security, justice and economic development; helping build hospitals, clinics and schools; improving irrigation systems for farmers and enabling major projects to build up infra-structure and commerce.</p> <p>But of course, without the security that ISAF brings alongside the Afghan National Security Forces, this effect will not last. </p> <p>The Afghan Army has been growing steadily over the years - and by 20 per cent in recent months, to around 125,000.</p> <p>The ANSF already has leads responsibility for security in and around Kabul.</p> <p>But we need to strengthen the training mission even further. Some countries may have political or constitutional problems sending combat troops. We are not happy about that, but we understand it. But there is no reason why any NATO country cannot do more to help train the ANSF – it is a measure of our commitment and resolve as an Alliance.</p> <p>In military terms, building the size and strength of the Afghan National Security Forces is the route to bringing our troops home without leaving a security vacuum behind. </p> <p>I am heartened by the progress that has been made, but I recognise that the tough times are by no means over.</p> <p>It was a true sign of statesmanship from President Obama last year, that he was able to keep his focus on the interests of national and international security, and put his authority behind the surge, regardless of domestic political considerations.</p> <p>In the capitals of the ISAF nations, we must all recognise that tactical set-backs are not strategic defeats.</p> <p>Progress will be incremental.</p> <p>Our natural impatience to see our troops come home, should be seen in the context of the needs of national security. As David Cameron made clear to the British Parliament on Monday, the presence of large-scale ISAF forces cannot be indefinite. We want the Afghans to assume increasing responsibility for security within the next five years. We need, therefore, to get the job done.</p> <p>This audience understands the importance of the national security case for our commitment in Afghanistan. But we should not take for granted that the images of 9/11 still resonate with the public in the same way they did six, seven or eight years ago. </p> <p>An 18-year-old American Marine in Helmand was only nine years old at the time of the attacks on September 11th. </p> <p>A 22-year-old British Lieutenant was only 13.  </p> <p>Across the alliance we need to do better at reminding our publics why we are fighting in Afghanistan and why the cost of failure is a price we cannot afford to pay. </p> <p>And we need to have clear messages for the Afghan people, and those messages need to be communicated by our deeds as well as words.</p> <p>We are neither colonisers nor occupiers.  We are there under a UN mandate.</p> <p>We are not in Afghanistan to create a carbon copy of a western democracy, and we are not there to convert the people to western ways. </p> <p>We seek the government of Afghanistan by the Afghans themselves.</p> <p>We insist only that it does not pose a threat to our security, our interests or our allies.</p> <p><strong><br>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>Our two countries are working hand in glove in Afghanistan.  And I am clear that Britain's relationship with the US will remain central to and critical for our national security. </p> <p>The United States will remain the United Kingdom's most important and prized strategic relationship.</p> <p>And NATO will remain our first instrument of choice for responding to the collective security challenges we face.</p> <p>It is for that reason that interoperability with partners will be a core part of what we will be seeking to achieve in the Strategic Defence and Security Review we are now undertaking.</p> <p>Clearly we need to consult with our allies in this work.</p> <p>And I have taken forward these discussions on my visit here with Secretary Gates and others.</p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen,</p> <p>The relationship between our two nations is based on shared history, shared values and shared interests.</p> <p>We have stood shoulder to shoulder at many times in the past, in the face of tyranny and adversity – in defence of freedom.</p> <p>And today in Afghanistan we stand shoulder to shoulder again, alongside our many partners and alongside the Afghans themselves.</p> <p>In his famous speech at Fulton, Missouri in 1946, Winston Churchill warned that fraternal association would not be enough to overcome the Iron Curtain that he described dividing the free world from the subjugated.</p> <p>Churchill said this needed: </p> <p>"The continuance of the intimate relations between our military advisers, leading to common study of potential dangers, the similarity of weapons and manuals of instructions…."</p> <p>I too believe that now, in our age, in the shadow of 9/11, fraternal association is not enough.</p> <p>We must continue to strengthen our military relationship and remodel our Armed Forces to face new threats in this new era.</p> <p>For when the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack fly side by side, we are greater than the sum of our parts.</p> <p>And together, we can forge a better, safer future.</p> <p><strong>ENDS</strong></p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20100630HeritageFoundation.htm Liam Fox 2010/06/30 - Heritage Foundation uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 14/06/2010 Ministry of Defence the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC
<p> <strong>Introduction </strong> </p> <p>In February as Shadow Defence Secretary, I spoke here at RUSI about the challenges that would face a new Government in conducting a Strategic Defence and Security Review.</p> <p>I said then that this would necessarily be a strategic review, led by the requirement to deliver and support the sort of foreign policy this country needed.</p> <p>I said then that our approach to Defence needed a step change not minor tinkering with the system.</p> <p>I said then we would have to confront the harsh facts of the economic climate in which we operate.</p> <p>Today, as Secretary of State for Defence, I can confirm that all of these will be the case.</p> <p>The Strategic Defence and Security Review will make a clean break from the military and political mindset of Cold War politics. </p> <p>It will be a strategic, cross-government and comprehensive, covering all areas of defence and security.</p> <p>We will make sure that the capabilities we invest in are those best placed to provide the security we need for the future.</p> <p>We will bring defence policy, plans, commitments and resources into balance, and produce over time a transformative change to British Defence.</p> <p>Gone will be the salami-slicing approach of the previous Labour Government, replaced with a considered, coherent, long-term direction for Defence policy that is achievable and sustainable.</p> <p>I want to set out for you today the foundations upon which the SDSR will be built.</p> <p>I want to be frank about the dangerous and unpredictable nature of the security environment in which we live and the dire economic realities we will have to confront.</p> <p>I want to be optimistic about the outlook for the financial position but am sorry to say that the view from Government is even more bleak than it looked from opposition.</p> <p>As the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have set out, now the books have been opened there is no doubt about the need for reform and change across government as a whole.</p> <p>I want to make sure that there are no illusions about the daunting scale of the challenge we face.</p> <p>But before this, I want to go back to first principles and set out briefly the approach to Defence that this Government will be taking.</p> <p><strong>Purpose of Defence</strong> </p> <p>The first duty of Government, and is bears repeating, is to protect our way of life and provide security for our citizens.</p> <p>While many arms of Government are directed towards or contribute to this aim, it is the Armed Forces that are central to this effort.</p> <p>Of course there are many things our Armed Forces can do in the promotion of our national interest and to support Government policy more widely.</p> <p>Our Service personnel are highly committed and extremely capable with a “can-do” attitude, and with the equipment, logistics and know-how to deal with a wide range of situations.</p> <p>We know that we can rely on them to fulfil whatever task is thrust upon them.</p> <p>That might be resilience operations here in the UK, such as helping in the aftermath of flooding; or where there is a need for military capability to assist an urgent life-saving humanitarian crisis abroad.</p> <p>But we must not lose sight of their primary mission - to maintain the capability to apply lethal force where needed so that political decision makers have the widest possible range of choices when making strategic decisions.</p> <p>This has two aspects.</p> <p>First, our Armed Forces protect our citizens and territory by deterring and containing threats - preventing possibilities from becoming actualities.</p> <p>In his contribution to the 1907 Hague Peace Conference, the naval historian and strategist Sir Julian Corbett had his tongue firmly in his cheek when he wrote:</p> <p>“As the buffalo found the lion in its path, he exclaimed, with a superb gesture - I mean to remain true to my vegetarian principles.”</p> <p>The central message of Corbett’s metaphor is that a declaration of peaceful intent is not sufficient to dissuade an aggressor.</p> <p>We underestimate the value of deterrence at our peril and we do ourselves a disservice if we merely confine it to the concept to nuclear weapons.</p> <p>The nuclear deterrent is of course fundamental to our ability to deter the most destructive forms of aggression. </p> <p>But we must also remember the powerful deterrent effect of our conventional forces. </p> <p>Recently we have perhaps failed fully to recognise this. </p> <p>I want the SDSR to change that, to take a fresh look at what we are doing to dissuade aggression, and how we might do this better.<br>This brings me to the second aspect of the Armed Forces’ primary mission.</p> <p>Defence is also there for when everything goes wrong, when deterrence and containment have failed, when diplomacy is exhausted, and as a last resort, the use of lethal force is required.</p> <p>No other arm of Government can deliver this or is designed for this purpose and it cannot be outsourced or delegated, even to our friends.</p> <p>So our Armed Forces must be structured first to deter and second to deliver the use of force in support of our national interest and to protect national security.</p> <p><strong>Afghanistan </strong></p> <p>We undertake this Strategic Defence and Security Review at a time when our Armed Forces are delivering on this primary mission in Afghanistan.</p> <p>As the Prime Minister told our troops last week-we are in Afghanistan out of necessity, not choice.  </p> <p>Our mission in Afghanistan is vital for our national security, vital for the security of the region and vital for global stability.</p> <p>We cannot allow Afghanistan to be used again as a haven for terrorists or a launch-pad for attacks on the UK or our allies.  </p> <p>So Afghanistan remains our top priority, and our people in theatre will get the best support that is possible.</p> <p>Counter-insurgency needs strategic patience, and we’re committed to seeing the mission through to resolution - creating a stable enough Afghanistan to allow the Afghan people to manage their own internal and external security. </p> <p>This is no time for us to lose our nerve and we must find the language to persuade the British people to stick with us.</p> <p>We also need to have clear messages for the Afghan people.</p> <p>We are neither colonisers nor occupiers.</p> <p>We seek the government of Afghanistan by the Afghans, for the Afghans.</p> <p>We insist only that it does not pose a security threat to the UK, our interests or allies.</p> <p>By the end of the year, I expect that we can show significant progress, consolidating ISAF’s hold in central Helmand and accelerating the training of the Afghan National Security Forces.</p> <p>There is no absolutely reason why any NATO country cannot do more for the training mission - it is a measure of our commitment and resolve as an Alliance - and it is the route to bringing our troops home without leaving a security vacuum behind.</p> <p><strong>Financial Background</strong> </p> <p>But achieving success in Afghanistan must not prevent us from conducting our other operational commitments effectively, such as defending the Falklands, training missions in Iraq or counter-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden.</p> <p>I have likened previously conducting a defence and security review while at war to building a boat while at sea.</p> <p>But after 12 years without a defence review, over a period where our Armed Forces have been at times overstretched, with some current equipment overused and out of date, with legacy programmes from the Cold War that are of less relevance today, and in a terrible economic and financial circumstances, we cannot afford to delay.</p> <p>But I want to be as open as I can about this backdrop because, to be frank, change is not an option, it is a necessity.</p> <p>Take one aspect, the Defence Budget itself.</p> <p>It is no secret that the Labour Government mismanaged Defence to such an extent that the future programme is entirely unaffordable, especially if we try to do what we need to do in the future while simultaneously doing everything in the way we do it today.</p> <p>Even if defence spending kept pace with inflation, we face a deficit of many billions of pounds over this life of this parliament and more over the next decade.</p> <p>To make things worse there are structural pressures on the current budget that operate above inflation and exacerbate the situation.</p> <p>Around 70% of the budget accounts for spending on our people and equipment and support combined.</p> <p>The trend of pay increases for Armed Forces runs at 1.5% above the underlying rate of inflation.</p> <p>We need to deal with the fact that the cost of successive generations of equipment continue to rise at above the rate of inflation though we will be making substantial efforts to get better value for money.</p> <p>Contractual and structural commitments on personnel and equipment mean that the budget is very heavily committed for each of next four years, severely limiting our room for manoeuvre. </p> <p>Labour’s solution to all this was to delay projects, increasing long-term costs, and to continue to rely on an SDR long past its sell by date.</p> <p>For instance the decision to slow the rate of the Queen Elizabeth class Carriers in 2009 increased the overall costs by more than £600m.</p> <p>This shambolic approach to Defence cannot continue.</p> <p>The bottom line is this.</p> <p>No matter how hard we bear down on the costs of administration and drive up efficiency we cannot expect to bridge the gap by these means alone.</p> <p>The problem is structural so the response must be structural to put Defence on a stable footing.</p> <p>The MOD itself must face reform. </p> <p>We intend to reorganise the whole organisation into three pillars- first Strategy and Policy, second Armed Forces and third Procurement and Estates. </p> <p>We intend to create a more efficient and leaner centre where everyone knows what they are responsible for and who they are accountable to - with the deadlines and budgetary disciplines taken for granted elsewhere. </p> <p>Major reform of our procurement practices will be accompanied by a number of industrial consultations that I will outline shortly to Parliament.</p> <p>But as much as structural reform is required, I am equally determined that the Armed Forces are re-configured to meet the needs of the evolving security environment and satisfy the ambitions this country has.</p> <p>We do have to operate in the financial climate we have inherited and Defence cannot be immune from that challenge.</p> <p>We will have to be tough and unsentimental to boot if we are to do what needs to be done.</p> <p>But while the SDSR may be resource-informed, it is policy-led.</p> <p><strong>The Strategic Environment</strong> </p> <p>The Foreign Secretary has set out the new Government’s distinctive British foreign policy that has at its heart the pursuit and defence of UK interests, recognising that our prosperity and security is bound up with those of others.</p> <p>This will require the enhancement of diplomatic relations with key partners, using Britain’s unique network of friendships, bonds and alliances, working bilaterally as well as multilaterally.</p> <p>Britain should shape the world, not just be shaped by it.</p> <p>But we must be clear that this does not mean we must be able to do all things at all times.</p> <p>We will need to be smarter about when and how we deploy power, which tasks we can do in alliance with others, and what capabilities we will need as a result.</p> <p>In the final analysis we will need to retain the capacity to deploy military strength in defence of our own national interests.</p> <p>This must be based on a hard-headed assessment of the current security environment and the growing threats to peace and stability.</p> <p>It remains true that we live in a period in which direct military threats to UK territory are low.</p> <p>But the wider risks to our interests and way of life, whether from terrorists, failed states, conflict between other states, nuclear proliferation, climate change or competition for resources, are all growing.</p> <p>And we know from historical experience the difficulty of predicting future conflict. </p> <p>We cannot jeopardise our future security on the assumption that future conflicts will mirror the current ones. </p> <p>The Defence contribution to the SDSR will balance the immediate demands of the mission in Afghanistan with planning for alternative futures.</p> <p>Over the coming decades we could face:</p> <p>Now, it is conceivable that we will negotiate the next half century without confronting any of these risks and I certainly hope so. </p> <p>But it is equally possible that the UK could face security policy decisions relating to any or all of them during the course of this Parliament. </p> <p>That is the reality of the world in which we live and we must break away from the recent habit of planning for the best case scenario and then hoping the worst never happens.</p> <p>Unlike the Cold War, we cannot be confident about how, and how quickly, these trends might evolve. </p> <p>I shall therefore be conducting a thorough stock take of our contingency plans in the months ahead.</p> <p>Of course responding to such events would not be for Britain alone.</p> <p>Britain’s relationship with the United States will remain critical for our security. </p> <p>It is the most important and prized strategic relationship for the United Kingdom.</p> <p>NATO will remain our first instrument of choice for responding to the collective security challenges we face.</p> <p>In the last decade, NATO has moved unambiguously outside its traditional geographic area, with European allies, such as Germany, deploying troops abroad in ways that would have been inconceivable a decade ago.</p> <p>In places like Afghanistan, we are now operating alongside non-NATO partners, both military and civilian.</p> <p>We must use every lever at our disposal, including the Commonwealth, UN, EU and other regional organisations, to protect our security in an uncertain, unstable, and unpredictable world.</p> <p>That is why a broad programme of Defence Diplomacy is required, as is stepping up bilateral defence co-operation, particularly with nations who share our interests and are prepared to both pay and fight, such as France.</p> <p>We intend to treat, and consequently fund, a Defence Diplomacy programme separately within the SDSR</p> <p><strong>The Way Ahead</strong> </p> <p>Let me then sum up the MoD’s approach to the Strategic Defence and Security Review.</p> <p>First - Relevance - our posture and capabilities must be relevant to the world we now live in. </p> <p>This is our opportunity to dispense with much of the legacy of the Cold War.</p> <p>Second - Realism - resources are tight for the country as a whole and Defence is no exception.</p> <p>This review must be anchored in the art of the possible.  </p> <p>We cannot insure against every imaginable risk so we will need to decide which risks we are willing to meet and which risks we are willing to take. </p> <p>Third - Responsibility - as a nation, we have a duty to give the brave and capable men and women of our Armed Forces our full support in return for the selfless service and sacrifice they are prepared to make in our name.  </p> <p>We must ensure that they have what they need to do what we ask of them - and they and their families are looked after properly during and after service.  </p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong> </p> <p>This will be a major reform agenda - informed by the pressure on resources but driven by the changing world in which we live and the nature of the threats we face.  </p> <p>Let me reassure you that the SDSR will be strategic, cross-Government, and a comprehensive exercise overseen by the newly formed National Security Council, to provide a coherent approach to security, and informed by a new National Security Strategy. </p> <p>We intend to publish our conclusions in a white paper by the end of the year.</p> <p>As I have set out today, we face some difficult, delicate and politically charged decisions.</p> <p>There are competing priorities, risks to manage and budgets to balance.</p> <p>We must act ruthlessly and without sentiment. </p> <p>It is inevitable that there will be the perception of winners and losers as we go through this process.</p> <p>But Defence as a whole must come out in a stronger position.</p> <p>The prize is a safer Britain with secure interests and a sustainable defence programme able to address the needs of today and prepared for tomorrow.</p> <p>As I said earlier, protecting our way of life and providing security for our citizens is the primary and overriding duty of Government, that is why the SDSR must become a national endeavour and all in Government must have the political resilience, strength, will and resolve to see us through.</p> <p><br> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20100614StrategicDefenceAndSecurityReview.htm Liam Fox 2010/06/14 - Strategic Defence and Security Review uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 14/06/2010 Ministry of Defence the Royal United Services Institute, London
<p> <strong>Introduction <br></strong> <br>It is a great pleasure to be back at the Shangri-La Dialogue and an honour to be able to speak to you this year as the new British Defence Secretary, having come here so often as Shadow Defence Secretary in the past.</p> <p>In my new role, I have a daunting array of issues competing for attention. </p> <p>But, I was particularly keen, as you said, John [Chipman – Chair], to attend this conference with its focus on Asian security. </p> <p>And there are compelling reasons for me wanting to do so.</p> <p><strong>Importance of Asia to Britain</strong> </p> <p>The new British Government places a high priority on our relationships in Asia.</p> <p>Britain's national interests are directly affected by the security and defence challenges in this region and intimately linked to those of our friends and our partners here.</p> <p>Asia is one of the driving forces of the globalising world – the largest populations, vibrant and fast-growing economies, with vital trading routes and natural resources.</p> <p>But, the global financial crisis is a reminder of how interlinked our economies and our wider interests have become.</p> <p>Britain’s security and economic prosperity require an ambitious and coherent approach to world affairs, in which Asia plays an important part.</p> <p>Many in this region have long historical relationships with the United Kingdom.  </p> <p>We intend to enhance these links and build better and stronger relationships with new partners.</p> <p>I am here today to say that Britain is getting back to business.</p> <p>Optimistic but realistic.</p> <p>Ambitious yet pragmatic.</p> <p><strong>New Horizons</strong></p> <p>The new Government in Britain represents a generational step-change in our approach to international affairs.</p> <p>Neither the new Prime Minister, the new Foreign Secretary, the new Deputy Prime Minister, nor myself as Defence Secretary were in Parliament at the start of 1989, the year that saw the fall of the Berlin Wall and the beginning of the end of the Cold War.</p> <p>In many ways this is the UK’s first post-Cold War Government.</p> <p>We realize that the world has changed.  </p> <p>We recognise that the world is now multi-polar and multi-powered.  </p> <p>We think globally and will pursue a distinctively British Foreign and Security Policy rooted in our enlightened national interest, but no longer confined to the Euro-Atlantic area.</p> <p>Francis Fukuyama once talked about the end of history. Perhaps he should have been talking about the end of geography – or at least the end of the isolation and insulation that geography once brought.</p> <p>Not only have the information revolution and the internet rendered distance immaterial for many purposes; but, in this globalised world - instability in the world economy, the scourge of terrorism, the threat of nuclear proliferation, the need for development and poverty reduction, and, of course, the consequences of climate change - these are challenges that face not one country, nor even one region, but face all countries in all parts of the world.</p> <p>Today’s world is one of necessary partnership not optional isolation.</p> <p><strong>Shared Threats</strong></p> <p>But for all the benefits that globalisation has brought, we know it also has a darker side. </p> <p>The changes that have brought the promise of common prosperity have also brought threats to common security.</p> <p>For instance, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda use the features of our new world – global communications, cyberspace, devolved networks, diverse finances – for their own vicious and destructive ends.</p> <p>And we also know that the problems that affect one region are likely to be felt elsewhere – and quickly.</p> <p>Take piracy.  Whether it be in the Malacca Strait or the Gulf of Aden, the threat cannot be contained by national boundaries on land or sea. </p> <p>The effects are not just felt by one country or region, nor does any single state have a monopoly over the solutions.</p> <p>The Malacca Straits Patrol has led to a dramatic reduction of piracy here, and your experience is helping to inform operations in the Gulf of Aden where the 27 nation contact group sees NATO and EU countries working alongside many partners from Asia in the interests of a common cause. </p> <p>It is no coincidence that Asian countries are commanding [Combined] Task Force 151 for the first half of this year.</p> <p>In Afghanistan, Asian nations are contributing thousands of troops to the international effort – with more to come this year – and billions of dollars in aid and crucial civilian support have come in too.</p> <p>And whether the danger arises here in Asia or in the Middle East – we all face the risk of a cascade of nuclear proliferation with the instability that that brings, due to the ambitions of Iran and North Korea to build nuclear arsenals.</p> <p>That is why it is a top priority for Britain – as it must be for all of us - to stem the spread of nuclear know-how and equipment. It is essential that we deter any country that seeks to acquire nuclear weapons and keep nuclear material out of the hands of the terrorists who would wreak havoc with it.</p> <p>On North Korea, and in representing a permanent member of the UN Security Council here, let me say this:</p> <p>Firstly, on behalf of the United Kingdom, I would like to express my condolences to the families and friends of those who lost their lives in the appalling and unforgivable sinking of the Cheonan.</p> <p>We strongly support President Lee’s approach of proportionate action in response to this wholly unprovoked act of aggression.</p> <p>As the President said last night, it is important that tensions are not escalated further and that steps are taken to promote stability in the Korean Peninsula.   </p> <p>And this will be reflected in our approach at the UN Security Council where the UK is working closely with the Republic of Korea and other international partners to achieve a suitable response.</p> <p><strong>Shared Institutions</strong></p> <p>The Asia-Pacific security architecture for dealing with challenges and events like this is still maturing.</p> <p>But globally, we must all face similar challenges and we must face them looking to the future not to the past.</p> <p>The review of NATO’s Strategic Concept is one of the ways that we are doing that in the Euro-Atlantic region.</p> <p>Of course, for the UK, our relationship with the United States, in the context of NATO, will remain critical for our security. </p> <p>It is our most important and prized strategic relationship.</p> <p>But Britain also has longstanding and strong Commonwealth ties here. </p> <p>These relationships are highly valued and have stood the test of time.</p> <p>We remain committed, and I reaffirm our commitment today, to the Five Power Defence Arrangements.</p> <p>It is the cornerstone of our engagement in South East Asia. </p> <p>We want to see the Arrangements continue to develop, especially as we approach the fortieth anniversary in 2011. </p> <p>All successful defence organisations need to keep pace with the changing security environment, identify ways of deepening co-operation and ensure that resources continue to be invested in the right areas. </p> <p>We must use every lever at our disposal to protect our security in an uncertain, unstable, and unpredictable world.</p> <p>So, we seek enduring long term structures coupled with a mixture of formal and informal arrangements that have the flexibility to deal with unexpected threats and events at short notice. </p> <p>We are clear that sovereign states make their own decisions on military contributions to missions and on the size and shape of their national Armed Forces.</p> <p>But we are equally clear that cooperation and collaborative solutions are far more desirable and more effective than individual action alone.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>In the context of our common interests, we must tackle together the inequities that exist in those international institutions and multi-lateral relationships which were forged in the aftermath of the World War II and which are often still structured around an out-of-date view of the world.  </p> <p>Each of us, to some degree, is a product of our national culture, our national history and our national traditions.</p> <p>The world maps on the walls of European capitals place the Greenwich Meridian at the centre – technically correct, but often betraying a very Eurocentric view of the world.</p> <p>Increasingly, here and in other parts of the world, the international dateline through the Pacific takes centre stage.</p> <p>We must all overcome parochial views which tie us to the past</p> <p>We must all overcome the psychology of the old world.</p> <p>And this new British Government will think globally and engage globally.</p> <p>New thinking for a new century.</p> <p>New risks, yes, but new opportunities also.</p> <p>We can together shape the world – not just be shaped by it.</p> <p>That is our challenge.  </p> <p>That is also our prize.</p> <p>Thank you.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/SofS/20100605TheShangrilaDialogue.htm Liam Fox 2010/06/05 - The Shangri-La Dialogue uk.org.publicwhip/member/40445 07/06/2010 Ministry of Defence the 9th International Institute for Strategic Studies Asia Security Summit, Singapore
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>On the night of August 6th, and for three further nights, a small minority took to the streets in some of our urban centres looting, vandalising, burning, terrorising the law abiding majority. </p> <p>I think everyone was taken by surprise by the manner in which the violence spread.</p> <p>It seemed as if copy cat opportunism fuelled by digital communications had resulted in mobs gathering in places tens, sometimes hundreds, of miles apart, but bent on the same criminal end.</p> <p>In response, the police adjusted their tactics and order was reasserted - but not before the cry went up from some quarters to put the Army on the streets.</p> <p>I shared the feelings of frustration and disgust that must have been behind such calls. </p> <p>I also believe that in situations of such gravity there is merit in keeping all options available to you on the table.</p> <p>It provides decisions makers with the ability to escalate response if necessary - which in itself can have a deterrent effect.</p> <p>So the suggestion was not necessarily unhelpful.</p> <p>But as the Prime Minister told the House of Commons, the Acting Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said he would have all his management team out on the streets before he asked for the Army.</p> <p>There is much that Defence can do to help facilitate the work of the police and other authorities - providing niche capabilities or aiding capacity - even freeing up police in certain circumstances to enable more to take to the streets.</p> <p>But putting military forces on the streets themselves in a public order role should only happen as a last resort.</p> <p>Today I want to set out why that is the case.</p> <p>I also want to set out how much our Armed Forces do, often unseen, often unsung, to defend the homeland and to make sure that, whenever they are needed, they can mobilise to save lives, protect people and safeguard our way of life.</p> <p><strong>THE LAST RESORT</strong></p> <p>To do this let me set out a little of the historical background.</p> <p>Between the formation across Europe of standing armies in the 17th century, and the advent of modern police forces in the 19th, the maintenance of order remained a primary role of national armed forces, whether regular or militia.</p> <p>In Britain, the regional footprint of the Army meant that when the local judiciary read the Riot Act, it was often the local regiment that responded.</p> <p>The Royal Navy too operated in a law enforcement role against smugglers and pirates in much the same way as they operated against the navies of other states.</p> <p>But the dangers of using the same organisation for national law enforcement as that trained and used for fighting wars against foreign armies were clear.</p> <p>The Peterloo Massacre of 1819 is an infamous example of why this system was wholly inappropriate for a country embracing modern liberal democracy.</p> <p>When a body of men on horseback trained in the cavalry charge and the use of lethal force against foreign infantry, came face to face with the confusion, chaos and provocation of a domestic mob bent on venting anger, inevitably mistakes would be made.</p> <p>And those mistakes would likely be fatal.</p> <p>As Richard Haldane, the reforming Secretary of War put it in 1908 “We want the Army to be a popular institution and not a menace to civil liberty.”</p> <p>It was only when, during the General Strike of 1926, the Police proved themselves capable of maintaining order without assistance that the role of the Armed Forces in public order became that of last resort - the last defence against insurrection.</p> <p>Since then, outside of Northern Ireland, the Armed Forces have not been used in the United Kingdom in a civil order role.</p> <p><strong>THE WRONG SIGNAL</strong></p> <p>The same reasons that led Haldane to resist the use of the military in law enforcement remain true today.</p> <p>Those who are trained in the use of lethal force - trained for battle, trained to impose their will by force on an enemy, trained for the express use of defending the territory and citizens of the country against external threats - they should not be regularly used as an instrument of force against the citizens of that same country.</p> <p>Many countries continue to maintain gendarmerie type forces specifically to deal with major riots or insurrection often under the command of interior ministries rather than defence ministries.  </p> <p>But crucially these gendarmeries - like our own riot police - are trained to deal with the circumstances they are likely to face -  mobs of civilians, maybe even lightly armed.</p> <p>They are also - like our own riot police - fully aware of the legal underpinning of what they are doing.</p> <p>This is not what our Armed Forces are trained for, not what they joined to do.  </p> <p>They would of course have done what was asked, and they would have acted professionally and with self-discipline - but it would not have been fair to ask them.</p> <p>Take the recent history in Northern Ireland.</p> <p>We learned that we need to prepare carefully for deliberate operations with thorough pre-deployment training, including an understanding of the social and legal context and very robust rules of engagement.</p> <p>This would not have been the case if we had rushed the Army onto the streets to deal with rioters this summer.</p> <p>As both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have pointed out, policing in this country is traditionally undertaken by consent.</p> <p>Our Armed Forces are built on an entirely different premise -  they exist to defend the people of this country.</p> <p>We have seen Armies set against citizens this year - in Libya -  in Syria.</p> <p>So think about the signal that putting the Army on the street sends?</p> <p>It means one of two things has happened.</p> <p>Either the police have been so overwhelmed by endemic disorder or factional unrest that emergency measures are required to protect people - in other words - a social collapse.</p> <p>Or the Government has lost its legitimacy, lost its popular support, lost its right to rule and rebellion even revolution is on the cards - in other words - a political collapse.</p> <p>Neither of these were the case in the riots this summer.</p> <p>This wasn’t social protest, it wasn’t revolution, it was criminality.</p> <p>As a society and a government we have to learn the right lessons.</p> <p>The security services too need to be sure they are better prepared for a new type of mob mentality enabled by digital communications that need not be geographically isolated. </p> <p>But Government has to maintain both a sense of proportion and a sense of propriety when responding to situations like this.</p> <p>In circumstances where the Police maintained the capacity to respond, putting the Army on the streets would have been wrong and an over-reaction.</p> <p>It may well have been satisfying for some but it wouldn’t have been satisfactory.</p> <p>This brings me to my second theme today - when the scale or nature of the problem is sufficient to require extraordinary military intervention on home territory.</p> <p>The standing tasks of Britain Armed Forces include a number of operations that could be described as homeland defence.</p> <p>These include the protection of our air space, the control of our national waters and the protection of our interests in nearby international waters.</p> <p>But the safety and security of citizens in the UK is primarily the responsibility of the Home Office, with the police the lead agency in most instances.  </p> <p>So what is the correct role for the military in safeguarding the safety of citizens on home territory?</p> <p>When should the Armed Forces provide, to use its technical term, Military Aid to the Civil Authority?</p> <p><strong>MILITARY AID TO THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES</strong></p> <p>The answer falls into two broad categories - capability and capacity.</p> <p>Let me explain.</p> <p>Many of you will remember the harrowing scenes following the 2001 Foot and Mouth outbreak when the military took responsibility for command and control and many of the other tasks fell to them too - including disposal of animal carcasses.</p> <p>The country was not as prepared as it could have been to meet large scale events.</p> <p>That is why the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 placed a duty on a number of national, regional and local agencies to plan and prepare for all manner of emergencies.</p> <p>This is the resilience model in which an incident is dealt with at the lowest level possible, building on tried and tested local multi-agency working arrangements.</p> <p>Under the Act, no statutory duty is placed on the MOD or the Armed Forces and, with a few exceptions, military personnel and other assets are not held at high readiness to provide support to the civil authorities.</p> <p>But the Armed Force are one of the only organisations in Britain that can provide, even at short notice, sufficient numbers of disciplined, organised and motivated personnel to carry out essential tasks, however distasteful, to save lives, to ensure the continuity of supplies and services, and to provide support when the civil authorities are stretched.</p> <p>Let me be clear - the Armed Forces do not seek, and do not expect, to fill gaps that can and should more appropriately be filled by other government agencies or through the use of commercial operators.</p> <p>The Armed Forces need to concentrate on core defence tasks -to plan for them, train for them, and generate forces against them.</p> <p>One of the positive effects of the Civil Contingencies Act is that it is no longer the default reaction among emergency planners to consider the Armed Forces an easy way out of difficult situations.</p> <p>They are not cheap labour or simple brute strength. </p> <p>These are highly trained men and women - highly capable and highly expensive to mobilise.</p> <p>Consider search and rescue.</p> <p>Royal Navy and Royal Air Force helicopters, aircraft and Mountain Rescue teams were called out over 1,900 times last year to respond to civilian incidents - an average of 5 times a day.</p> <p>Military search and rescues teams do an amazing job in partnership with the Coast Guard and other agencies.</p> <p>The reason we share this vital task at the moment is historic legacy and the lack of civilian capability to fill the role.</p> <p>But there is no intrinsic reason why search and rescue in the UK should be a defence task.</p> <p>That is why it is imperative that the principles behind Military Aid to the Civil Authorities are well understood by planners.</p> <p><strong>CAPABILITY AND CAPACITY</strong></p> <p>First, capability. </p> <p>The Military posses specialised skills and equipment that are sometimes required in an emergency situation that it would be unreasonable or prohibitively expensive for them to be developed elsewhere in Government.</p> <p>Where these are required, particularly at short notice, it makes sense for the Armed Forces to provide them.</p> <p>This can be anything from expertise and specialised equipment to help in the search for missing people to engineering skills in an emergency.</p> <p>During the 2009 floods in Cumbria, for example, when bridges over the Derwent were destroyed, 200 Army specialists, including from the Reserves, built what became known as ‘Barker’s Crossing’ to link the two halves of Workington that had been cut in two. </p> <p>When it comes to specialist security capabilities, for obvious reasons I don’t want to go into specific details, but of course the Armed Forces are prepared to assist where necessary including in a counter-terror role.</p> <p>I can say specifically that the Ministry of Defence provides the Bomb Disposal capability for the country outside London.</p> <p>On this, the Armed Forces respond on average to about 7 call outs a day, although the majority are false alarms, hoaxes or remnant munitions from the 2nd World War.</p> <p>Second, capacity.</p> <p>The Armed Forces have the capacity to augment any emergency response, drawing on people and resources available at the time, if the scale or duration of any emergency threatens to overwhelm civil capabilities - particularly where the need is urgent and lives are in danger.</p> <p>This includes responding to natural disasters or emergency situations created by extreme weather. </p> <p>Last December during the blizzards across the country to Armed Forces assisted in clearing snow so that help could be brought to vulnerable people.</p> <p>All told, in 2010/11, the Ministry of Defence provided operational support to civil authorities on 75 different occasions.</p> <p>Earlier this year for instance, the MOD undertook extensive planning and training for the provision of emergency support to the Ministry of Justice in the event of a Prison Officers strike -  not I hasten to add - to do the jobs of prison officers - but to help ensure that both prisons and prisoners remained safe and secure. </p> <p>Over the years servicemen and women have been used by Government to maintain essential services and supplies in the event of disruption, usually, but not always, as a result of an industrial dispute.</p> <p>Think of the Fire Brigade strikes in 2002 when the Green Goddesses took to the streets.</p> <p>On this I agree with Winston Churchill when he said in 1919 that “To use soldiers and sailors, kept up at the expense of the taxpayer, to take sides with the employer in an ordinary trade dispute…..would be a monstrous invasion of the liberty of the subject”.</p> <p>“But” he added, “the case is different where vital services affecting the health, life or safety of large cities or great concentrations of people are concerned.”</p> <p>It is this caveat, alongside the principles of capacity and capability, which underpins our modern approach to the use of the Armed Forces at times of industrial dispute.</p> <p>Of course, most operations under Military Aid to the Civil Power contain a requirement for both capacity and capability.</p> <p>Take the Olympics in 2012 for example.</p> <p>This will be one of the largest international events to take place in this country for many years.</p> <p>The security challenge is significant and competitors and spectators alike will want to be sure confident of their safety.</p> <p>The world will be watching, our friends as well as our enemies.</p> <p>The experience of other countries is that military assistance is required in a number of roles - including, but not restricted to, securing air space, maritime security, and contingency for rapid response.</p> <p>So it is no surprise that the Ministry of Defence is involved in the formation and execution of cross-Government plans for the Olympics and that the Armed Forces will be playing their part.</p> <p>We expect to be in a position to set out details shortly.</p> <p><strong>THE FUTURE</strong></p> <p>Am I confident that, as a whole, we have the got the role of the Armed Forces in civil contingencies system right?</p> <p>Should there be a more formalised role for the Armed Forces in UK resilience?</p> <p>I am certainly confident in the capacity, professionalism and commitment of our Armed Forces to tackle any task thrown at them.</p> <p>The statutory duties set out under the Civil Contingencies Act continue to provide a sound foundation, but to believe that a system is perfect and cannot be improved is simple complacency.</p> <p>That is why the cross-government approach undertaken by the National Security Council is so important.</p> <p>In particular, as recommended by the Independent Review of the UK Reserve Forces, we are looking at how a greater contribution to UK resilience can be achieved by our Reserve Forces.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, in this discussion we should not lose sight of the primary role of our Armed Forces - to maintain the capability to apply lethal force against those who would threaten the citizens of our nation and the interests of our country.</p> <p>This primary role is correctly outward looking - just as that of the Home Office is inward looking.</p> <p>In this inter-connected, inter-dependent world threats that originate in one part of the world can swiftly impact here at home.</p> <p>The ability to project power and protect our interests, often at distance, must be the driver for defence capability.</p> <p>Back in August, when the crisis on the streets of Britain was the focus of our media, it was the streets of Nad-e-Ali and the skies over Tripoli that were correctly the focus of our Armed Forces.</p> <p>These brave men and women truly represent Britain at its best.</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinAF/20111014SupportingCivilianAuthorityWhatRoleForTheMilitary.htm Nick Harvey 2011/10/14 - Supporting Civilian Authority: What Role for the Military? uk.org.publicwhip/member/40431 19/10/2011 Ministry of Defence the Politeia Autumn Address, East India House, London
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>“Careless Talk Cost Lives” - that was the mantra during the Second World War.</p> <p>When the nation’s war effort was a whole of society endeavour, this iconic information campaign sought to change people’s behaviour - to get them to think carefully about the information they possessed, and where and with whom they shared it.</p> <p>Last month the Ministry of Defence launched a new campaign to remind Armed Forces personnel, their families and friends about keeping a close hold on information - not just relating to work, but to personal lives too.</p> <p>In the 21st century this is not just about trying to change the behaviour of people having a conversation on the bus or in the pub.</p> <p>The warning is this: You don’t know who could be watching you in cyber space so think before you tweet, blog, update, tag, comment, upload, text or share.</p> <p>The information you put on the net can potentially be seen by anybody, at any time. </p> <p>In this digital age, changing people’s behaviour online - wherever they happen to log on - is key to the pursuit of our national security.</p> <p>Today, I don’t want to restrict myself to simply talking in my capacity as a Minister in the MOD.</p> <p>Instead I want to set the scene for this conference by talking about how this pursuit of national security needs to be a whole of society effort - not just a few academics who study these matters, not just a few departments in government, or a few parts of industry - but all of government, all of industry - and indeed the common sense application of cyber security at home too.</p> <p>I want to talk about the need to redefine what we mean by the critical infrastructure of the nation and rethink how we protect it in the digital age.</p> <p>The very nature of cyber space expands what we need to protect, deepens the need for partnership and broadens the pool of those who need to co-operate.</p> <p>Let’s just dwell for a minute on the nature of the threat.</p> <p><strong>THE ANATOMY OF CYBER THREATS</strong></p> <p>The internet and digital technology have an incredible capacity to increase the freedom and opportunity available to our citizens - to enhance people’s ability to control their own lives, make their own choices and expand their horizons.</p> <p>In government and business, it is leading to revolutionary ways of delivering services. </p> <p>A recent report from McKinsey suggests that small and medium sized businesses who invest heavily in new web technologies grow and export twice as much as those who don’t.</p> <p>In countries with mature cyber societies, it is estimated that online businesses create more than 2 jobs for every traditional job lost.</p> <p>So, for me, there is no question of the overall benefits to Britain of continuing to pursue these digitals models in government, business and more widely.</p> <p>But cyber space is a distinctly human environment - shaped by people - and abused by people.</p> <p>Shaped by people because the human desire for information and access is driving the technology - not necessarily the desire for security.</p> <p>Abused by people because cyber crime, cyber espionage, cyber terrorism, cyber vandalism - even the use of cyber in warfare - are all just human pursuits - simply crime, espionage, terrorism, vandalism and conflict by another means.</p> <p>The difference is the method - not the outcome or the intent -stealing money is stealing money regardless of whether it is done by pick-pocketing or hacking.</p> <p>So I do not agree with those who say we need a massive raft of new criminal offences relating to the internet.</p> <p>What we do need is to become smarter in preventing, detecting and prosecuting the use of cyber space for criminal ends.  </p> <p>This is why we are investing in capabilities that enable law enforcement agencies to combat criminal activity in cyber space.</p> <p>Let me be clear about what I mean.</p> <p>This isn’t about acting like a ‘Big Cyber Brother’ - it isn’t about curtailing the joyously irreverent bottom up nature of cyber space. </p> <p>This is about catching and prosecuting real world criminals who are using the internet - paedophiles, fraudsters, thieves - and protecting the system which people now rely on against those who want to crash it. </p> <p><strong>CYBER HYGIENE</strong></p> <p>A great deal of the current threat can be dealt with through the application of what I’d call basic ‘cyber hygiene’.</p> <p>This is the commonsense application of security measures that are simple to follow and easy to implement:</p> <p>Cyber hygiene needs to be applied both at home and at work because what cyber space is doing is breaking down the barriers between someone’s job and their personal life.</p> <p>For example, a member of the Armed Forces gossiping on MSN, posting on Facebook, or tweeting for the benefit of their family and friends needs to be aware that, because of their job, others may well be tuning in - opponents, adversaries, terrorists.  </p> <p>An attack on your computer at home may well be designed to hack into your personal finances, but equally you might have been targeted because of what you do for a living.</p> <p>Attacks known as ‘spear-phishing’ are on the rise too.</p> <p>Criminals use personal information gathered on their targets - perhaps from social networking sites - to encourage victims to open an email attachment which allow the attackers to infect their computers with malicious software or viruses.</p> <p>Victims of attacks like these may end up having their computers hijacked to take part in serious Denial of Service Attacks on government or business systems.</p> <p>So it is often difficult to distinguish both the intent of the threat and against whom it is targeted.</p> <p>A potential adversary will go for the weakest link.</p> <p>The MOD’s own networks are under daily attack as are networks across government.</p> <p>Between 2009 and 2010, cyber related security incidents more than doubled at the MOD.</p> <p>The MOD’s new Global Operations and Security Control Centre provides a state of the art facility in which we are able to bring together all the essential capabilities required to protect our own Defence systems, but we know we will need to do more.</p> <p>We must accept that the security measures we are expected to adhere to at work apply equally, and just as importantly, at home.</p> <p>This is the thrust behind the new campaign in my own department -changing behaviours, changing mindsets.</p> <p>By using the advice provided through government and industry initiatives to raise awareness of internet security, such as ‘Get Safe Online’, people can learn basic cyber hygiene.  </p> <p>It needs to become second nature - just like ‘Careless Talk Costs Lives’ became, just like ‘Clunk-Click Every Trip’ encouraged the wearing of seatbelts.</p> <p>But in the 21st century and in cyber space, the responsibility for such education campaigns cannot lie with government alone -  ultimately it will be internet service providers, on-line retailers, businesses and everyone else with a stake in the integrity of the system who need to get the message across.</p> <p><strong>CRITICAL NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE</strong></p> <p>Of course, these are sophisticated and evolving threats that cyber hygiene will inhibit, but not stop.</p> <p>So this does not absolve those of us with responsibility for national security from tackling the high-end threat or ensuring resilience and security in our critical national infrastructure (CNI).</p> <p>Traditionally when we talk of our CNI we are referring to the utility network, transport systems and the energy grids that power the country and keep us going.</p> <p>Protecting this has been about physical sites and physical assets around the country - power stations, reservoirs, distribution centres.</p> <p>But the context has changed.</p> <p>We need to think differently about what it is essential to protect and how we do that.</p> <p>The digital networks which sustain our critical national infrastructure should be considered part of that infrastructure itself.</p> <p>Networked telecommunications underpin the UK business and banking system, they underpin the process of government, they underpin public access to everyday services and they underpin our security posture.</p> <p>Of course, we have to be smart about what we are setting out to protect.</p> <p>This isn’t about ensuring that Lily Allen can tweet whenever she likes.</p> <p>But it is about making sure our emergency services can effectively respond to a serious disaster situation.</p> <p>It is about making sure we consider the importance of digital networks to the financial system the country relies on. </p> <p>It is about making sure there is resilience in the digital networks that allow day to day governance to continue, in Westminster and across the country.</p> <p>In this way cyber security is a vital part of the protection of our critical national infrastructure.</p> <p>Our approach to security in the physical world and in cyber space needs to be seamless.</p> <p>The National Security Strategy has made a start in this process elevating cyber attack into the top rank of threats to national security and creating the new National Cyber Security Programme.  </p> <p>As Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude has responsibility for co-ordinating the programme across government and with business and academia.</p> <p>The MOD has created the Defence Cyber Operations Group to ensure that our own departmental work is linked in.</p> <p>The new National Cyber Security Strategy currently being developed will take forward this comprehensive, cross-government approach.</p> <p>Its key themes - economic prosperity, increased national security and the protection and promotion of our way of life - embrace the kind of expanded concept that I outlined earlier.</p> <p>We have to be careful we don’t overextend ourselves or lose focus on what is essential to protect.</p> <p>But we must do so with a new mindset, not just concentrating on protecting concrete and steel, but encompassing cyber space too. </p> <p><strong>WORKING TOGETHER AT HOME AND ABROAD</strong></p> <p>The Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure is helping the Government and industry partners work together on this.</p> <p>Protecting critical national infrastructure, indeed national security as a whole, has always required partnership.</p> <p>For many decades, much of what we have defined as critical has been in private ownership - such as the railways or the energy grid.</p> <p>Working with certain business sectors has long been natural.</p> <p>The public too recognise their responsibilities.</p> <p>Take the current threat from terrorism which we face - reporting abandoned bags or being more alert to suspicious behaviour is, sadly, now part of every responsible commuter’s routine.</p> <p>But because the cyber challenge has further blurred security boundaries, it means we have to break out of our silos, break down barriers and break new ground in the creation of a new security partnership between government, business, academia and private citizens.</p> <p>The recent high profile cyber attacks on Google, Lockheed Martin, the IMF, Sega and Sony have shown that we cannot rely on one sector to take up the security slack for others.</p> <p>The reality is that all parts of government when placing public contracts will increasingly take account of how seriously suppliers take cyber security.</p> <p>There is a wide range of capabilities across the private sector. </p> <p>Areas such as defence, telecoms and banking have been in general more aware of the threats from cyber crime and have developed their own expertise. </p> <p>But I do not believe that a complete picture exists, either in Government or in the private sector, of both the threats and the capabilities available to tackle them.</p> <p>The first step to improving national cyber security will be to get organisations properly sharing information on common threats so that combined responses can be made. </p> <p>This was the theme of the meeting that the Prime Minister held in February with a cross section of Chief Executive Officers.</p> <p>To be successful this project must cover as many sectors of the UK economy as possible.</p> <p>I know that a number of companies represented here today are deeply involved in this process and are determined to make it work. </p> <p>Government will help support this initiative, but to be successful it must be industry-led, so thank you for your efforts.</p> <p>But even this national partnership I have talked about today -  between government, industry, academia and private citizens - will be insufficient.</p> <p>National borders in cyberspace are virtually non-existent.  </p> <p>Building a national Maginot line will not work.</p> <p>Just as with the physical original - a way around it will be found. </p> <p>We cannot guarantee our national security in cyber space without international action. </p> <p>We need to think and act internationally because cyber space is international space.</p> <p>There is a lot of work being done bi-laterally and multilaterally to develop common understanding and common positions with other countries and international organisations. </p> <p>For instance, the importance of cyber has been reflected in recent discussions we have had with the US, Australia and France amongst others. </p> <p>My department has been working closely with allies to develop enhanced Cyber relationships and there will be important announcements in the coming months.</p> <p>The UK has also now ratified the Budapest Convention on Cyber Crime which is a good example of a multilateral organisation making a real contribution in the way in which we can work together.</p> <p>But all this work needs to be guided by discussion of how states should act in cyber space.</p> <p>The international cyber conference which the Foreign Secretary announced the UK will host later this year will be an important first step in beginning the process of establishing principles that all nations should adhere to in cyberspace. </p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>In conclusion ladies and gentlemen, the cyber challenge is genuinely everyone’s problem. </p> <p>In order to protect our national security and our critical national infrastructure we need to think differently and act differently.</p> <p>We need a new whole of society endeavour:</p> <p>The digital age should be seen as an opportunity for Britain - an opportunity to lead in the development of new technology - to lead in developing systems that both empower and protect - to show how we can be both connected and safe.</p> <p>So let me finish with one final thought.</p> <p>In 1860, the Pony Express fast mail system was set up in the United States.</p> <p>It revolutionised cross-continental communication - reducing time it took messages to travel from the Atlantic to the Pacific to about 10 days.</p> <p>The Pony Express has since been mythologised in print and film - the bravery of the riders, the romance of the Wild West.</p> <p>But do you know how long this iconic system actually lasted?</p> <p>18 months - 18 months before the ponies were replaced by the telegraph.</p> <p>My point is this - technology moves quickly.</p> <p>No matter how we protect ourselves today - we cannot stop thinking about how we protect ourselves tomorrow.</p> <p>In an era of cloud computing where there is an app for every occasion - where we can’t always predict what the next big thing will be - we will need to be adaptable, flexible and fast off the mark to protect national security </p> <p>We will need to be open to new opportunities, but ever aware of the dangers we will continue to face.</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinAF/20110705CyberSecurityAnAllOfSocietyApproach.htm Nick Harvey 2011/07/05 - Cyber Security: An all of Society Approach uk.org.publicwhip/member/40431 05/07/2011 Ministry of Defence the GovNet National Security Conference 2011, Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, London
<p>It’s an honour to be here in Plymouth to celebrate Armed Forces Day. </p> <p>With members of our Armed Forces who represent the very best that this country stands for. </p> <p>With their friends and family. </p> <p>And with veterans whose service we will never forget and always honour.</p> <p>This is the day when the rest of us can show our patriotic support for all these heroes, and their outstanding contribution to this country. </p> <p>Because in this country, the respect we have for our Armed Forces is deeply embedded in our national make-up. </p> <p>As a Devon MP with long-standing ties to Defence, I’ve been privileged to witness the professionalism and courage of our Armed Forces at first hand. </p> <p>Indeed, there are few families who are not touched in some way by our Armed Forces - even simply by taking pride in the work they do to defend us. </p> <p>And what all of us recognise - and what links the generations - is that those who serve stand for honour and sacrifice; they put themselves after others; their country before self. </p> <p>Plymouth has a proud military and maritime tradition. </p> <p>From Drake to the Civil War; from the ‘Glorious Revolution’ through two World Wars, the sons and daughters of Plymouth have been at the heart of our nation’s history. </p> <p>Today, Plymouth men and women are serving on the front-line once more - in operational theatres worldwide, often in difficult and dangerous conditions. </p> <p>The Royal Marines from Headquarters 3 Commando Brigade and 42 Commando are in Afghanistan in force. </p> <p>So too are their colleagues from 30 Commando Information Exploitation Group.</p> <p>And the Gunners from 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery are providing their usual formidable support. </p> <p>So behind the flags, parades, and other events up and down the country to mark Armed Forces Day, we should remember that, as we speak, in this country and overseas, these brave people are putting their lives on the line - on the ground, in the air, and on the oceans - to keep us safe and to build a better world for our children. </p> <p>We must also remember that each one of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen is also a wife or a husband; a father; a mother; a son or a daughter. </p> <p>They do not choose this vocation for an easy life, and the pressure on their families is considerable. </p> <p>So I want to thank all those who support their loved ones in the Armed Forces - through good times and bad. </p> <p>And let’s not forget that 15% of today’s Armed Forces are Reservists who, time after time, have come to Britain’s aid by supporting the Regulars, and remain integral to the future of Britain’s Defence.</p> <p>Nor should we forget the Cadets, or the adult volunteers who can show them the virtue of commitment and the rewards of success as our youngsters prepare for life as responsible citizens.  </p> <p>Of course, those serving in our Armed Forces will one day move into the larger family of veterans. </p> <p>Armed Forces Day is a celebration of our veterans’ community too, whatever their age. <br><br>This means everyone from the 20 and 30 year-olds who have returned from operations in Afghanistan in their prime of life and are seeking new challenges on civvy street, to the older veterans who are part of our nation’s living history. </p> <p>They all have so much to offer. </p> <p>And they are a constant reminder to younger generations that preserving our way of life and the things we hold most dear is sometimes hard won, and never guaranteed. </p> <p>Finally, I mentioned Plymouth’s proud military tradition earlier. </p> <p>The warmth and hospitality the city has shown our Armed Forces, our veterans, cadets, and their families over the years, has been outstanding, and truly demonstrates the historic link between the military, the city, and the nation. </p> <p>So I am delighted to announce that the City of Plymouth will host the fourth Armed Forces Day national event on Saturday 30 June 2012!</p> <p>Armed Forces Day is coming home, and it’s richly deserved.</p> <p>I have no doubt that - with its superb maritime location and historic ties; and with full support from local authorities, the local veterans’ community, serving military personnel, and you the public - Plymouth will put on a tremendous show. </p> <p>I wish you every success in hosting the 2012 national event.<br><br>Ladies and Gentlemen, one of the marks of any civilised nation is the way it supports and respects those who fight for their country, and their families. </p> <p>They are an integral part of who we are as a nation, and an inspiration to us all. </p> <p>Let us honour that commitment by showing our support in Plymouth today. </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinAF/20110625ArmedForcesDay.htm Nick Harvey 2011/06/25 - Armed Forces Day uk.org.publicwhip/member/40431 28/06/2011 Ministry of Defence None
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here today at the first annual defence co-operation conference organised by the Franco-British Council.</p> <p>As I speak, as part of a broad and growing coalition which includes Arab countries, British and French forces are operating to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1973.</p> <p>Both our countries agree that the action in Libya is necessary and right.</p> <p>Together we chose not to stand aside as the Gaddafi regime brutalised its own people and threatened to return Libya to the status of a pariah state on Europe’s southern borders.</p> <p>We took clear and decisive action to avert a humanitarian disaster in Benghazi and protect the people of Libya. </p> <p>By working together we can help realise the legitimate demands of the Libyan people.</p> <p>Too often in the past we have allowed the small differences between us to preclude action.</p> <p>In these past two weeks, although the path has not always been easy, France and the UK have provided leadership at the UN, in the EU and in NATO, with our friends and allies, to bring a wide coalition together.</p> <p>This is testament to the determination of both our governments to act in concert. </p> <p>When it comes to security and defence in this globalised world, the real interests of our citizens are not in competition, but in partnership. </p> <p>Today, I want to talk about why the Franco-British partnership is important to the national interests of both countries, and how this partnership supports rather than replaces or undermines the multi-lateral organisations to which we both belong.</p> <p><strong>A NEW ERA OF PARTNERSHIP</strong></p> <p>This new era of partnership is needed for three distinct reasons:</p> <p>First - in this globalised, volatile world the diverse and evolving risks to national security, are risks shared in common with our neighbours, our allies in Europe and further afield.</p> <p>There is a shared exposure to strategic risk and therefore a convergence of strategic interest.</p> <p>Second - no country can hope to resolve threats to national security and international stability acting in isolation.  </p> <p>The picture is too complex and the potential threats too widespread for unilateral action on all fronts to be effective.</p> <p>Acting with partners provides the legitimacy, reach and resources that unilateral action cannot.</p> <p>Third - maintaining a strong military is becoming more expensive and budgets are under growing pressure. </p> <p>In the UK, we have had to make difficult decisions, not only to contribute to national deficit reduction which is the Government’s priority, but also to deal with the legacy of over commitment in our Defence budget.</p> <p>Countries across Europe and indeed across the Atlantic, are seeking greater efficiency in defence budgets.</p> <p>Partnerships can help provide economies of scale through collaboration or burden sharing where appropriate. </p> <p>Against these criteria, the Prime Minister and President Sarkozy’s initiative for enhanced UK/France bilateral defence and security co-operation is a responsible and necessary course of action.</p> <p><strong>UK/FRANCE DEFENCE CO-OPERATION</strong></p> <p>Of course, each country has unique national interests but we share significant strategic interests in this new era.</p> <p>We are near neighbours with similar sized economies linked through the single-market and through thousands of years of exchange of people, goods and ideas.</p> <p>Britain and France are parliamentary democracies with outward looking cultures, engaged in world affairs as permanent members of the UN Security Council, and both as leading members of the EU, NATO, the G8 and G20.</p> <p>And we are of course nuclear powers with similar sized high-tech militaries and with the capability and, perhaps importantly, the willingness to project power to meet our global responsibilities towards international peace and security as well to our own national security when threatened.</p> <p>Together we account for half of all spending on Defence in Europe.</p> <p>In this new era, a closer Franco-British partnership is as natural as it is necessary.</p> <p>And we are not starting from square one.</p> <p>The conclusions of both the French Livre Blanc and the UK’s National Security Strategy and SDSR are strikingly similar.</p> <p>We are able to build on a solid base of bilateral co-operation forged over many years and enhanced recently by our operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, including now in Libya.</p> <p>This has been made easier by the UK’s recognition that the European Union has a role to play in the field of security and defence and by French reintegration into NATO’s Command Structure.</p> <p>The two treaties that Prime Minister Cameron and President Sarkozy signed in November set out a comprehensive programme of defence and security co-operation to be taken forward over the coming years.</p> <p>These treaties mark a step change in our partnership.</p> <p><strong>NUCLEAR CO-OPERATION</strong></p> <p>I don’t need to spell out the details of these treaties to this audience, so let me dwell, today, on one aspect that goes to the heart of the step change - nuclear co-operation under the Teutates project.</p> <p>As you will know, the two parties in the UK coalition Government have a different approach to the renewal of the current Trident system, but we are jointly pledged to maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent.</p> <p>The responsible stewardship of our existing nuclear weapons stockpile is vital work.</p> <p>Under this new and groundbreaking arrangement, the UK and France will share facilities to maintain the safety of our independent nuclear deterrents.</p> <p>Instead of building duplicate national facilities, we have agreed jointly to construct and operate a new Hydrodynamics Facility at Valduc in France and a new Technology Development Centre at Aldermaston in the UK.</p> <p>And we have moved quickly on this work - the facilities will be operational by 2015, with the first UK experiment time-tabled for 2017.</p> <p>In combining our scientific and engineering talent and in sharing expensive equipment, we can sustain the expertise and capabilities required as responsible nuclear powers and potentially save considerable sums of money.</p> <p>And it will enable us to maintain the safety of our existing nuclear stockpile without breaching the conditions of the international treaties.</p> <p>Let me stress that this does not threaten the independence of each country’s operational nuclear deterrent.</p> <p>This co-operation does not involve the sharing of any nuclear deterrent capability such as submarine patrols.</p> <p>But it does mark a willingness to co-operate in depth in an area that has traditionally been taboo.</p> <p>As a Liberal Democrat Minister in this UK Coalition Government, I have the freedom to explore and argue the case for an alternative successor to the planned replacement of Trident.</p> <p>This is not Government policy, but I and my party colleagues would certainly be willing to explore the options for the UK and France to plan our successor programmes in closer co-ordination including, in the longer-term, the case for deeper co-operation on operational nuclear deterrence.</p> <p><strong>MULTI-LAYERED SECURITY</strong></p> <p>The UK has of course a extraordinarily close relationship with the United States on this and other defence matters.</p> <p>So let me be clear.</p> <p>This enhanced partnership with France does not diminish the close bilateral relationships we have with other partners in Europe and beyond.</p> <p>The US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement is unaffected.</p> <p>Our close defence co-operation with other allies, for example the UK-Netherlands Amphibious Force, is unchanged.</p> <p>And the commitment of both France and Britain to the United Nations, to NATO and to the EU is undiminished.</p> <p>In fact, we need multilayered security so that we can respond using the right means for the right occasion - through multilateral organisations wherever possible - but also through coalitions, through bilateral relationships - and of course we must reserve the right to act unilaterally where required. </p> <p>But let me set out why we have chosen at this time to drive Franco-British defence co-operation through a bilateral relationship, in a way that is complimentary to NATO and the EU.</p> <p>As Alain Juppe said recently, NATO is “currently the only credible military alliance in the world.”</p> <p>It has been the bedrock of our collective security for over 60 years.</p> <p>But it is inevitable in the years to come that a significant proportion of US attention will be turned towards the Pacific.</p> <p>So if we are to retain the vitality of NATO, Europeans must up their game when it comes to the military capability that they are able to deploy and the political willingness to do so.</p> <p>This will have the joint effect of continuing US willingness to invest in NATO, and provide independent means to act, including through the EU, should NATO choose not to.</p> <p>The EU has made progress in developing the institutional arrangements that increase its ability to react to an international crisis.</p> <p>But the twelve years since Saint-Malo has seen disappointing progress in generating the kind of deployable forces that we will collectively need in the future if Europe is to match its economic role in world affairs, with influence on defence and security.</p> <p>The drive to improve European capability through NATO has been similarly slow.</p> <p>Only 5 of the 28 NATO member states, 2 of those 5 being France and Britain, meet the NATO criteria of 2% of GDP being spent on defence spending.</p> <p>Just as I am proud of the UK Coalition Government’s efforts to meet it’s international responsibilities when it comes to the UN target on aid, so I am determined that we continue to meet our responsibilities to NATO.</p> <p>When national budgets across Europe are being squeezed, our taxpayers rightly expect the money we spend on defence and security to achieve real effect.</p> <p>We do not have the luxury of unlimited political energy or finances to indulge in duplication or institutional empire building.  </p> <p>We have to prioritise to achieve better interoperability, capability and efficiency to ensure that we get more benefit out of our limited resources.</p> <p>Britain and France have similar levels of investment, similar levels of capability and a similar willingness to deploy that is not matched, at present, by most other European partners.</p> <p>But we are not alone in Europe in seeking new building blocks to strengthen our Defence.</p> <p>The Nordic Grouping’s co-operation through NORDEFCO shares the ambition to grow capability and spend money more efficiently.</p> <p>Intrinsically, defence co-operation agreements among members of NATO or the EU have the prospect of improving the military capabilities available to both those organisations.</p> <p>If the UK-France partnership can provide a roadmap for others to strengthen their capability by working with each other in similar ways it will be to the benefit of both NATO and the EU.</p> <p>It may even kick-start the growth of greater military capability and co-operation in Europe in a way that St Malo and subsequent initiatives have yet to do.</p> <p>The drive of Britain and France to strengthen bilateral defence co-operation need not be exclusive in the long-term.</p> <p>It should not, and does not, stop us working with others who are ready to invest in the same kind of deployable capability that the UK and France possess - but let me stress that willingness to deploy is the key.</p> <p>The bottom line is this - those who spend the money control the process and those who have the political will take the lead.</p> <p>But as we move forward in this way we may see the emergence of a core of European countries acting in concert with the will and the way to drive the process of capability improvement and efficiency in European Defence.</p> <p>I personally am relaxed about whether this happens through coalitions of the willing or through enhanced co-operation.</p> <p>I read with interest a recent report by Ben Jones published through the EUISS on Franco-British defence co-operation, and I agree with much of his analysis.</p> <p>But I disagree with the conclusion that the relationship between the new UK/France Treaties and the EU’s CSDP is ‘enigmatic’.</p> <p>It is not - we have been clear.  </p> <p>This is not St Malo 2.</p> <p>This is a bilateral agreement between the sovereign nations of Britain and France.</p> <p>Look, I am a Liberal Democrat. </p> <p>I am pro-European, and I support Defence co-operation through the EU.</p> <p>I do not share the ideological aversion that some of my Conservative colleagues in Parliament have when it comes to CSDP.</p> <p>But, I am a pragmatist and a realist.  </p> <p>I believe in what works and what is shown to work.</p> <p>For pro-Europeans this new partnership with France is win-win, win-win.</p> <p>Win for the tax payers of both Britain and France.</p> <p>Win for the military capabilities of our respective countries.</p> <p>Win for the capabilities available to NATO.</p> <p>And win for the capabilities available to the EU.</p> <p>In this way bilateral co-operation must surely enhance multilateral co-operation.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>In conclusion Ladies and Gentlemen, we live in a world in which isolation is neither splendid, nor optional.</p> <p>We have no choice but to look outward, and to look to our friends.</p> <p>To adapt Antoine de Saint-Exupéry: </p> <p>Amitié, ce n'est pas se regarder l'un à l'autre, c'est regarder ensemble dans la même direction. </p> <p>President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Cameron have been leading the way.</p> <p>But we will need to embed cultural and behavioural change in the defence and security apparatus of both countries, because reticence, and dare I say suspicion, still sometimes remains. </p> <p>This requires leadership from the top, clear direction through the chain of command, and above all familiarity through joint working.</p> <p>It is said in the Ministry of Defence that ‘everyone has a friend in Washington’.</p> <p>We need to move to a position where everyone has un amis in Paris too.</p> <p>Because the national interests of both Britain and France demand it.</p> <p>And because the benefits of our partnership will be felt in NATO and Europe too.</p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinAF/20110331NaturalPartnersNecessaryPartnersUkfranceDefenceCooperation.htm Nick Harvey 2011/03/31 - Natural Partners, Necessary Partners, UK-France Defence Co-operation uk.org.publicwhip/member/40431 01/04/2011 Ministry of Defence the Franco-British Council Defence Co-operation Conference, London
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, this year will be special for the Royal United Services Institute as it celebrates the 180th anniversary of its establishment by the Duke of Wellington.</p> <p>I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Institute for the positive role it has played over many decades - but particularly over the last year, helping to prepare the ground for the Defence review we all knew was coming - and indeed we all knew was needed.</p> <p>The Duke of Wellington famously said that “all the business of war, and indeed all the business of life, is to endeavour to find out what you don't know by what you do” - what Wellington called "guessing what was at the other side of the hill."</p> <p>The National Security Strategy and the Strategic Defence and Security Review could certainly be said to have been such an exercise.</p> <p><strong>TRANSFORMING DEFENCE - SETTING THE BLUEPRINT</strong></p> <p>Not only did we need to ensure, that in every decision we made, success of the mission in Afghanistan was given priority.</p> <p>But, also after 12 years without a full scale defence review, we needed to look ahead - to the other side of the hill - and lay out a blueprint for the transformation of Defence so that our Armed Forces, and all who provide them with support, are fit and structured to face the challenges of the decades ahead.</p> <p>The analysis in the National Security Strategy points to a world in which the threats to the United Kingdom are diverse and unpredictable and the character of conflict evolving.</p> <p>That is why the Adaptable Posture set out in the SDSR, rather than the alternatives we considered, was chosen as the best strategic response to the years ahead.</p> <p>The task ahead of us to 2015 and beyond is driving the transformation of Defence.</p> <p>We have a once in a generation opportunity, not only on the back of SDSR, but also through the root and branch reform of the entire Ministry of Defence led by the Defence Reform Unit under Lord Levene.</p> <p>Your conference calls this the ‘unfinished business’ of the SDSR - so let me be clear for one moment about the finished business.</p> <p>The National Security Strategy and the SDSR provide the baseline, the parameters, the direction for everything in Defence from this point on.</p> <p>Strategy, operations, force structure, resource - all are framed by the vision set out in SDSR.</p> <p>The SDSR is the agreed blueprint.</p> <p>But we do need to take our time to work through the decisions required to implement the vision. </p> <p>They are not straightforward and they are not easy - the devil, as they say, is in the detail.</p> <p>We need to make sure the growth of capability is coherent and compatible with current operations - to make sure that where we reduce we do so without creating undue pressure elsewhere - and where we strengthen capability we do so with new efficiency.</p> <p>We need to make sure that our people are looked after through the process and that they understand what it is we are asking them to achieve.</p> <p>This is a political challenge as well as an organisational challenge.</p> <p>Some of the implementation decisions, such as on the future of the Reserves, will impact on much cherished institutions with powerful and persuasive supporters.</p> <p>Others, such as on basing, could impact on communities across the UK whose representatives will continue to fight hard for them, inside and outside Parliament.</p> <p>And of course we face the challenge of reducing numbers across all three forces and the civil service in a manner which honours the committed service of those who will be leaving.</p> <p>This coalition Government has already proven that it has the courage to make the unpalatable decisions that were ducked for so many years by our predecessors.</p> <p>But we must now show that we have the courage to see it through.</p> <p>If we do not - we will fail to create the balanced Armed Forces the country will need for the future and the cost-effective support structure that taxpayers demand.</p> <p>So let me be clear about the challenge ahead in the next few years, particularly that challenge of resources.</p> <p><strong>TRANSFORMING DEFENCE - THE CHALLENGE OF RESOURCES</strong></p> <p>The coalition Government is acting to reduce the huge fiscal deficit that we inherited from Labour - it will be hard, but it is necessary.</p> <p>We in Defence cannot pretend that deficit reduction is somebody else’s problem.</p> <p>It is a strategic objective for the Government, and Defence must make a contribution.</p> <p>Economic stability and growth must come first, because this underpins everything that Government can hope to achieve for the people it serves - including defending them.</p> <p>Any country that does not keep its economy under control will find it near impossible to preserve its national security in the long term.</p> <p>The same difficult decisions are being made by many of our allies - including the United States.</p> <p>As David Cameron and Nick Clegg have both made clear recently - this year will be a difficult year - as the tough decisions we have taken in the Budget and the Comprehensive Spending Review become a reality.</p> <p>I am a Liberal Democrat - and I am determined that this coalition Government is a reforming Government.</p> <p>We have opportunity in adversity to make radical change a reality - to make this country fairer, more sustainable and more secure.</p> <p>The act of cutting isn’t radical in itself - being radical is the act of building something different, better and lasting.</p> <p>And that should be what the transformation of Defence is about - not just creating a coherent Defence capability for the future, but making that capability sustainable.</p> <p>Just like the rest of Government, Defence must learn to live within its means.</p> <p>That is why the reform agenda is not just about the big ticket items decided taken in the SDSR, it’s about driving through new systems and processes - of accountability, transparency, cost control, realistic planning, firm and controlled project management - to bring the efficiency required to keep Defence within the funding envelope.</p> <p>Despite the relatively generous financial settlement the Defence budget has received compared with most other Departments, the budget has still been reduced and we have to face up to very tough circumstances.</p> <p>Not only are we fighting in Afghanistan and in the midst of the biggest fiscal crisis in a generation, but we also inherited an overheated and inflexible forward equipment programme.</p> <p>Over the 12 years since the last review, the previous Government allowed a massive unfunded liability in Defence to build up.</p> <p>It is crippling and has to be tackled.</p> <p>The SDSR took some very difficult decisions to help rebalance the defence programme and has significantly reduced the underfunding. </p> <p>But the act of implementation will require us to continue to develop and refine our plans to live within our means - because we are not there yet.</p> <p>In my view, Future Force 2020 now provides us with a realistic aiming point, consistent with the financial envelope set for us by the Government’s challenging Comprehensive Spending Review over the next few years.</p> <p>But I recognise that we haven’t been able to put absolutely everything right in one go but that is also why the commitment to 5 yearly Defence Reviews creates the ability to continue the transformation process .</p> <p>As we approach the next General Election, and as we prepare for the next Defence Review in 2015, the key debate will be around how we meet the financial challenges of Future Force 2020 and the vision of a Britain active on the world stage and protected at home.</p> <p>Now, rather than cover the ground that the Chief of the Defence Staff did in his lecture here last month when he set out much of the strategic background to the decisions we have made, let me instead talk about how we make transforming Defence a reality.</p> <p>But first it is worth setting out the vision of Future Force 2020.</p> <p><strong>TRANSFORMING DEFENCE - THE BASELINE</strong></p> <p>Throughout the next few years, the mission in Afghanistan remains our Main Effort.</p> <p>Having made this commitment in the SDSR, this shaped many of our other decisions: the proposed changes to the Army, for example; and the preference for Tornado over Harrier.</p> <p>As we transform Defence we will have to ensure that the decisions we make do not have unintended consequences for operations in Afghanistan.</p> <p>This may slow the process down as each implication is worked through - but it is the right thing to do - right for national security and right for the men and women on the ground in Afghanistan.</p> <p>Despite the hardship and sacrifice shared with our international partners and the Afghans themselves, we are now operating from a position of strategic strength and there is cause for cautious optimism despite the significant challenges ahead.</p> <p>The difficult job our Forces are doing there is being done with the determination, skill and professionalism we have come to expect and so too often take for granted.</p> <p>We have made it clear that there will not be British troops in a combat role or in the numbers they are now in Afghanistan by 2015 and depending on progress we may be able to start reducing our footprint earlier as we transition to more of a support role.  </p> <p>So in transforming Defence we need also to think beyond Operation Herrick and ensure equally that each decision we make is in line with the Adaptable Posture set out in the SDSR.</p> <p>Future Force 2020 isn’t a specific package for a specific operation.</p> <p>It provides a menu of force elements from which we will be able to draw in the future.</p> <p>It provides a force structure which will enable us to react rapidly to crises, to conduct operations similar to Afghanistan, but also to respond with flexibility and agility to a range of threats.</p> <p>We have taken the difficult decisions on the equipment platforms necessary to focus of the challenges of future warfare rather than of the Cold War, such as reducing tanks and heavy artillery, and in order to begin to balance the books.</p> <p>Perhaps most painfully, we are reducing the size of the armed forces by 17,000, and the size of our civilian workforce by 25,000.</p> <p>This will be difficult for the individuals concerned many of whom have served their country with great professionalism and dedication over many years.</p> <p>But as painful as this is, we know that it just has to be done.</p> <p>But SDSR was not just about cuts:  it was about change -  transforming to meet the challenges of the future with coherent and sustainable capability.</p> <p>So we will now deliver carrier strike in a way that is more compatible with operations with our closest allies and with a more capable aircraft.</p> <p>The structure of the Army will be based on the more modular, more flexible, more effective, deployable Multi-Role Brigade structure.</p> <p>The Royal Air Force will be based on fewer, more capable aircraft types, making for greater ease of maintenance and hence cost-effectiveness.</p> <p>So what are the challenges ahead in achieving this.</p> <p><strong>TRANSFORMING DEFENCE - THE KEY CHALLENGES</strong></p> <p>Many of the force structure changes are being implemented, including the retirement of platforms as set out in the SDSR.</p> <p>Other implementation issues are more complicated.</p> <p>Take basing for example.  </p> <p>On the one hand, force structure changes mean that the RAF no longer has a use for several bases.</p> <p>On the other, we will bring home our Forces from Germany progressively over the next decade with all the attendant issues that raises, including finding suitable accommodation and training areas in the UK.</p> <p>It will take time to ensure we are making the best decisions possible, not only for the Armed Forces and our people - but taking into account the impact on the areas concerned.</p> <p>At the same time, we need to maximise receipts for the tax payer from disposals of those parts of the estate we no longer need.</p> <p>All in all, a massively complex jigsaw which we will take some time to assemble.</p> <p>I know that people want clarity as soon as possible - but I would prefer to get these things right rather than rush them.</p> <p><strong>TRANSFORMING DEFENCE - A MORE EFFECTIVE DEPARTMENT</strong></p> <p>It is equally important that we transform how we do things as well as what we do.</p> <p>To be successful, transformed Armed Forces require a transformed Ministry of Defence.</p> <p>The MOD has taken some justifiable flak over the last few years.</p> <p>In opposition, I was one of the leading critics - and, to be fair, almost everyone I have encountered in the Department has been quick to point out where things have gone wrong - and what could be done better.</p> <p>We must recognise how immensely complex and wide-ranging the business of Defence is - and while the MoD knows it needs to change - it is worth reflecting on the vast amount of work that the Department carries out quietly and effectively. </p> <p>The MOD undertakes a huge and diverse set of tasks - from military operations to estate management - from medical services to postal services - from meteorology to coastal protection.</p> <p>This makes it difficult to bring unified strategic direction to all parts of the Department.</p> <p>Much has improved in the last few years, but much more needs to be done.</p> <p>Under the leadership of Lord Levene, the Defence Reform Unit, is working through how to create an MOD that is simpler, more effective better-led and, quite frankly, less wasteful of time and resources.</p> <p>Everything is in its scope.</p> <p>We are looking at the whole system, the ‘operating model’ of Defence - the internal structure and processes, the senior rank structure, and how people are to be held to account.</p> <p>We are looking at how to incentivise staff so that the behaviours we want to see are encouraged - leadership, personal accountability, creative thinking and innovation.</p> <p>We are looking at how we generate and sustain forces, as well as at tour lengths and harmony guidelines.</p> <p>And in all of this we are working to reduce significantly the running costs of Defence.</p> <p>Acquisition reform is a key element of this agenda.</p> <p>The appointment of Bernard Gray as Chief of Defence Materiel is an important step for the Department.</p> <p>It is a recognition of the need for radical and lasting change and the intent to make it happen.</p> <p>This includes a new relationship with industry, one that recognises our mutual interests, but one that demands value for tax-payers money as the bottom line - not just jobs and profit for shareholders.</p> <p>The Green Paper recently published by my ministerial colleague Peter Luff is a stepping stone to a new, no-nonsense approach to acquisition.</p> <p>This programme to transform Defence cannot be done overnight; it will take time to implement.</p> <p>But taken all together - the force structure set out in the SDSR and the remodelling of the MOD by the Defence Reform Unit - this will be the most significant reform programme for a generation.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>In all of this, as the Chief of the Defence Staff said last month, what gives our Armed Forces their edge is the quality of the people who serve.</p> <p>We know the forthcoming period of transition will be difficult for many in both the Armed Forces and the civil service.</p> <p>We will look after those leaving, preferably by voluntary release, by giving them the fairest terms and conditions we are able to offer.</p> <p>And we will be looking after those staying, by developing a new employment model for the Armed Forces, by reinforcing the Military Covenant and by creating an organisation that we are all proud to be part of.</p> <p>We have new leadership in the form of the new Government, a new Chief of the Defence Staff, General Richards, and the new Permanent Secretary, Ursula Brennan along with Jon Day and Bernard Gray.</p> <p>Success will be collective - as must be the effort.</p> <p>It will be the energy and determination of military, civil service and indeed the wider Defence community, including yourselves, that will make the transformation in Defence happen.</p> <p>This is truly a joint endeavour and I hope today’s conference goes some way to highlighting what together we need to achieve.</p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinAF/20110110TransformingDefence.htm Nick Harvey 2011/01/10 - Transforming Defence uk.org.publicwhip/member/40431 10/01/2011 Ministry of Defence the Royal United Services Institute, London
<p> <strong>INTRODUCTION</strong> </p> <p>There is an old Danish proverb:</p> <p>“No one is rich enough to do without a neighbour.” </p> <p>The English poet John Donne put the same sentiment this way:</p> <p>“No man is an island, entire of itself.  Every man is a piece of the continent”.</p> <p>Friends, in the globalised world we live in, this is true now, more than ever before.</p> <p>No nation - no matter how large, no matter how powerful, no matter how rich in resources - can hope to secure its national interests acting alone.</p> <p>And no nation can expect to hide from change.</p> <p><strong>WORKING TOGETHER</strong></p> <p>We in Europe have recognised and acted on this proverbial wisdom for many decades - and for good reason.</p> <p>Out of the carnage of the Second World War, there has arisen in Europe a habit of co-operation where nations work in partnership, rather than through the kind of aggressive competition that proved so destructive in the past.</p> <p>The relationship between Denmark and Britain is amongst the strongest bilateral relationships in Europe - particularly on matters of Defence.</p> <p>We train together, we fight together.</p> <p>The closeness of our relationship is being played out on the ground in Afghanistan.</p> <p>Today I would like to talk about the progress we are making together in Afghanistan.</p> <p>But first I want to address the wider UK-Danish partnership, because Afghanistan is not the be all and end all of our relationship.</p> <p><strong>NORTHERN EUROPE</strong></p> <p>The peoples of the United Kingdom and Denmark have bonds that have endured for well over a thousand years.</p> <p>We share much culture, we share much blood.</p> <p>But even the best friendships need to be supported by mutual self-interest. </p> <p>Both Denmark and the UK have global interests in this multi-polar world, but we cannot forget that geographically we are Northern European countries.  </p> <p>Some have argued that the information revolution has made geography irrelevant - and in some ways it has.</p> <p>Of course we must act in those areas, such as in cyber security, where physical space does not dominate.</p> <p>And of course we should seek to project our power beyond our neighbourhood because tackling threats at source is better than letting them come home to roost.</p> <p>But even in this era of globalisation, the cold, hard realities of geography must remain central to defence and security planning.</p> <p>Here in Northern Europe it makes sense to work together to secure our own region, to keep our trade routes open, to exploit together new opportunities and to face together threats as they arise.</p> <p>Our goal is to deepen defence co-operation with Denmark -  recognising and respecting the sovereignty of our parliaments and the wishes of our people.</p> <p>NATO will continue to be the bedrock of our collective defence, but of course we should seek opportunities to enhance our mutual security wherever we can achieve more by combining our resources. </p> <p>In Northern Europe, membership of the different regional and security organisations is not uniform.</p> <p>Therefore, we want to create a new and wider framework that makes it easier for both NATO and non-NATO members, EU and non-EU members to have a closer relationship in the region. </p> <p>The new Northern Grouping, which had its inaugural meeting in Oslo this November, is an example of that, and we are grateful to have Denmark’s help and support in pursuing this initiative.</p> <p>As supply routes open through the Arctic, it is in our mutual interest to collaborate.</p> <p>Whether it be in energy security, protecting resources or maintaining the freedom of the seas, where we identify a shared threat to the region, this Group has the potential to act as a clearing house for the capabilities which might be marshalled to address it.</p> <p><strong>DENMARK-UK DEFENCE CO-OPERATION</strong></p> <p>Britain and Denmark have an excellent record on making Defence co-operation work.</p> <p>We share a common vision in NATO.  </p> <p>We are very comfortable deploying together and operating together.  </p> <p>Gitte Lillelund Bech made it clear to us at the recent Northern Group meeting that over the last few decades there has been a transformation of Danish defence thinking - from defence of the motherland to being prepared to fight beyond your borders to protect Danish values.</p> <p>This is reflected in the fact that over that period Britain and Denmark have been joined at the hip and the bonds created between our service men and women, forged on the battlefield, are the strongest possible. </p> <p>As the British Prime Minister David Cameron said in his meeting with Lars Lokke Rasmussen in August: “our troops have fought together, have suffered together and sometimes, tragically, have died together.”</p> <p>Over the last 20 years this has taken place first in the Balkans, then in Iraq and now in Afghanistan. </p> <p>But we are also side by side fighting piracy off the Horn of Africa, under the NATO operation Ocean Shield. </p> <p>We have a strong and active training, exercise and exchange programme.</p> <p>We train together for Afghanistan and Denmark has air crew embedded in Joint Helicopter Command - and at the UK’s Permanent Joint Headquarters co-ordinating the Afghan mission.</p> <p>We conduct together a series of planned activity such as the annual JOINT WARRIOR exercise.</p> <p>British personnel are embedded in your Defence Ministry, Army Operations Command, and Royal Navy and Royal Air Force pilots fly your Lynx, Merlin and F16.</p> <p>Looking to the future, we want to continue to deepen the combined effectiveness of our armed forces.  </p> <p>For example, the UK Government stands ready to assist Denmark in meeting its evolving Maritime Helicopter requirement in order to maintain the excellent interoperability between our navies.  </p> <p>Also, closer collaboration with our Merlin fleets should help realise your ambition to use Merlin in the Tactical Troop Transport role. </p> <p><strong>UK STRATEGIC SECURITY AND DEFENCE REVIEW</strong></p> <p>In the UK, we have just completed the first review of our defence and security requirements for over a decade and we are now implementing the vision for our Future Force 2020. </p> <p>Although we are territorially more secure than at many times in our history, the threats we face are diverse and evolving - terrorism, cyber warfare, fragile or failed states, competition for resources, the effects of climate change.</p> <p>This range of diverse threats is why Britain has concluded that an Adaptable Posture is required - one able to address the needs of today - such as our national security requirement to succeed in Afghanistan - yet able to be rebalanced swiftly for the threats of tomorrow.</p> <p>This means our Armed Forces will become in the future more flexible and agile, retaining global reach, and capable of providing nuclear and conventional deterrence, containment, coercion and intervention.</p> <p>It means we will be investing in new technology and capabilities more suited to the likely character of future conflict, such as cyber security, UAVs and Special Forces.</p> <p>We will also divesting ourselves of capabilities that have less utility in the post-Cold War world but with the ability to regenerate if threats change.</p> <p>Central to this vision is an increased ability to operate interdependently with our allies in all areas of security and defence.</p> <p>We undertook this review at a difficult time for the country as the coalition Government acts to tackle the fiscal deficit we inherited from our predecessors - so money is tight - as it is for Defence budgets across Europe.</p> <p>But the outcome means that we will maintain our position as a leading military power, with the 4th largest defence budget in the world and our Defence spending will remain above NATO’s minimum of 2% of GDP.</p> <p>Nevertheless we have had to take some tough decisions to live within our means, but this recognises the inextricable linkage between economic health and national security.</p> <p>Throughout the process, when making these decisions, we have prioritised success in the ongoing mission in Afghanistan.</p> <p>So let me turn to operations in Afghanistan.</p> <p><strong>AFGHANISTAN</strong></p> <p>British and Danish Armed Forces are part of a NATO-led, 48 nation coalition acting to protect our citizens by ensuring that trans-national terrorists cannot find safe and unhindered sanctuary there as they did before 9/11.</p> <p>I would like to pay tribute to the bravery and commitment of the Danish forces operating under UK command in Helmand - and indeed to the Danish civilians working in the Provincial Reconstruction Team.</p> <p>Danish troops operate with no caveats, conducting the full spectrum of operations.</p> <p>Their contribution is invaluable and greatly appreciated by the UK.</p> <p>As one of the Battle Groups in Task Force Helmand they have played a key role in delivering the significant improvements in security we have seen in the last year.</p> <p>With the ISAF surge now at its peak at 131,000 this corresponds with an increase in military operations, particularly in those areas where insurgent activity is still strong. </p> <p>So this year has been particularly tough and I would like to send my condolences to the families and friends of those who have been killed.</p> <p>My thoughts are also with those who have been wounded, physically or mentally.</p> <p>This is a heavy price, a price being shared too by the British people and others across the coalition.</p> <p>But there is cause for cautious optimism. </p> <p>So let me be clear about what we are seeking to achieve.</p> <p><strong>NATIONAL SECURITY</strong></p> <p>We do not seek a perfect Afghanistan, but one able to maintain its own security and prevent the return of Al-Qaeda.</p> <p>This is primarily a mission of national security.</p> <p>We are neither colonisers nor occupiers.</p> <p>We are there under United Nations Security Council endorsement and at the invitation of the Afghan Government.</p> <p>We are not in Afghanistan to create a carbon copy of a western democracy, and we are not there to convert the people to western ways.</p> <p>We seek the government of Afghanistan by the Afghans for the Afghans.</p> <p>We insist only that it does not pose a threat to our security, our interests or those of our allies.</p> <p>It would be a reasonable critique to say that up to the reinvigoration of strategy and the surge of the last year, our collective ambition was not complemented by a collective willingness to commit the necessary military, political and civilian effect to achieve our aims.</p> <p>In particular, we should rue the lost opportunities between 2002 and 2006 to build up the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) so that there were indigenous forces alongside ISAF strong enough to confront the gathering strength of the Taliban, particularly in the South.</p> <p>This has been a tough few years for our forces operating in Helmand.</p> <p>But we are now operating from a position of increasing strength while the strategic position of the insurgency has begun to deteriorate.</p> <p><strong>INCREASING STRENGTH</strong></p> <p>The ISAF coalition has increased its commitment to the mission, in manpower and equipment.</p> <p>Pakistan too is taking the threat seriously, and the safe havens in Pakistan are being squeezed by their Security Forces.</p> <p>The insurgency has lost significant ground in the southern heartlands, including the key population centres.</p> <p>We have been targeting their bomb-making networks and their leadership and command structure.</p> <p>Their network is under significant pressure, with the senior leadership isolated, training deficient, and supplies limited.</p> <p>The Afghan National Security Forces are growing in competence, confidence and capability.</p> <p>They have expanded by over a third this year, in line with the targets set, and are increasingly leading operations.</p> <p>Denmark’s contribution to training and mentoring is in the top tier.</p> <p>The Danish Police Operational Mentor and Liaison Team is highly rated.</p> <p>Not only is Denmark mentoring units from the 3rd Kandak of the Afghan National Army but they also mentor the ANA in running the Shorabak Garrison Headquarters.</p> <p>The increasing effectiveness of the ANSF brings closer the potential collapse of the strategic position of the insurgency.</p> <p>The only realistic hope for the insurgency is that international resolve will collapse before the Afghan Government itself is effective enough to stand on its own.</p> <p>The message we must send as an international community is that this hope is an empty one.</p> <p><strong>TRANSITION</strong></p> <p>At the NATO Lisbon Summit, extremely well marshalled by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, we all reaffirmed our enduring commitment to Afghanistan’s security and stability.  </p> <p>NATO and Afghanistan also agreed the framework of a long-term partnership that looks beyond the end of ISAF’s current mission.  </p> <p>The summit set out that transition of lead responsibility for security from international to Afghan forces will begin in early 2011, with the objective of Afghans leading on security operations in all provinces by the end of 2014.</p> <p>Transition to Afghan lead security responsibility will be dependent on the conditions in each district and province.</p> <p>Some areas of Afghanistan will transition sooner than others, which will give nations the opportunity to redeploy their combat troops to areas where they are still required, or to rebalance their force contribution towards capacity building, training and mentoring.  </p> <p>Nobody should mistake the strategy for transition as a strategy of abandonment.</p> <p>Afghanistan will require the support of the international community, including military support for many years to come.</p> <p>Britain is clear that we will no longer have troops in a combat role by 2015, but we foresee an enduring role in the country as part of a wide relationship.</p> <p>It is of course for each individual nation to make their own decisions on their force contributions and the role they undertake and I recognise that each of us has unique pressures to deal with.</p> <p>We are democracies, it comes with the territory and it is healthy.</p> <p>But equally, while all of us want our troops home as quickly as possible, we must accept that to achieve this goal the gradual drawdown in ISAF force levels must be done in a coherent way and in line with conditions on the ground.</p> <p>We went in together, we should come out together - properly planned and executed as part of the combined effort we have committed to.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, in the UK, we have the first coalition Government for many decades.</p> <p>The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are co-operating in Government, in the national interest, at this particularly testing time.</p> <p>I am a Liberal Democrat.</p> <p>We are the most internationalist and pragmatically pro-European party in Westminster.</p> <p>We instinctively understand the need to work together with other nations - and we embrace interdependence.</p> <p>This new British Government will look outwards and forwards, not inwards and backwards.</p> <p>You in Denmark have many years of experience in making coalition government work.</p> <p>We can learn from your experience.</p> <p>When it comes to issues of Foreign Affairs and Defence, a nation is more influential when it speaks with one voice abroad, based on consensus at home.</p> <p>We are lucky in the UK that there is a broad consensus on most Defence issues and all parties support the mission in Afghanistan.</p> <p>But we cannot be complacent.</p> <p>Our public, just like the public here in Denmark, want clarity about why we are in Afghanistan, what we are achieving, and what success will look like.</p> <p>Denmark and Britain are working together in one of the most difficult parts of Afghanistan to achieve our shared goal.</p> <p>This builds on many years of close co-operation, which continues to prove its worth.</p> <p>The Danish physicist Niels Bohr is said to have remarked that “prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”</p> <p>But I think I can go so far as to predict, as future threats emerge, and as new missions of national security present themselves, Denmark and Britain will face them together, confident in our ability to operate together, with determination to protect the interests we share, and with faith our enduring friendship.<br></p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinAF/20101214DenmarkukDefenceCooperation.htm Nick Harvey 2010/12/14 - Denmark-UK Defence Co-operation uk.org.publicwhip/member/40431 16/12/2010 Ministry of Defence the Royal Denmark Defence College, Copehagen
<p> <strong>Introduction</strong> </p> <p>I would like to start by thanking Chatham House for giving me this opportunity to speak here today, and to commend Paul Cornish and his colleagues for their report launched this week “On Cyber Warfare”.</p> <p>It challenges us to think in different ways about our approach to cyber space.</p> <p>It challenges us to bring the debate out of the technical realm and into the political.</p> <p><strong>The Challenge of Cyber Space</strong></p> <p>As a liberal, I am excited about the capacity of the internet and digital technology to increase the freedom and opportunity available to our citizens - to enhance people’s ability to control their own lives and make their own choices - and to expand their horizons.</p> <p>But I also recognise that when it comes to cyber space, the old adage that man is wolf to his fellow man has sadly proved itself correct once more.</p> <p>Wherever he expands his dominance, whether it be on land, sea or air, or whether it be in cyber space, mankind carries his essential nature with him.</p> <p>As Minister for the Armed Forces, I am concerned with how we should defend ourselves against those who would use cyber space to do harm, and how we best use the new technologies to further our national security.</p> <p>For me this is about protecting people’s privacy and livelihood not diminishing them - this is about protecting the freedom and opportunity cyber space brings.</p> <p>But to do that we must recognise that the threats in cyber space do not just come from malicious mischief makers or organised criminality.</p> <p>Nor is it just our privacy and money that is at stake.</p> <p>Most societies, including Britain, have come to rely on digital networks for many of the things which allow normal life to function smoothly.</p> <p>It is at the heart of our transport system, our power and telecommunications, our health service and our economy as a whole. </p> <p>We take these technologies for granted, and we have come to depend on the services they provide every second of every day.</p> <p>The consequences of a well planned, well executed attack against our critical networks could be catastrophic.</p> <p>The fact that cyber security has been identified as one of the top national security threats for the UK over the next five years indicates both the likelihood of such an attack and the level of impact.</p> <p>Without doubt, man has brought the capacity for war to cyber space too.</p> <p>In order to protect ourselves we need to understand how cyber space might be used.</p> <p>We must apply the same kind of logic Clausewitz applied to the conditions of his age, when looking to formulate approaches to the conditions of our age.</p> <p>As Clausewitz showed, while the essential nature of conflict is unchanging, its character moves with the times.</p> <p>So I would like to look at the changing character of conflict and how this might manifest itself in the cyber domain. </p> <p><strong>The Changing Character of Conflict</strong></p> <p>As the coalition Government’s new National Security Strategy demonstrates clearly, Britain is today both more secure and more vulnerable than in most of our long history.</p> <p>We are more secure in the sense that we do not face, as we have so often in the past, a conventional threat of attack on our territory by a hostile power.</p> <p>But we are more globally interdependent, more networked and more reliant on digital technology. </p> <p>These are sources of economic strength - but also of vulnerability - and this reliance may be our soft underbelly.</p> <p>Those who would mean us harm - be they states trying to gain an advantage - or those driven by ideology or straightforward greed - may not have the capability to challenge us using conventional military means.</p> <p>Instead they will seek to attack or undermine us in indirect ways - striking where we are most vulnerable - seeking to coerce us, to disrupt our society and do damage to infrastructure and people.</p> <p>Over the past ten years we have seen civilian aircraft used as suicide bombs.</p> <p>We have seen naval vessels attacked from inflatable dinghies. </p> <p>We have seen the rapid evolution in the technology and tactical use of improvised explosive devices - against our armed forces in places like Afghanistan -  against our citizens on the London tube - placed on planes, driven into airports - designed to cause as much death and destruction as possible.</p> <p>This is asymmetry in warfare.</p> <p>It avoids direct military confrontation; it avoids striking at strength and seeks to exploit perceived weakness.</p> <p><strong>The Asymmetrical Power of Cyber Space</strong></p> <p>The domain of cyber space lends itself directly to this form of conflict.</p> <p>Let me give four reasons why.</p> <p>First, there is a low threshold of entry.</p> <p>Our adversaries can exploit the same technology used by citizens going about their daily business.</p> <p>That laptop that sits on the desk at home or in the office - used to do accounts, send email or catch up with television programmes - is the same instrument that could be used to launch an attack on our critical national infrastructure.</p> <p>And the tools that would be used, the malware or viruses, are traded on the net - a black economy of rapidly growing size and sophistication.</p> <p>In this way, a single networked laptop in the hands of a sophisticated and informed attacker could be as effective a weapon as, say, a cruise missile.</p> <p>Second, there are no geographical barriers in cyber space.</p> <p>An attack could be launched from any corner of the world with little warning.</p> <p>Unlike a conventional military movement - which requires the kind of organisation, mobilisation and logistical support that is hard to hide - a cyber attack can essentially be covert until the moment it begins to do its work.</p> <p>Third, attribution of both cause and effect will be difficult to achieve.</p> <p>As we already know from the recent STUXNET worm, it can be very difficult to trace from where and by whom an attack was initiated.</p> <p>And it may be unclear when a cyber event is taking place, what its exact purpose might be or the ultimate aims of the attacker.</p> <p>Fourth - and perhaps most insidious - with cyber it is possible to rapidly create a mass effect.</p> <p>As we saw in the cyber attacks of Georgia in 2008 - hackers can be enlisted to ideological causes, equipped with the means to carry out mass attacks - so called botnets - and given the target information to direct and synchronise attacks. </p> <p>Rather than a single attack on a target - this can result in hundreds of thousands of computers worldwide being hijacked.</p> <p>As an example, last week Burma experienced a mass denial of service attack which effectively severed its internet connectivity with the rest of the world - just days before its first election in more than 20 years.</p> <p>All this means that cyber is a powerful asymmetric tool for warfare.</p> <p>We have seen how terrorists can attack symbolic rather than military targets - the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre being an obvious example.  </p> <p>It can only be a matter of time before terrorists begin to use cyber space more systematically, not just as a tool for their own organisation, but as a method of attack. </p> <p><strong>On Cyber Warfare</strong></p> <p>But cyber is also a powerful tool in the hands of those traditionally able to engage in conflict - states themselves.</p> <p>As Iain Lobban, the Director of GCHQ, said recently: we have seen the use of cyber techniques by one nation on another to bring diplomatic or economic pressure to bear.</p> <p>The digital age has also enhanced the effectiveness of our military operations - providing secure communication networks, accurate navigation, and the ability to synchronise and deliver precise effects at a time and place of our choosing.  </p> <p>So it is inevitable that we have seen the blending of conventional and asymmetric means to support the attainment of objectives.</p> <p>Again, as I mentioned before, such attacks can be conducted from a ‘safe’ distance and makes the attribution of attacks more difficult.<br> <br>Cyber attacks on Georgian infrastructure in 2008 by supporters of South Ossetian separatism coincided with the Russian military offensive.<br> <br>These attacks created a “fog of war” in which the Georgian government was unable to communicate with the international community to rally support to its cause.</p> <p>The cyber attack had both a tactical and strategic effect on the Georgian state.</p> <p>The integration of cyber and physical attack would seem to be the most likely use of cyber in the military sphere.</p> <p>We must therefore win the battle in cyber space, as well as the battle on the ground.</p> <p>So the first thing we should recognise is that actions in cyber space form part of the future battlefield, rather than being separate from it.</p> <p>It adds a new and modern dimension to conflict, but what it seeks to achieve should be subject to the same strategic and tactical thought as a conventional military operation. </p> <p>We will encounter the same adversaries with the same motivations in cyberspace as we do in the real world - albeit in a new environment which has its own unique characteristics.</p> <p>As Clausewitz believed, war is an expression of politics by other means. </p> <p>This means we should also be able to prevent, deter, coerce or even intervene in cyber space. </p> <p>This will not be easy.</p> <p>There are those who argue that in countering cyber threats, conventional concepts will be rendered obsolete.</p> <p>I have some sympathy with that view and we will need to adapt our analysis to the architecture of cyber space.</p> <p>But, I do not believe we should just concede that because it will be difficult to apply concepts like deterrence to cyber space, that it will be impossible.</p> <p>As I have said, cyber space is a new domain, but it is still a human domain with all the actions there driven by human behaviour and motivations.</p> <p>So we should not jettison centuries of proven learning in awe of the complexities - we should reapply them to the new circumstances and supplement them where necessary.</p> <p>So let me turn now to how we are doing this and the work of the coalition Government and others to integrate cyber space into our thinking on national security.</p> <p><strong>Cyber Security</strong></p> <p>Our National Security Strategy recognises that the response cannot, and must not, be for government alone.</p> <p>There is no on-off button that government can use for our national networks and there is no defined perimeter in cyberspace which government can defend.</p> <p>We must draw more effectively on the knowledge, experience and resources of the private sector who own and operate large parts of the critical networks that deliver our essential services.</p> <p>Our national approach to cyber security must be sophisticated.</p> <p>It requires us to keep pace with new technologies.</p> <p>But reducing vulnerability requires an understanding of people’s behaviours as much as it does network topology.</p> <p>It means understanding what is critical to protect and managing the risks.</p> <p>We will need dynamic defences that are able to - first, identify and assess risks - but second trace events to their source and stop them.</p> <p>While government must lead - cyber security can only be delivered as a partnership between government, industry and academia.</p> <p>That is why the Strategic Defence and Security Review has launched a transformative National Cyber Security Programme supported by £650m of new investment over the next four years.</p> <p>This will overhaul not only our approach to tackling cyber crime, but also the UK’s ability to defend itself from cyber attack.</p> <p>And it will seize the opportunities which cyber space provides for our future prosperity and for advancing our security interests.</p> <p>In the UK, as I have suggested, we have strong capabilities on which we must build.</p> <p>These include protecting our critical national infrastructure, protecting the operations of our armed forces at home and abroad, and exploiting cyberspace to enhance our defence -  including the capability to exploit the weaknesses of our opponents.</p> <p>Cyber capabilities may provide the kind of precise and tailored effects which a conventional attack cannot.</p> <p>If, for example, we were able to switch off the lights for a window of opportunity, then this would provide decision makers with greater options.</p> <p>However, we should not underestimate the investment required to develop such capabilities; the intelligence, understanding and overall resource may be significant.</p> <p>It is also the case that cyber cannot put boots on the ground, dominate the sea lanes or control the air - all of which remain critical to preserving national security.</p> <p>We still live in a physical world - so physical capabilities will never be replaced.</p> <p>But they should be supplemented by cyber capabilities which will give protection where necessary and greater flexibility where required.</p> <p>Defence Cyber Operations Group</p> <p>As part of the SDSR, we are creating a new UK Defence Cyber Operations Group which will integrate our activities in both cyber and physical space. </p> <p>The Group will provide a cadre of experts from across Defence to support our own and allied cyber operations, to secure our vital networks and guide the development of our cyber capabilities.</p> <p>It will also be responsible for developing, testing and validating cyber techniques as a complement to traditional military capabilities. </p> <p>There is much to learn and develop in this area.  </p> <p>It will take time to understand fully the threats and opportunities.</p> <p>The Group will work closely with other Government departments, industry and other experts.</p> <p><strong>International Action and the Law</strong></p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, there are no geographical barriers in cyber space.</p> <p>So our partnerships need to be international.</p> <p>We will need to forge strong international alliances to increase resilience and joint operational capabilities.</p> <p>As NATO is the cornerstone of the UK’s Defence, so addressing cyber in the NATO context will be important.  </p> <p>Together with our NATO allies, we will need to establish a common understanding on how best to defend ourselves against cyber attack, and the role of NATO in our collective defence.</p> <p>There is much discussion on the legal frameworks which apply to acts of aggression in cyberspace and those that apply during armed conflict itself.</p> <p>I would argue that the established laws governing the use of force and the conduct of hostilities are equally applicable to cyberspace as they are to traditional domains.</p> <p>When applying the law, one of the difficult issues will be determining if an event constitutes an armed attack.  </p> <p>For traditional domains, we assess the act, its effects, and the whole context to determine whether it constitutes a breach of international law.</p> <p>We then judge what the necessary and proportionate response should be, applying well established legal principles.  </p> <p>Why should assessing and responding to a cyber attack be different? </p> <p>Of course the issue of attribution in cyber space will be difficult.</p> <p>As will the issue of intent.</p> <p>But as I said earlier, just because it will be difficult, doesn’t mean it will be impossible</p> <p>So I believe that the issues around NATO Article V may not be as difficult as some suggest.  </p> <p>But certainly Article IV and the recognition of threats beyond Alliance borders will be an important approach at this stage.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION</strong></p> <p>So in conclusion ladies and gentlemen when it comes to conflict, I believe we must recognise that actions in cyberspace should be governed by the same principles of international law which already act to check the worst extremes of state actions in the real world.</p> <p>Under the last Government, I believe too often, we sought to use international law to justify what had already been decided, rather than using international law to guide our decisions.</p> <p>We need to have more respect than that.</p> <p>We need to recognise how vulnerable Britain would be in a system of international anarchy.</p> <p>We therefore, I believe, need to apply the principles of international law to cyber space as well.</p> <p>This may be difficult to achieve but the rule of law brings better security and better predictability.</p> <p>It does not extinguish threats but it helps manage them, helps to define what is accepted and what is not.</p> <p>This is what I believe is required if we are to protect the enhanced freedom of opportunity that the digital age can provide.</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinAF/20101109MeetingTheCyberChallenge.htm Nick Harvey 2010/11/09 - Meeting the Cyber Challenge uk.org.publicwhip/member/40431 09/11/2010 Ministry of Defence Chatham House, London
<p>The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey): This has been an excellent debate-interesting and wide-ranging-which is no surprise, as the House contains many Members who are well informed, interested and passionate about defence and national security; while many Members' constituents will be affected by the decisions in the strategic defence and security review.<br><br>The SDSR is underpinned by the new national security strategy, which presents a picture of Britain's place in the world and a full assessment of the challenges we face and the opportunities available to us. It is the first-ever national security strategy that really decides priorities for action and feeds directly into decisions about resources. It was the force driver for the decisions we have made.<br><br>Let me echo the Secretary of State by reinforcing the idea of how difficult this has been, particularly in the Ministry of Defence. We have been acutely aware of the human impact of the decisions we are making-not only on jobs and livelihoods, but on the emotional attachment that people have to certain aspects of defence. Our decision have had to be objective and unsentimental, and based on the military advice we have received. We simply have not had the luxury of self-indulgence or populism. The fiscal deficit is an issue of national security. Without regaining economic strength, we will be unable to sustain in the long term the capabilities required, including military capabilities, to keep our citizens safe and maintain our influence on the world stage. Every Department has had to make a contribution to deficit reduction, and the Ministry of Defence has been no exception.<br><br>We still have to live within our means as the deficit is addressed, which means also tackling the unfunded liability in the Defence budget. So the decisions we have had to make have been necessarily tough and finely balanced, and it means smaller armed forces as we make the transition to the future force structure set out for 2020 and beyond.<br><br>Before I turn to the specific issues raised in the debate today, let me say this: the decisions we have made are coherent and consistent and will provide us with the capabilities we require for the future. The campaign in Afghanistan has been protected; nothing has been done to compromise success there.<br><br>It was a pleasure to welcome the new shadow Defence Secretary to his Front-Bench role. I thought he made a very fair speech. He welcomed the five-yearly SDSRs for the future and he specifically acknowledged the up arrows on certain capabilities for the future, including in cyber-security. He referred, as did some other right hon. and hon. Members, to written parliamentary questions, showing that many of the details that will flow from the strategic defence and security review have yet to be worked out. I make no apology for that. It is essential that the House should understand the difference between a strategic review and a detailed plan. The SDSR has established a strategic aim-point and it is absolutely right to take more time working out, bit by bit, the details of what this will mean for each and every different aspect of defence.<br><br>We heard an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). He was quite right to say-I am grateful to him for doing so-that we have had to make cuts that we would not have wished to make. That, unfortunately, is the true scale not only of the financial backcloth to the SDSR, but of the legacy left by the last Government. He made some interesting points about reserves, calling for a fundamental reappraisal of the way in which we use them. He rightly pointed to the much wider use of reservists made in the United States. The US certainly uses them on a far greater scale, and as a consequence they are much cheaper than the regular forces there. One of the difficulties that we must tackle is that our current model for reservists makes them extraordinarily expensive. We will have to find a better and more effective way of using them in the future.<br><br>The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the SDSR was just the start of transformation. He mentioned the permanent secretary's inaugural speech. I am sure that when she spoke of the next planning round, she was expecting it to be not the sole means by which reform would be pushed forward, but simply one among many. I also had a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Ministry of Defence being centralised, and about problems with accountability and vested interests. I entirely agree with his view that we need a more purple approach.<br><br>The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), very fairly acknowledged the financial backcloth, and said that he thought the review amounted to a fair stab. However, I entirely disagree with his suggestion that the 2015 timeline for exit from Afghanistan was somehow party political, or had something to do with the dynamics of the coalition. It was an entirely sensible and rational end point to specify, in the light not of only President Obama's stated plans but of President Karzai's intention to achieve full transition of security powers by the next presidential election.<br><br>There are many different audiences when remarks of that kind are made. It is essential for public opinion in ISAF countries to understand, to some extent, the length of the engagement, for the armed forces to understand it, and for the people of Afghanistan to know how long those forces intend to be there. They do not want foreigners in their country for ever. If the political process that Members in all parts of the House want to see in Afghanistan, along with the military effort, is ever to gain any momentum or reach any conclusion, it is vital for President Karzai and others to understand some sort of time scale as well. It seems to me that to state, as the Prime Minister did, that by 2015 our troops would no longer be involved in a combat role on the ground was eminently sensible. It does not mean that all our troops will be out by then, or that there will not be an ongoing role for them; it simply means that the combat role will not continue beyond that point.<br><br>Mr Ainsworth: May I ask the Minister whether the Prime Minister consulted either him or the Defence Secretary before he made that statement? If those were the reasons, he would have done so.<br><br>Nick Harvey: I cannot say that I had any conversations with the Prime Minister, but discussions between the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are the confidential discussions that they would be expected to have. We are not going to be drawn into that sort of discussion at the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister made a statement with which we are comfortable, and which we are making every effort to enact.<br><br>The right hon. Gentleman asked about the 2% NATO figure. Let me make absolutely clear to him that throughout the spending period that we have outlined today, we will remain above NATO's 2% figure without resorting to the sort of things that NATO includes in its figure, such as military pensions. The defence contribution towards cyber will certainly count towards that, but the efforts on cyber are cross-governmental. In that sense, I am including only the defence contribution. The right hon. Gentleman made some good points about force generation; those issues will be examined in depth in the coming months.<br><br>We also heard from the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who made criticisms of the process that we had heard before, but thought that the outcome was OK. He asked what "extended readiness" meant when applied to the second carrier. Let me make perfectly clear to him that no decision has been made to sell it. Further decisions on what we will do with it can be made several years from now, and will depend on what the security considerations are at the time.<br><br>The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), who speaks for the Democratic Unionists, rightly paid tribute to the work of the armed forces in Northern Ireland over a period of years. He also warned us of the increasing security threat. I do not want to get drawn into saying anything more about that, but let me simply say that it is fully acknowledged. He also made points about the regional footprint of our armed forces throughout the United Kingdom. For military purposes, we are very keen for the footprint of defence to be felt throughout the UK.<br><br>The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said that the Navy was being left very thin-I forget the precise word that he used. We understand that we are undertaking risk now, but we hope very much that that will enable us to make our way to having a bigger and stronger Navy in the future. We are also retaining the ability to reconstitute, if that will be significant or helpful.<br><br>The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) wanted to know more about the future details. Detail will emerge in the next few months as we work through the key points. He and a couple of other Members asked about St Athan. The Metrix project for St Athan failed. Unfortunately, it did not come up with a viable business plan within the deadlines that had been laid down and the finance could not be found, although a fair stab had been made. I entirely accept that the financial markets are very different now from what they looked like when Metrix made its bid and embarked on the programme; the world is different today. However, we have to face the unfortunate reality that it failed.<br><br>The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) rightly said that the military covenant needs formalising. That will happen in the next few months. He also spoke about mental health-a topic about which he has acquired considerable knowledge. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and several other Members raised the Nimrod issue. The Secretary of State has offered to hold further discussions with the Opposition Front-Bench team on how we intend to bridge that capability gap.<br><br>The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) spoke of the need for a national strategic assessment centre. That is an interesting idea worthy of further consideration. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) asked about the troops coming home from Germany. I simply cannot agree that that should have been worked out in every last particular before the intention to do it was ever declared, but he did make the good point that people will want to understand what is going to happen, when it will happen and in what order. We will do our best to address that in the coming months. An Opposition Front-Bench Member made the specific claim that we had not discussed that with the German Government, so let me make this perfectly clear: the Federal Government have supported the British military presence in Germany for more than 50 years-it has been a symbol of our steadfast friendship with Germany-and the Prime Minister discussed this matter with Chancellor Merkel during the course of the SDSR.<br><br>Mr Kevan Jones rose-<br><br>Nick Harvey: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as time is running out and he left me rather short. On the issue of the troops in Germany, proper letters will be written when we come to make specific moves.<br><br>The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked about Yemen. The equipment he inquired about is being procured at the moment, and we are working closely with the Yemeni Government with the aim of providing that equipment by the end of the year.<br><br>The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) wanted to know whether we had had discussions with the French or the Americans about their potential use of a carrier fitted with "cats and traps". Yes, of course we have; we have had lengthy discussions with both of them. He also asked whether the second carrier would have "cats and traps" fitted. We can decide that at any point in the future; we have left ourselves the flexibility to do that.<br><br>My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) rightly spoke up for the brave men and women from the Colchester garrison who are going to Afghanistan. He champions their cause well, and we all wish them well in their endeavours. Other Members made constituency points on behalf of Marham and Portsmouth, and I will do my best to keep in touch with them about the developments in their areas.<br><br>The SDSR has been a difficult process, but I think people that will recognise that it is the start of the transformation of our defence, not the last word. I look forward to many further debates in the House as the details of what it will mean for every different aspect of defence is worked out in the coming months.<br><br>Question put and agreed to.<br><br>Resolved,<br><br>That this House has considered the matter of the Strategic Defence and Security Review.</p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinAF/20101104StrategicDefenceAndSecurityReview.htm Nick Harvey 2010/11/04 - Strategic Defence and Security Review uk.org.publicwhip/member/40431 05/11/2010 Ministry of Defence the House of Commons
<p>Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen. </p> <p>It is a privilege to be invited to speak at the Royal College of Defence Studies – RCDS – here in the heart of London. </p> <p>Many of you are from overseas, and I welcome you to these shores. </p> <p>When you return to your countries to continue your careers, you may well have occasion to draw on the practical skills you learned at RCDS. </p> <p>If you do, I am sure that these skills will serve you well, and that you will look back on your time in the UK with fond memories. </p> <p>I am also conscious that sat before me are future Chiefs of Staff, senior officers, and senior civil servants. </p> <p>Some of you are from other high profile walks of life, so I am speaking to future Ambassadors, Police Chiefs, and CEOs too. </p> <p>Speaking to such a broad, international audience presents an excellent opportunity to share British Government thinking on key issues. </p> <p>Some of you may not agree with our views, or even share our fundamental assumptions. </p> <p>But I want all of you to leave here with one clear message, and it is this. </p> <p>The world is changing and Britain is changing with it.  </p> <p>To allow maximum time for your questions, I’ll spend the next 15 minutes or so describing what that means for our approach to Defence, </p> <p>I will do so in three ways.</p> <p>First, the changing world has caused Britain to take a new approach to foreign policy. </p> <p>I want to set out our foreign policy baseline, and its impact on Defence. </p> <p>Secondly, we continue to deal with the strategic shock of 9/11, whose anniversary we marked last weekend. </p> <p>I therefore want to spend a little time on Afghanistan. </p> <p>Thirdly, all of us who are in positions of leadership are having to deal with the changes brought about by the fiscal crisis. </p> <p>Both in terms of the prospects for the world economy, and in dealing with the repercussions for our domestic economies – particularly the requirement here in Britain for reducing deficits.</p> <p>We face this fiscal tightening at a time when the international outlook is sobering, the environment challenging, and the potential threats growing. </p> <p>In Britain, we must seize the opportunity to ensure that our Armed Forces are able to meet today’s challenges and at the same time prepare for a range of challenges that we may face in the future. </p> <p>So I will spend a little time describing Britain’s approach – principally through our Strategic Defence and Security Review – SDSR. </p> <p>There is an additional change in Britain – namely, coalition government – and I am proud to be a Liberal Democrat Defence Minister in that Government. </p> <p>Although it is second nature in many of the countries that you represent, we have not experienced coalition government here for several decades. </p> <p>As we face a difficult few years with these key challenges before us, we do so here in Britain while we also adapt to a new type of politics.</p> <p>This will not be easy. </p> <p>But there is a powerful tradition of pragmatism in this country – shared by the political parties and the public – which I have faith will pull us through.<br><br>Particularly when it comes to providing for the security of the nation, and playing a responsible and active role in the international community. </p> <p>That active, principled, internationalist approach, rooted in the rule of law and the values of democracy and dialogue – and a strong and firm Liberal Democrat tradition – is the foundation of the foreign policy that this coalition Government will pursue. </p> <p>And so, my first topic,</p> <p>The world is changing and Britain is changing with it... </p> <p>The Foreign Secretary expanded on that earlier this year when he said, “put simply, the world has changed, and if we do not change with it Britain’s role is set to decline with all that that means for our influence in world affairs, for our national security and for our economy.”    </p> <p>Economic power and opportunity are shifting with new powerhouses of regional development emerging and increasingly driving the global economy. </p> <p>The circle of international decision making is widening, and with that we need to share the burden of international security as well. </p> <p>Protecting our own national security and balancing sometimes competing requirements to produce a stable international order will be increasingly complex. </p> <p>The nature of threats and the character of conflict is changing too.  <br><br>We do live in a period in which direct conventional military threats to British territory are low, but the security environment can change rapidly.</p> <p>For Britain, the strength of NATO and the political resilience of the trans-Atlantic alliance is how we mitigate the risk of the emergence of old or new regional powers, and the risk of a return to state-versus-state confrontation. </p> <p>But we face an increasingly diverse range of security risks. </p> <p>With the emergence of a networked and interconnected world, the turmoil that emanates from ungoverned territory and failing states has further reach than in previous decades. </p> <p>This can create new focal points for instability as we have seen in the Gulf of Aden and the Malacca Straits, when it comes to lawlessness on our high seas. </p> <p>And it can create a new focal point for trans-national terrorism. </p> <p>Those who practice and preach trans-national terrorism are less susceptible to traditional responses and strategies; they demand an updated concept of deterrence and containment.</p> <p>We have to demonstrate that our response to any attacks is measured and targeted, will reduce their ability to operate, and take them further from their goals.</p> <p>And we need different approaches to containment when those who would threaten us have access to all the tools of our networked and globalised world.</p> <p>We could face a nuclear capable or nuclear armed Iran, destabilising Shia-Sunni and Arab-Persian fault lines, as well as those with Israel and the rest of the world.</p> <p>All of these factors make a strong case for a new approach to British foreign policy. </p> <p>Equally, as the Foreign Secretary will say in a speech later today:</p> <p>“It is not in our character as a nation to have a foreign policy without a conscience; and neither is it in our interests…</p> <p>Our prosperity is linked to that of others...</p> <p>We cannot achieve long term security and prosperity unless we uphold our values… </p> <p>Where human rights abuses go unchecked our security suffers, as we see in Afghanistan… </p> <p>And our international influence requires us to maintain our international standing and cultural influence as a vital component of our weight in the world…” </p> <p>So our focus will be on our national interest, but this will be an enlightened national interest which recognises our response to the risks and threats we face will necessarily require us to operate as part of the wide international community, using all levers at our disposal, in NATO, in the EU, in the Commonwealth, and with partners far and wide.</p> <p>That is why, some of what we in Defence do will take on a new salience, and we will work even more closely with our diplomatic and development colleagues.</p> <p>And we intend to renew and reinvigorate our multilateral and bilateral defence relationships. </p> <p>We’ve listened to the charge that British Ministers appear to call only when a crisis arises, or a crucial vote is needed. </p> <p>We acknowledge that such an approach does not provide a sound basis for a proper relationship. </p> <p>We recognise that we need to strengthen bilateral relations with dynamic and increasingly self-confident countries. </p> <p>We know that we cannot deliver our new foreign policy in isolation; we need genuine long-term partners.  </p> <p>Turning next to Afghanistan<br><br><strong>Afghanistan</strong></p> <p>Afghanistan provides a case in point where the international community as a whole has acted in the interests of global security. </p> <p>As we marked the 9th anniversary of 9/11 last weekend, it was a poignant reminder of why the international community acted. </p> <p>It changed the way political leaders saw the world. </p> <p>In Afghanistan today, the operations of the wide ISAF Coalition and the political, economic, and developmental contribution from many more countries are a direct consequence of 9/11. </p> <p>It was there that the Taleban rulers gave Al-Qaeda sanctuary, allowed it to run terrorist training camps, and made it a base for terrorist attacks across the world. </p> <p>That is why the Taleban were driven out of power by Afghan and international forces, and it is why Al-Qaeda were forced to flee to the border areas of Pakistan. </p> <p>In the four months that I’ve been Minister for the Armed Forces, I’ve travelled to Afghanistan and seen the real progress that we are making, and the challenges facing our Armed Forces. </p> <p>We do not seek a perfect Afghanistan, but one able to maintain its own security and prevent the return of Al Qaeda from where it could again plan attacks on Britain and our allies. <br><br>We will do this by reversing the momentum of the Taleban-led insurgency. </p> <p>By containing and reducing the threat from the insurgency to a level that allows the Afghan Government to manage it themselves. </p> <p>And by supporting the Afghan government to develop a stable and capable enough system of national security for its people on an enduring basis. </p> <p>We should also remind ourselves that 9/11 is what failure in Afghanistan looks like. </p> <p>9/11 is also what the failure to confront trans-national terrorism will look like.</p> <p>The good news is that the last few years have seen the strategic position of the insurgency begin to deteriorate. </p> <p>The ISAF coalition has increased its commitment to the mission, in manpower and equipment. </p> <p>The Taleban have lost significant ground in their southern heartland, including the key population centres. </p> <p>We have been targeting their bomb-making networks, and their leadership and command structure. </p> <p>Their network is under significant pressure, with the senior leadership isolated, training deficient, and supply limited. </p> <p>They are incapable of stopping the expansion of the Afghan National Security Forces, which is bringing closer the potential collapse of their strategic position. </p> <p>And Pakistan is taking the threat seriously, and the safe havens in their country are being squeezed by the Pakistani Security Forces. </p> <p>The Taleban’s only realistic hope is that international resolve to continue the war will collapse before the Afghan Government itself is effective enough to stand on its own. </p> <p>The message we must send as an international community is that this hope is an empty one. </p> <p>We remember the lessons of 9/11. </p> <p>We will not let that threat to our people re-emerge; we are committed to finishing the task. </p> <p>And while our aims in Afghanistan cannot be achieved without the necessary military means, they cannot be achieved by military means alone. </p> <p>Equally essential are political settlement and a Government in which the Afghan people can believe.</p> <p>Defence, diplomacy, and development are all part of the same solution, and I am delighted that the Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, is speaking to you tomorrow on this very point. </p> <p>This provides the link to my third point; how will Britain navigate the fiscal crisis and evolve its Cross Government Security apparatus for the challenges of our uncertain world.  </p> <p>This of course is the aim of the SDSR.</p> <p>Our National Security Council has agreed that the overarching strategic posture should be to address the most immediate threats to our national security while maintaining the ability to identify and deal with emerging ones before they become bigger threats to Britain. </p> <p>This flexible, adaptable posture will maintain the ability to safeguard international peace and security, to deter and contain those who threaten Britain and her interests, and where necessary to intervene on multiple fronts. </p> <p>It will also, crucially, keep our options open for a future in which we can expect our highest priorities to change over time. </p> <p>For Britain’s Defence, for all the financial constraints, this means taking strategic decisions for the long term.</p> <p>These are the realities we face as we approach the critical decision making phase of the SDSR. </p> <p>But the potential prize is great: modernised, well-supported armed forces, ready to defend and promote British national interests.</p> <p>I say “as we approach” for good reason – we are at a crucial stage in the SDSR, and while no final decisions have been made, the tough choices required are imminent. </p> <p>So I am sure that you understand that I am not able to address issues on specific equipment programmes or forces levels. </p> <p>But I can say that we will strive to take these decisions based on what is right for the country and what is right for Defence as a whole in the strategic – and indeed fiscal – conditions we find ourselves in. </p> <p>We do not take these decisions in a strategic vacuum, but are mindful of our responsibilities to our allies and partners. </p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>And so, Ladies and Gentlemen, by way of summary.  </p> <p>Britain changes with the changing world around it, our main aim is to put Britain’s Defence on a firm financial footing based on a clear policy and strategic framework, shaping our forces to meet the demands of today and the challenges of tomorrow.</p> <p>Afghanistan and the SDSR are the two highest priorities facing us, and I hope I have added to your perspective on these crucial issues.</p> <p>Because, as I said at the start of my speech, I expect you all to go on to great things. </p> <p>Doing so, however, means that issues such as these may very well confront you in some form or another. </p> <p>I hope that how you respond will be informed by your experience here at RCDS in the months ahead – both the knowledge you gain and the experiences you share. </p> <p>The English thinker, John Ruskin, once said, “The object of true education is to make people not merely do the right things, but enjoy them".</p> <p>So above all, please enjoy your time here at RCDS. </p> <p>Your very bright futures may very well be instrumental in sustaining both national and international stability in the years ahead. </p> <p>I have no doubt that you will rise to this significant challenge. </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinAF/20100914RoyalCollegeOfDefenceStudiesCourse.htm Nick Harvey 2010/09/14 - Royal College of Defence Studies Course uk.org.publicwhip/member/40431 15/09/2010 Ministry of Defence the Royal College of Defence Studies, London
<p>Good morning and thank you, Michael, for inviting me to speak.  </p> <p>It is a great pleasure to make my first set piece speech as Minister for the Armed Forces at RUSI’s Future Maritime Operations Conference.  </p> <p>The last time I spoke at RUSI was back in January – and how long ago that seems! – I discussed the possibility of a hung parliament where no single party had a majority, and also the need for the MoD to be robust with the Chancellor when he came knocking at the door for help with the budget!</p> <p>Of course, now that I find myself in coalition government, I’m all in favour harmonious inter-departmental partnerships.</p> <p>I’m also delighted to share the platform with the First Sea Lord, Admiral Stanhope. </p> <p>And I strongly support his view that Defence is a team game; his thoughtful remarks on what’s required of modern naval forces today and what they are likely to be called upon to deliver in future, should give this conference plenty to discuss.</p> <p>The last Liberal Minster to be closely involved in reforming the Armed Forces was the Minister for War, Richard Haldane, who greatly reformed the Army for the challenges that lay ahead of it in the 20th century.  </p> <p>He also made the famously poor prediction in 1907, four years after the Wright Brothers took to the skies, that “the aeroplane will never fly”.</p> <p>So I am pleased that as we undertake a fundamental look at our Armed Forces to ensure that they are fit for the 21st century, we have Liberals in Government once again – we’ll help to drive the change we know is needed, but we will be careful not to predict the future with absolute confidence.</p> <p>In opposition, both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats agreed that we needed a more comprehensive review than just a Defence review. </p> <p>That the nature of the threats we face required us to re-consider the distinction between Security and Defence.</p> <p>Our only difference was semantics: the Conservatives proposed a Strategic Defence and Security Review – an SDSR.<br> <br>And we proposed a Strategic Security and Defence Review – an SSDR.</p> <p>But coalition is all about give and take so we got electoral reform, and an SDSR it is! </p> <p>The serious point is this: we’re having an SDSR - not three single Service reviews – led by the requirements of foreign policy; and of course necessarily informed by the financial situation. </p> <p>The Defence Secretary has likened conducting a Defence review while engaged in Afghanistan to building a ship while still at sea.</p> <p>And Afghanistan remains our top priority. <br><br>Liberal Democrat colleagues and I supported the initial intervention after the events of 9/11; we supported the significant deployment in Helmand in 2006; and continue to support the mission today. </p> <p>We are in Afghanistan out of necessity, not choice, under a UN mandate. </p> <p>So let me pay tribute to the contribution of all personnel currently deployed there. </p> <p>As Admiral Stanhope and I have both seen at close quarters during our visit there, they are doing a magnificent job on our behalf. </p> <p>We have to fulfil our operational commitments in Afghanistan, but we must also adapt our Armed Forces to face the changing international outlook and the future character of conflict, making a clean break from the mindset of the Cold War.</p> <p>After 12 years without a defence review, when our Armed Forces have at times been overstretched, with legacy equipment programmes from the Cold War that are of less relevance today, and in our current economic and financial circumstances, an SDSR is long overdue.<br><br>I’ll come on to the SDSR presently, but let me be quite clear from the outset: change is coming. </p> <p>As the Foreign Secretary said last week, “put simply, the world has changed, and if we do not change with it Britain’s role is set to decline with all that that means for our influence in world affairs, for our national security and for our economy.”    </p> <p>He highlighted five key ways in which the world has changed: economic power and opportunity shifting to countries like Brazil, India, and China; the widening circle of international decision making; the increased complexity of protecting our security; the changing nature of conflict; and the emergence of a networked world. </p> <p>These five changes will inform our clear, focused, and effective foreign policy, and will also shape the role for Defence and Security. </p> <p>Our focus will be on our national interest, but this will be an enlightened national interest which recognises our response to the risks and threats we face will necessarily require us to operate as part of the wide international community, using all levers at our disposal, in NATO, in the EU, in the Commonwealth, and with partners far and wide.<br><br>That is why, some of what we in Defence do will take on a new salience.</p> <p>Put bluntly, prevention is better than cure.</p> <p>Aspects related to conflict prevention, deterrence, and defence diplomacy need to be considered carefully as part of the SDSR in order to ensure that across government we are using our resources effectively.  We must be clear and focused about the effect that Defence is designed to deliver.</p> <p>Our Armed Forces can do many things to support Government policy more widely. </p> <p>But when considering fundamental reform we must do so with their primary mission in mind. </p> <p>That is to maintain the capability to apply lethal force where needed so that political decision makers have the widest possible range of choices when making strategic decisions to protect the security of our country, our Overseas Territories, and our interests.</p> <p>Our Armed Forces protect our citizens and territory by delivering this in two ways.</p> <p>Firstly, by deterring and containing threats; preventing possibilities from becoming actualities.</p> <p>Secondly, when deterrence and containment have failed, when diplomacy is exhausted, and as a last resort, by using lethal force.  <br><br>On deterrence, let me say this.</p> <p>The current policy of maintaining the UK’s essential minimum nuclear deterrent remains unchanged. </p> <p>The Trident Value for Money Review is looking at whether this policy can be met while reducing the cost of successor submarine and ballistic missile systems, including by shifting the balance between financial savings and operational risk. </p> <p>The work will cover: the programme timetable; submarine numbers; numbers of missiles, missile tubes and warheads; infrastructure and other support costs; and the industrial supply chain.  </p> <p>But we do ourselves a disservice if we confine the concept of deterrence to nuclear weapons alone.</p> <p>After all, deterrence is about applying power to influence potential adversaries, mitigate risks, and address threats without recourse to war. </p> <p>In pursuing our national interest and protecting our national security, we must also remember the powerful deterrent effect of our conventional forces, particularly in the context of our military alliances.</p> <p>Recently we’ve perhaps failed fully to recognise this. </p> <p>So we want the SDSR to change that, to take a fresh look at what we are going to do to dissuade aggression, and how we might do this better.</p> <p>Of course, establishing the basic reason for having Armed Forces needs to be placed in the context of global threats – now and in the future. </p> <p>You will understand if I focus on the maritime aspects today, although our response to these threats often requires co-ordinated action on land, in the air, and in cyberspace, as well as at sea or under it. </p> <p>This country is the world’s sixth largest trading nation, although we’ve only got 1% of the world’s population. </p> <p>The history of this island nation is, in large part, the history of our maritime trade, carried on the waves of British exploration and expansion. </p> <p>That trade’s always been dependent on merchant ships to move goods around the world; the power of the Royal Navy to deter those who would threaten the lifeblood of our economy; and of course the seafarers down the ages who have made all of this possible.  </p> <p>That’s as true today as it was in the days of Drake, Rodney, and Nelson. </p> <p>The international shipping industry is responsible for moving around 90% of transportable world trade.</p> <p>95% of this trade passes through just nine chokepoints like the English Channel, and the Straits of Gibraltar and Malacca.</p> <p>While the population of the world has doubled in the last 40 years, maritime trade has quadrupled. <br><br>But such growth has its sinister twins. </p> <p>The threat of piracy has re-surfaced in the public’s consciousness. </p> <p>Human trafficking is now the fastest growing criminal business in the world, the vast majority of which relies on transport by sea. </p> <p>Maritime drug trafficking continues to grow, with most of the cocaine on the streets of Britain’s towns and cities understood to have arrived here after an Atlantic crossing. </p> <p>Just last month, HMS MANCHESTER snared a drugs haul in the Caribbean that could have been worth £1.5 million on the streets here.</p> <p>In strategic terms, energy security is equally important, with the import of liquefied natural gas by sea providing a rapidly increasing proportion of our energy supply – 35% by 2030.</p> <p>And let’s not forget the crucial humanitarian aid that the Royal Navy has delivered around the world in places like Haiti. </p> <p>So the socio-economic case for maritime security makes itself.<br><br>How does that impact our Naval forces? </p> <p>Where British interests and the defence of the UK have no geographical boundaries, we must have the ability to project power, influence and, if necessary, military force around the world.</p> <p>Instability in one corner of the globe can quickly affect everyone. </p> <p>If they ever did, our national interests no longer stop at the White Cliffs of Dover, Gibraltar, or the Falklands, important though all of these are. </p> <p>The international outlook we face is sobering, the environment challenging and the threats growing.</p> <p>It’s a complex picture, characterised by uncertainty.</p> <p>So we will need a broad, flexible and integrated defence posture.<br> <br>We will need to be smarter about when and how to deploy our military power (whether that’s diplomacy, training, deterrence, containment, or use of force); which tasks we can do in alliance with others; and what capabilities we will need as a result. <br><br>The main aim for Defence in the SDSR will be to ensure that Britain’s defence is based on a clear definition of our strategic interests, an assessment of our role in NATO and other partnerships, the threats we face, the military capabilities we need to protect our interests, and the programmes we need to deliver those capabilities.</p> <p>So, as I’ve said, we must begin with our foreign policy priorities, reflecting our interests.</p> <p>The establishment of the National Security Council allows us to have a full debate and ensure that Departmental priorities align with our conclusions.</p> <p>We must make the right judgements on the environment in which we will protect and promote those interests, in particular the threats and risks.  </p> <p>The MoD is playing a full role in work - under the auspices of the NSC - to establish a prioritised register of those risks which will be a key element of the National Security Strategy. </p> <p>Decisions on the capabilities required will be based on this overarching strategy.<br><br>We are determined to understand fully the operational and resource implications of the options.</p> <p>The Secretary of State has therefore directed the MoD to undertake a range of detailed studies on specific capabilities and force structures.</p> <p>I would like to share a little of our early thinking. </p> <p>Taking forward the work of the Green Paper published under the last Government, the early indications are that our Armed Forces will need to be:</p> <p>More agile and adaptable.</p> <p>More mobile – strategically, operationally, and tactically.</p> <p>Better integrated across land, air, and sea with improved access to ISTAR. </p> <p>And better integrated with the other levers of national power and influence, at home and abroad.</p> <p>But they will also have to have less emphasis on weight, and more on accuracy of firepower. </p> <p>They will need to be less focused on scale when contributing to multinational operations, with the emphasis moving to quality. </p> <p>And we should have less duplication of capabilities held in large numbers by our NATO allies.</p> <p>We will begin to move to conclusions as our strategic posture becomes clearer and we can test our work against the agreed policy baseline to produce a balanced force structure and risk assessment.</p> <p>The Secretary of State set out the MoD’s approach in all of this here at RUSI last month.</p> <p>First - <strong>Relevance</strong> – our posture and capabilities must be relevant to the world we now live in. </p> <p>Second - <strong>Realism</strong> – resources are tight for the country as a whole and Defence is no exception.</p> <p>We cannot insure against every imaginable risk so we will need to decide which risks we are willing to take and which we must meet head-on.</p> <p>Third - <strong>Responsibility</strong> – as a nation, we have a duty to give the men and women of our Armed Forces our full support in return for the selfless service and sacrifice they are prepared to make in our name.  </p> <p>We must ensure that they have what they need to do what we ask of them - and that they and their families are looked after properly during and after service.  </p> <p>Ladies and gentlemen, the Foreign Secretary said he wants foreign policy to “run through the veins of the administration”, and we’re determined to reflect that as we set a clear direction for our Defence policy in coming years. </p> <p>Britain has always been an outward looking nation. </p> <p>A trading nation, open to new ideas, unafraid of change. </p> <p>At times in our history, we have been responsible for the global commons. </p> <p>Now, in the 21st century, we share that duty as part of the international community. </p> <p>The sea lanes are still vital arteries in our economy. </p> <p>As the Defence Secretary has indeed said, and the First Sea Lord repeated this morning, at a time when the threat of disruption on the high seas is increasing, “this is no time for Britain to become sea blind.”</p> <p>For that, we require a maritime capability in the 21st century that allows us to project power, influence, and force in a way that would not otherwise be possible. </p> <p>But it must be within a sustainable Defence programme, able to address the needs of today and prepared for tomorrow, on behalf of the whole Defence team. </p> <p>This is our duty to the people of this country, to our allies, and to the men and women of the Armed Forces I’m so proud to represent.<br></p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinAF/20100707FutureMaritimeOperationsConference.htm Nick Harvey 2010/07/07 - Future Maritime Operations Conference uk.org.publicwhip/member/40431 08/07/2010 Ministry of Defence the Royal United Services Institute, London
<p>Thank you Kevin [Jones, Director Air &amp; ISTAR, A|D|S] for that introduction.  May I also thank A|D|S more widely and the Shephard Group for organising this impressive conference and exhibition.  It’s appropriate that we’re here in Farnborough - not just because it happens to be my constituency(!) - but also because it’s the birthplace of British aviation and the host to Europe’s largest aviation trade show.  In addition, we meet opposite the headquarters of AgustaWestland International located on the other side of the runway. </p> <p>It’s been said that in some ways the helicopter is the ultimate in aviation.  Back in 1908, Thomas Edison was asked for his opinion on the Wright brothers’ aeroplane.  The electrical wizard pooh-poohed the Wrights’ achievement.  “No aeroplane would be good”, he said, “until it could go straight up and down.”  <br><br>But despite holding a pilot’s licence since 1965, I would have disagreed with Edison until recently - I’ve always felt that a propeller should be in front of you, not on the roof!  Yet about two years ago, Eurocopter introduced me to the art of rotary and earlier this year I was allowed to fly the Merlin from HMS BULWARK to Yeovilton. </p> <p>So I am something of a convert to the rotary world.  And it’s with this genuine appreciation that I want to talk about the major role which Rotary Power has in current operations and in our future plans for Defence.  </p> <p>Air Power - of which Rotary is an important component - remains critical to the Defence of Britain and the safety of our people.  Yet there is a severe lack of understanding in some quarters about the critical nature and complexity of Air Power and the contribution which Rotary makes.  It is the ultimate in versatility.  I hope that the recent operation in Libya, which was overwhelmingly an air operation with a maritime component, will have driven home the message.  <br><br>The challenge of operating helicopters in different environments is extremely complex, and requires exacting standards and realistic training.  And although a no-fly zone may trip lightly off the tongue, an enormous range of tri-Service assets is required to deliver that effect across the battlespace, not least 42 air-to-air refuelling tankers off Libya.  There, Army Air Corps Apache helicopters - operating from the deck of HMS OCEAN - have enhanced their already superb operational reputation by winning their first littoral spurs, and in the process achieved the milestone of 100,000 flying hours since entering service.  It’s a reputation which has clearly drawn Prince Harry’s gaze. </p> <p>In Afghanistan, the first ever operational deployment of Lynx Mark 9a followed the Apaches in building a fierce reputation for tackling insurgents on the ground, generating real fear in the hearts and minds of the enemy.  Royal Navy and RAF Merlin helicopters - celebrating 10 years on the front-line - are heavily committed around the world, at sea and from the sea, as well as on land operations.  And last year, the RAF’s CH-47 Chinooks transported almost 100,000 people plus their kit and supplies. </p> <p>On top of this, our Chinook-borne Medical Emergency Response Teams (MERT for short) - operating out of Camp Bastion - have developed an awesome reputation in a league of their own.  On the CO’s office wall is a map with Bastion in the middle surrounded by concentric circles.  Each circle shows the distance a MERT can cover in a set time to reach a casualty.  The first boundary is ten minutes - five minutes out, and five back again.  And every minute matters - the ‘platinum 10 minutes’ after injury when most battlefield deaths occur rather than the ‘golden hour’ of earlier campaigns.  Without helicopters, this life-saving level of response couldn’t be delivered. </p> <p>Here at home, almost 100 people every month have good cause to be thankful for the skill and bravery of our Search and Rescue crew - not least the commitment of the Duke of Cambridge - and for the Sea Kings they fly.  This has particular resonance today as the Cambridge Military Hospital, named after his Royal Highness’s forebear, lies less than a mile from here. </p> <p>What all of these examples show is that delivering Rotary Power is truly a Joint affair.  </p> <p>As you know, the catastrophic state of the public finances we inherited from Gordon Brown’s disastrous administration has forced us to review all major equipment and support contracts to ensure that the future programme is coherent with future Defence needs, and, crucially, is affordable.  Although the previous government undoubtedly delivered some fine UOR kit, it has been rightly lambasted for failing to ensure the core equipment budget was coherent and affordable.  We’re trying to rectify that mistake by conducting a Defence Rotary Wing Capability Study - known colloquially as ‘DERRICK’ - to ensure that we have the right structures and forces in place to deliver the plans outlined in the SDSR.  </p> <p>I can’t pre-empt the findings, but I believe there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic.  We are committed to increasing the planned MoD equipment budget by over £3 billion - or 1% a year in real terms - after 2015.  And the SDSR clearly laid out plans for a helicopter fleet based on four core platforms from 2025 -Apache, Merlin, Wildcat, and Chinook.  <br><br>I am pleased we were able to announce a £1 billion contract for 14 Chinooks in August because our reforms have given us confidence that the money to pay for them will actually be there.  It means we can sign contracts which will deliver genuine capability, genuine value for money, and genuine economic benefits to the British economy.  So I’m confident that the plans for our future rotary wing mix will bring 21st century capability to our Armed Forces - in the right numbers, with the right support, and at prices we can genuinely afford. </p> <p>We are also looking at how we buy and support equipment as well as what we buy.  In particular, we hope that our White Paper will offer the greater clarity and predictability which industry seeks.  Again, I can’t pre-empt the White Paper, but I think most of you understand the general thrust of our intentions. </p> <p>To use the market where we possibly can while protecting our national security and sovereignty requirements (although we expect these to be limited).  Only to use the Defence budget for necessary and affordable Defence capability.  To provide strong support for technology investment, SMEs, and exports while creating the right conditions for growth.  <br><br>And of course we’re looking to boost economic growth and stimulate innovation in the wider economy.   That’s why BIS announced £32 million of government investment in helicopter production, research, and development - which, among other things, will help AgustaWestland to introduce the civil AW169 aircraft. </p> <p>Above all, we will define our needs, be consistent in our application of policy, and transparent in how our business is done.  I’m certain that most of you in this room will have no argument with that. </p> <p>Finally, let me say a few words about exports. </p> <p>The best way to sustain UK Defence and Security jobs in the long-term is to widen the customer base through enhanced Defence exports.  We’re providing unprecedented levels of Ministerial support across government for some excellent rotary wing opportunities - particularly the AW101 and Super Lynx, while interest in Wildcat is beginning to develop.<br><br>And we’re examining other ways to support exports.  For instance, we are working hard to accommodate the likely interest from customer nations in UK flying training.  But we look to you in industry as well to offer some innovative arrangements which can enhance our ability to support exports in this critical area. </p> <p>To conclude, Rotary Power is a critical component of Air Power.  It ensures freedom of movement, supports logistic sustainment, and provides essential close combat support to front line troops, together with a highly responsive medical evacuation capability. </p> <p>In the most recent operational honours list for Afghanistan, I was struck that every single award in the air environment was made to rotary wing aircrew.  Indeed, the first DFC ever awarded to a woman went to Flight Lieutenant Michelle Goodman for flying her Merlin into Basra under intense fire to rescue a seriously wounded casualty.  This is not to doubt the bravery of other personnel in the air or the support all airmen receive on the ground - not least from you in industry.  But it does shine a welcome light on the magnificent effort which our helicopter crews are putting in - day in day out - in the face of a determined and co-ordinated enemy.<br><br>Their role in military operations - now and in the future - is quite simply indispensible.</p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinISD/20111019HelipowerConferenceAndExhibition.htm Gerald Howarth 2011/10/19 - Heli-Power Conference & Exhibition uk.org.publicwhip/member/40039 20/10/2011 Ministry of Defence FIVE, Farnborough Airport, Hampshire
<p>Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a great pleasure to be here today to lay the keel of the fifth Astute Class submarine - ANSON.  </p> <p>The submarine is the seventh British warship and the first submarine to bear this title, and is being named after the Admiral of the Fleet George Anson, who was one of our greatest First Lords of the Admiralty and noted for his circumnavigation of the globe, as well as his role overseeing the Royal Navy during the Seven Years War.  During Anson’s time in the Admiralty, his reforms reached into every aspect of the Navy, from shipbuilding and technological developments, to training and discipline, and command and control.  His work transformed our naval power into a global asset, and it laid the foundations for the naval victories of his era and the generation that followed.  <br><br>It is fitting that we lay the keel for Boat 5 of our new attack submarine flotilla as we ourselves continue through a planned course of Defence Reforms.  </p> <p>Last October, we confirmed our commitment to build a class of seven Astute Submarines.  ANSON will now join her sister boats, AMBUSH, ARTFUL and AUDACIOUS in construction here at Barrow.  Indeed, behind me you can see the great progress being made with ARTFUL and AUDACIOUS as they are welded together, fitted out and tested, and in essence ‘brought to life’.</p> <p>Of course, many of you here today will recall the rather wet and blustery November day in 2009 when the first of class, HMS ASTUTE, sailed from Barrow to begin a programme of extensive and rigorous sea trials and training, which are demonstrating the boat’s capability.  I am pleased to report that ASTUTE is on track to begin her operational service around the end of 2012.  I was also delighted to learn that, the second of the Astute Class, AMBUSH, has successfully completed her first dive in the shipyard’s basin.  This is a critical milestone ahead of the boat’s planned exit from Barrow early next year. </p> <p>We are clear that the Royal Navy has a requirement for nuclear powered submarines.  Royal Navy submarines have made, and will continue to make, a vital contribution to the defence of the UK and interests overseas.  What many people do not appreciate is that they are perform a wide range of unique and essential military tasks, including global reach and endurance, and conduct unsupported operations in hostile environments whether operating close to the coast or deep in the oceans.  </p> <p>I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that the Astute Class provides a step change in anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, protecting our Nuclear Deterrent, land attack, and intelligence gathering.  They have an improved capability for world-wide operations, much greater firepower, better communications, and crew accommodation than in-service submarines.  With advanced stealth technology, the Astute Class has been designed to be quieter than any of her predecessors and thus very hard to detect. <br><br>Constructing nuclear submarines is one of the most complex projects that our maritime industry - indeed any industry - undertakes.  The Royal Navy often say that the Astute Class is more sophisticated than the space shuttle and, for this reason alone, I pay tribute to the thousands of skilled people at BAE Systems Submarine Solutions and in the supply chain, as well as in the Royal Navy and the Ministry of Defence, who will be involved not just in ANSON’s construction journey but who have been and will be involved in the production of the Astute Class of submarines as a whole.  Being here today, in the very heart of the UK’s centre for excellence for submarine design and building, I can clearly see why each and every one of you are rightly proud of the contribution you are making in building the most powerful and advanced attack submarines ever delivered to the Royal Navy. </p> <p>This Government has provided assurances for the Astute Programme and also confirmed the long-term future of the Submarine Programme with a commitment to Continuous At Sea Deterrence and the Successor SSBN Programme.  However, given the challenges faced in balancing the Defence budget, such a commitment is predicated on the delivery of significant future efficiencies - in fact £900 million worth of efficiencies over the next 10 years.  <br><br>This work strand is known as the Submarine Enterprise Performance Programme (or SEPP), and we are engaged with the British submarine industry to improve efficiency and optimise to expected demand its capacity to build and support submarines </p> <p>Since last year, the Ministry of Defence has been working collaboratively with BAE Systems Submarine Solutions, Babcock Marine, and Rolls Royce to transform the way the submarine programme is delivered and managed.  We want a Submarine Enterprise that is efficient and effective, and that offers sustainability in terms of skills, facilities and infrastructure.  I believe that we can deliver the SEPP objective of: “Performance Up, Cost Out, and Sustainability In” by developing a value for money submarine enterprise - built on long-term commercial arrangements - that recognises the contribution of each of the key industrial participants and provides the necessary programme stability for benefits of long-term partnering to be realised.  Through SEPP, the Ministry of Defence has established new collaborative ways of working in which joint MOD-Industry project teams have been pooling skills and expertise to ensure that the submarine programme is managed effectively; this unprecedented level of collaboration can only be good for all of us committed to the delivery of these fine boats. <br><br>SEPP is the key to transformation in the Submarine Enterprise and I have every confidence in the joint team to deliver what we expect.  As you heard John Hudson say a few minutes ago, BAE Systems Submarine Solutions believe they will deliver ANSON in twenty percent less time than ASTUTE.  With SEPP at the helm of the Astute Submarine Programme - and indeed the Defence Submarine Programme as a whole - this is a transformation promise of which Admiral Anson himself would be proud. </p> <p>To conclude, let me say again how pleased I am to be here today.  Together we are witnessing the next step in this important programme that will deliver Defence capability and help ensure security for us all for many years to come.  </p> <p><br> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinISD/20111013HmsAnsonKeelLayingCeremony.htm Gerald Howarth 2011/10/13 - HMS ANSON Keel Laying Ceremony uk.org.publicwhip/member/40039 20/10/2011 Ministry of Defence Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria
<p>Ladies and Gentlemen, distinguished guests, partners, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, it’s a real pleasure to welcome you all to NATO’s Allied Command Transformation Industry Day here in London.  </p> <p>I’d particularly like to welcome General Abrial [Supreme Allied Commander Transformation] and thank him for his kind introduction.  </p> <p>Also, let me add my welcome to the NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.  We are grateful for your strong leadership in Afghanistan and Libya, and for working hard to make NATO’s Strategic Concept a reality.  We are also hugely supportive of your efforts working with Baroness Ashton and Claude France-Arnauld to reduce the amount of duplication between NATO and the EU, as we must.  <br><br>Finally, let me welcome Admiral Di Paola, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee.  Admiral, you’ve said on many occasions that NATO is all about defending the shared values of friends, and preserving the vital link between North America and Europe.  I could not agree more, and today’s Trans-Atlantic audience is testament to that. </p> <p>Friends, we live in a volatile world where the pace of change is staggering.  Some risks appear timeless: conflict born of competition between states, or of out and out aggression, has not been abolished.  Nuclear proliferation continues to be a concern.  The value of NATO as the ultimate guarantor of territorial defence remains undiminished. </p> <p>But this new world requires us to continue to think and adapt to new threats and new pressures.  A world in which competition for natural resources will increase.  A world in which cyberspace requires us to think differently about how we defend ourselves.  A world in which no nation can hope to meet all of its national security concerns acting on its own.  </p> <p>Who would have thought, as they were eating their Christmas turkey that within months Bin Laden would’ve been killed and Mladić put on a trial, or a mass uprising across North Africa and elsewhere? And Libya is proof, if ever it were needed, that the pursuit of our national and collective security cannot be confined to the Euro-Atlantic area.  All this as the international community continues to support the Afghan government, while bringing the transition of security responsibility to the Afghans ever closer. </p> <p>This era has been called the ‘Age of Uncertainty’, with the relative certainties of the Cold War far behind us.  Already, it’s 20 years since the abortive coup in Moscow against President Gorbachev which would ultimately pave the way for the collapse of the USSR - a totemic moment.  At the time, Gorbachev was under pressure from his hardliners to be more conservative and aggressive militarily.  And he was under pressure economically as the weight of military spending eventually made the Soviet economy buckle.  </p> <p>As the current Prime Minister arrives in Mosocw it is perhaps appropriate to recount the British Prime Minister at the time, Sir John Major, who recalled Gorbachev wryly recounting a joke.  <br><br>“There was a food shortage in Moscow and people were queuing for bread. They were queuing for a long time and they were getting very irritated.  One man turned in the queue to his neighbour and said, ‘I’m fed up with this, I blame Gorbachev, I’m going to kill Gorbachev,’ and off he went.  He came back two days later and the people still queuing said, ‘Did you kill Gorbachev?’  ‘No,’ he replied ‘The queue was just too long’.”</p> <p>It’s a good story, but it also underscores a message which should resonate loud and clear at this conference today.  A weak economy, as the Soviets discovered, is itself a threat to national security liability. </p> <p>That truism has not been lost on the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen who said recently that, “Growing debt remains the single biggest threat to our national security.”  That’s why here in Britain, as elsewhere, Defence is having to play its part in tackling our national deficit. The US looks like following suit.  Some painful yet essential decisions have been taken, and more may follow. At the same time, my colleague, Liam Fox, and I, are both hawks on fiscal rectitude and hawks on strong national defence.  It’s a painful position to be in, but we are committed to strength in both. <br><br>We must also face up to some uncomfortable truths about our security architectures, not least the future of our most potent and cherished military alliance - NATO. </p> <p>As it has for over 60 years, NATO continues to be the bedrock of our security.  20 years have passed since the original defining mission of NATO - defence against the Warsaw Pact - came to an end.  But NATO has defied the sceptics who questioned, “Whither NATO?” at the end of the Cold War.  It’s perhaps best illustrated by the remarkable transformation NATO has undergone since that other totemic moment of our times - 9/11 -whose 10th anniversary, we sombrely marked yesterday.  </p> <p>In the wake of 9/11, NATO invoked Article V for the first time in its history.  It embarked on its first truly out-of area mission in Afghanistan.  In Libya, NATO has again proved that it is has adapted beyond all recognition from its Cold War stance.  It was to NATO that the UN turned to implement Resolution 1973.  It was a NATO-commanded operation which saved Benghazi from a brutal attack by Gaddafi’s forces. And NATO has been sufficiently agile to accommodate two Arab states and a neutral one, Sweden, in support of Libyan operations. <br><br>As an instrument of policy and security, NATO has proved its worth once more.  But with 10 Alliance members choosing to opt out of Libya, it reminds us that all is not well. </p> <p>That’s why just before he retired in June, the former US Defence Secretary, Bob Gates, gave a forensic and discomforting analysis of the challenges facing the Alliance.  He highlighted three areas where NATO must transform: finance, capability, and political will. </p> <p>When the Soviet threat was at its height, the US spent roughly the same on defence as the rest of the Alliance combined. Now, the US contribution heavily outweighs the rest. Furthermore, Secretary Gates was clear that the gaze of Congress is increasingly fixed on the emerging powers in Asia.  And when the US, like many of us, faces the serious pressure of balancing budgets, it can no longer justify producing security for those who merely consume it.  In 2001 US indebtedness to China stood at $78 billion; today, it is more than $1,100 billion.<br></p> <p>But it’s not just about money.  It’s about having meaningful capability, and the will to deploy it.  For example, air-to-air refuelling for Libya is overwhelmingly provided by the United States - only 12 of 43 aircraft come from other Alliance members.  </p> <p>Unless NATO members address the issues of finance, capability, and the political will to commit to missions of collective security we all agreed in the Strategic Concept, I am afraid that I agree with Bob Gates that a ‘dim and dismal future’ may fall upon it.  Rectifying these deficiencies in the Alliance is within our means.  The question is, as I’ve said before, will NATO cross its Rubicon?</p> <p>NATO rose to the challenge of assuming relevance in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and I believe it can rise to this challenge again because it must. </p> <p>Today’s conference is an important part of that process, because we simply have to find ways of sharing the burden of collective Defence more equitably.  We need innovative approaches to developing affordable capability. </p> <p>This is where General Abrial’s organisation and all of you in industry have such a vital role to play. I’m delighted that so many of you could come from near and far, and I hope you will visit DSEi at the Docklands this week. </p> <p>In some cases, this will mean allocating more, as we have done in Britain with an additional £650 million to strengthen our understanding, our resilience, and our defences in cyber space.  </p> <p>In some cases, this will mean spending differently.  For example, some European countries have punched well above their weight by focusing on deployability or on assets which are of greatest utility to the Alliance as well as their national defence.  At the risk of singling out any one programme, the acquisition by the NATO Airlift Management Agency of Boeing’s C-17 aircraft is an excellent example of multinational pooling and sharing, with nations co-operating to deliver capability which they couldn’t individually afford. <br></p> <p>In some cases, quite frankly, this will mean spending less on areas as we configure forces fit for the 21st century.  The European Defence Agency should also have a role to play here, but it must do so in close co-operation with NATO.  Talking up the EU as an alternative route and adding new institutional structures does not address diminishing defence budgets.  As my colleague, Liam Fox, has said, “Double hatting doesn’t increase capacity or capability. It doesn’t create one more bullet, one more gun, one more plane.”</p> <p>So the challenge facing NATO, and therefore industry, is how to generate and develop the capabilities necessary to meet contemporary and future tasks without breaking the bank. </p> <p>Coherent and co-ordinated action will be required to address ‘common’ shortfalls - for example, in areas like Counter-IED, medical support, and increasing the availability of heavy lift helicopters - as we in Britain have done recently with the purchase of 14 new Chinooks.  I welcome NATO’s continuing efforts both to remove unnecessary duplication from Allied inventories and highlight the worrying capability gaps across Europe which are being created as a result of budget reductions in almost every country, including, I accept, in the United Kingdom.<br><br>But many other questions need to be answered.  For example, how can we do more with less? How can NATO and industry collaborate to deliver the Secretary General’s ‘Smart Defence’ initiative and fill these critical capability gaps?  And how can we maximise the chances for you in industry to think outside the box?   </p> <p>Finally, I think General Abrial put his finger on perhaps the central issue earlier this year - interoperability.  The perfect solution is always attractive.  But as the General has said, “Sometimes the 80% solution is better because you can have it faster, because you can have it cheaper, and because you can share it [and, I would add, export it] better.”</p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, in these austere times it is tempting to defer the cost, pass on the burden, and recoil from change.  But our approach to NATO - on money, on capability, and political direction must change.  Industry has a major role to play and as the world of Defence comes to London to be part of one of the world’s largest Defence exhibitions - DSEi - my challenge to you is this: seize the opportunity to put the principles we discuss today into practical effect.  </p> <p>And help NATO - the world’s greatest military alliance - to be the viable, powerful, and relevant force we all want, and need, it to be. </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinISD/20110912NatoAlliedCommandTransformationactIndustryDay.htm Gerald Howarth 2011/09/12 - NATO Allied Command Transformation (ACT) Industry Day uk.org.publicwhip/member/40039 15/09/2011 Ministry of Defence the Grosvenor House Hotel, London
<p>Ladies and Gentlemen, Churchill once remarked about a London dinner, "It would have been splendid: if the wine had been as cold as the soup; the beef as rare as the service; the brandy as old as the fish; and the maid as willing as the duchess."  Happily, I'm confident that tonight's fayre will be as splendid as the company; I'm grateful to the Government Hospitality team – particularly Annette Moore, and the Government Butler David Allen.</p> <p>Let me also thank Professor Mark Welland – the Chief Scientific Adviser – and his staff for organising this dinner to mark the 35th Stocktake of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement – surely one of the most historic and enduring Treaties between Britain and the US; indeed between any nation.  I gather you have had a very successful day. <br><br>For over 50 years, the MDA has ensured that our nuclear deterrence programmes remain aligned and mutually supportive.  It has allowed us to discuss and plan aspects of our national nuclear deterrence in the finest detail. That's indicative of the depth of the relationship between the United States and Britain. </p> <p>Even now, the technical challenges faced by our scientists and engineers are immense – from maintaining a nuclear stockpile beyond its originally envisaged lifespan to the certification of warhead safety, security, and performance in the absence of explosive nuclear testing.  Indeed, maintaining a cadre of suitably qualified and experienced people is itself no small challenge. </p> <p>So my sincerer thanks you all for what you do on our behalf.  You're part of a complex and largely invisible web of day-to-day interactions between Britons and Americans deep inside each other's establishments, laboratories, and headquarters.  I'm delighted that Britain with its nuclear technical experts is making such a positive contribution to that relationship.  The current level and depth of collaboration is unprecedented.  Although they may not know it, when people talk of the ‘Special Relationship' they're talking about you.  <br><br>Because your unique skills are as essential as ever.  This year's events alone remind us what a volatile world we live in.  Financial uncertainty – not least the prospect of the US defaulting on its debt next Tuesday – tumultuous unrest across North Africa and the Middle East, ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Libya, and the death of Bin Laden are a sharp riposte to those who have failed to acknowledge this fact.  My friends, we are living in unprecedented times.  So it's right to take stock of our approach to Defence and Security.</p> <p>With the Cold War far behind us, some have argued that the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons has less relevance than ever.  Certainly, the main theme in recent headlines has been disarmament.  In Britain, this was backed in our Strategic Defence and Security Review by the reduction in our requirement for operational nuclear warheads.   </p> <p>But while we will continue vigorously to pursue multilateral global disarmament, I think we have to look at this from a wider perspective and more profoundly.  We should remember the fundamental lessons which we applied during the Cold War, and which are equally applicable in the 21st century. </p> <p>As some of you may know, I had the privilege of serving as Margaret Thatcher's Parliamentary Private Secretary.  Her indomitable belief in the power which economic, and thus military, strength bestows on a nation was one of her defining qualities.  She understood the importance of a rules-based international system in our armoury.  And she grasped as well as anyone that warfare is not, and never has been, solely about the art of war-fighting.  It includes having the national resilience and political determination to face down threats; accepting the risks to life and limb which that entails; and having the self-belief, patience, and will to stay the course. </p> <p>She brought these core beliefs to bear when the Falkland Islands were invaded.  She did so again when – along with one of America's greatest Presidents, Ronald Reagan – the West faced down the tyranny of the Soviet Union.  And as Saddam Hussein would discover, she knew that if the international community backed down in the face of unprovoked hostility it would be a betrayal of our values and security.</p> <p>Above all, her faith in the power of deterrence was resolute from first to last.  Nuclear weapons can not be dis-invented and we are seeing today both vertical and horizontal proliferation.  For example, Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would accelerate proliferation elsewhere in the region as others refuse to countenance a nuclear-armed Iran.  </p> <p>That's why, in an unpredictable world, Britain's position must remain unchanged.  We are committed to the concept of a "minimum credible deterrent", long-championed by us in opposition and now in government through the SDSR – and most eloquently by my Parliamentary colleague, Dr. Julian Lewis.  </p> <p>We have acknowledged the different position of our coalition partners, and will review the costs, feasibility, and credibility of alternative systems and posture to a continuous at sea deterrent, based upon a ballistic missile submarine.  But our bottom line remains that Britain will continue to maintain a minimum credible nuclear deterrent, and our commitment to the 1958 MDA is as strong as ever. </p> <p>This does not mean we can rest on our laurels.  <br><br>Britain and the US must be in the vanguard of shaping an international environment which minimises the risks of diversion, and inadvertent or unauthorised use of nuclear materials.  We must – as President Obama has said – enhance the safe, secure, and effective management of the nuclear capabilities which we have at the moment.  Our co-operation in this field is, I hope, as strong as the deterrent itself.  </p> <p>We must also provide better value for money where possible, not least through collaboration.  That's why the British and French Governments have agreed to design and build a joint hydrodynamics facility at Valduc which meets both nations' sovereign requirements.  Engagement between the P3 nations on nuclear deterrence is likely to become increasingly active.  </p> <p>And closer collaboration will help us to make progress on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty; deliver the commitments we signed up to in last year's NPT Action Plan; and determine the future of NATO's nuclear defence and deterrence posture. It also applies to areas which fall under the NPT, including a focus on nuclear arms control verification research – in which the US and the UK are world-leading. </p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, those who drew up the 1958 MDA were far-sighted indeed.  Just as the US and the UK, working together, led the world into the nuclear age in the 1940s, the MDA can help us to lead the world towards our long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons.  </p> <p>But until the threats we face are gone, Mrs. Thatcher's equally far-sighted words still hold true: "A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us."  Your help in balancing progress on disarmament with keeping our deterrent credible and safe remains a key task of our time.  Long may you continue to be able to provide the support. </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinISD/201107261958UkusMutualDefenceAgreementStocktake.htm Gerald Howarth 2011/07/26 - 1958 UK/US Mutual Defence Agreement Stocktake uk.org.publicwhip/member/40039 29/07/2011 Ministry of Defence 1 Carlton Gardens, London
<p>Ladies and Gentlemen, distinguished guests, good evening.  I realise that many of you came here tonight expecting to hear the Secretary of State.  I apologise as you have got me instead.  You don’t get a refund, but at least I speak English.  Of course, I’m delighted that Sir Stephen [Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, Chief of the Air Staff] invited me.  He offered me some advice: no politics, not appropriate.  That’s a bit like asking Joanna Lumley not to talk about the Gurkhas, Jamie Oliver not to talk about school dinners, and Gordon Brown not to talk about… Gordon Brown.  </p> <p>I did hear a good political joke this week, however, by Nick Clegg.  What’s the difference between Ed Miliband and Ryan Giggs? One’s a fading left winger who’s upset his brother. The other’s a footballer…  <br><br>Anyway, no need to talk about politics when you can talk about journalists…<br>  <br>As a pilot, I am particularly honoured to address this, the premier social event in the aeronautical calendar, to celebrate RIAT’s 40th birthday.  The first Air Tattoo was staged at North Weald airfield in Essex with just over 100 aircraft taking part.  It was the brainchild of Tim Prince, Paul Bowen, and World War II ace, Air Marshal Sir Denis Crowley-Milling, who twice escaped from occupied France: once by Hurricane and once on foot!</p> <p>The reputation of RIAT was assured when they managed to secure a Spit Mk9 at that first Tattoo.  It was piloted by former Red Arrows leader and legendary aerobatics display pilot, Ray Hanna, of whom Tim would later say: </p> <p>“I can still recall the cold sweat I felt when Ray made his first approach: he was so low the tips of his propeller seemed to be touching the ground. But Ray went on to perform fantastically in MH434 and he helped cement the Air Tattoo's reputation for staging spectacular aerial displays.” </p> <p>Despite the relentless and increasingly absurd efforts of the “elf ’n’ safety” merchants, RIAT continued to attract practitioners and spectators of some of the finest feats of flying skill. In 1996 Her Majesty the Queen conferred the title of ‘Royal’ on the show which from 1993 had become an annual event.  It is a truly international affair and I extend my personal welcome to so many friends from India, Ukraine, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Chile.  In tribute to its status as an international event, in 2004, Fairford was one of the few select venues chosen to mark the 100th anniversary of the historic Anglo-French Entente Cordiale.  Fellow RIAT founder, Paul Bowen, said: </p> <p>"The friendly understanding contained in this historic document has helped both nations focus on the fact that there is a lot more that unites our two countries than divides us.”</p> <p>Sadly, Paul did not live to see the event - nor indeed our new Defence Co-Operation Treaty with France last year - but was justly proud of how RIAT had grown from its small beginnings.  </p> <p>We also owe a big thank you to our close friends in the United States Air Force for making this base available to us.  <br><br>And let’s not forget that RIAT simply couldn’t be held without the tireless work of nearly 4,000 volunteers - from air traffic controllers to engineers; from medics to firefighters, not forgetting the Air Cadets, who this year celebrate the 70th Anniversary of their formation, nor the UASs.  They are the backbone of the Air Tattoo.  All give voluntarily of their time.  So many have told me they do it to give something back.  Tonight, we should show our appreciation for all that they do.  Whilst none of us can calculate with any certainty how many young people’s love of aviation was first sparked here at RIAT or one of the many other air shows, my guess is that they have played a key part in fostering air-mindedness, attracting our young people to careers in the RAF or civil aviation and aerospace.</p> <p>Speaking of industry, let me thank some of the RIAT sponsors, beginning with the very best of British - BAE SYSTEMS and Rolls-Royce - who fly the flag at the cutting edge of the global aerospace business.  But in the true spirit of the Royal International Air Tattoo, thanks are also due to our international friends Northrop Grumman whose Cyber Test Range I was pleased to open last October.  Lockheed Martin, whose C-130s are playing such a vital role on current operations.  And EADS who play a key part in Eurofighter Typhoon.  <br><br>I’d also like to mention MBDA - who are not sponsors - but whose performance in support of current operations demonstrates the flexibility of the joint working approach implemented between MoD and MBDA, and the overall importance of the relationship between the MoD and industry, and the value of having domestic sovereign capability.</p> <p>Before I came here, I decided to look back to this day - 15 July - in 1940, when the Battle of Britain had just begun in earnest.  There was very little enemy activity, probably owing to bad weather, though a few raids took place nonetheless.  What really stood out for me, however, were the Air Intelligence Reports that day.  A confirmed report was received that among the German troops there was “a healthy respect for, coupled with a fear of, the RAF due to the ferocity of their fighters and the accuracy of their bombers.”  </p> <p>Those men would be proud that their successors today uphold that superb reputation.  As it was in 1940, Air Power today remains a critical component of the Defence of Britain and the safety of our people.  <br><br>I am not going to rehearse all the arguments advanced at CAS’s Air Power conference this week - you can all read Liam Fox’s excellent speech on the MoD website - but there is a lack of understanding in some quarters about the critical nature and complexity of air power.  A no-fly zone may trip lightly off the tongue but an enormous range of assets is required to deliver that effect.  In Libya, coalition Air Power has stopped the forces of the Gaddafi regime from using the skies to brutalise his own people and is degrading his ability to do so from land and sea.  The RAF alone has damaged or destroyed over 500 military targets.  The state-of-the-art MBDA Brimstone missiles and Raytheon’s Enhanced Paveway bombs allow us to minimise civilian casualties and take out non-civilian targets in urban areas.  </p> <p>Libya is also showing that the matchless Typhoon has come of age as a multi-role aircraft, flying over 1,700 hours to date.  Tornado GR4s and Typhoon have flown well over 1,000 sorties.  Last month also saw Tornado pass the 1 million flying hours milestone underlining what a magnificent servant this aircraft has been over many years.  Here, I must thank our Italian friends for the tremendous support they have given us, particularly at NATO’s air operations centre in Poggio and its airbase at Gioia del Colle. <br><br>At the same time air operations continue unabated in Afghanistan.  In 2010, the RAF’s Chinook helicopter fleet in Afghanistan transported almost 100,000 people plus their kit and supplies.  In May this year alone, over a million kilograms of freight was moved over the airbridge to Afghanistan.  Air Power provides real-time information crucial to commanders.  And it can make the difference in a humanitarian disaster.  Last August, DFID called on the RAF to help provide urgently-needed shelter for thousands of people driven from their homes in southern Pakistan, which had been hit hardest by severe floods.  Within days, C17 mercy flights - supplemented by a C130 Hercules - delivered desperately needed shelter, food, and medical supplies.</p> <p>Meanwhile, at home, the RAF defends UK sovereign and NATO-monitored air space around-the-clock.  Our Typhoons scramble approximately once a month to intercept aircraft which cannot be identified by any other means, a protection largely invisible to the majority of our citizens who don’t live near RAF stations.  As an aside, I’m delighted that the Typhoon is now operational on QRA in Saudi Arabia.  </p> <p>More visible perhaps is the fact that the RAF’s Search and Rescue helicopters are scrambled almost every day - as indeed they have for the past 70 years.  Around 100 people every month have good cause to be thankful for the skills and bravery of the SAR crews and for the Sea Kings they fly - not least the commitment of the Duke of Cambridge.  </p> <p>Whilst the core burden of delivering Air Power on operations falls on the RAF, it is not exclusively.  So just as the RAF Regiment is made up of gunners who have a special understanding of the air environment, so the Fleet Air Arm is made up of airmen who have a special understanding of the maritime environment and the Army Air Corps is made up of airmen who have a special understanding of the land environment.</p> <p>And it’s not just the pilots.  It’s the technicians which keep the aircraft flying; it’s the controllers who send the aircraft off and bring them down again; it’s the analysts who bring to bear their unique skill sets to analyse ISTAR data; it’s medevac crews with their heroic life-saving skills; and it’s the weapons engineers making sure the ordnance is ready.  </p> <p>These are brilliant, committed, brave people - among the best in our Armed Forces - united by their understanding of the utility of Air Power.  As the Secretary of State said in his speech on Wednesday, “There have been times in our history when the light blue was the only thing which stood between us and defeat… The people of this United Kingdom know that the Royal Air Force will never let them down.” </p> <p>All three Services rely on the equipment and support provided by dedicated and talented men and women who make up the aerospace industry.  The industry is important not just for our Armed Forces - and by extension our national security - but for our country as a whole.  The industry employs around 100,000 people directly in the UK and indirectly supports over 200,000 more.  These are good jobs with average salaries over 40% higher than the national average.  It drives innovation spending almost £1.8 billion annually on R&amp;D.  And it is a dynamic global industry - despite the difficult financial circumstances - looking to expand partnerships around the world, sharing technology and skills.  <br><br>This year’s export figures have just been announced today and they show that the UK has maintained its position as the second largest defence exporter with sales approaching £6 billion, increasing its market share from 18% to 22% whilst security exports grew by 8% to around £2 billion.  Over the past five years, sales of Typhoon and Hawk alone have accounted for almost £7 billion of orders or around 20% of British Defence exports.  And that approximately three-quarters of all British Defence exports are expected to have derived from the air sector. </p> <p>So even in these testing times there is much to celebrate.  But these are testing times.  Budget deficits around the world are being seen as threats to national security in themselves, so tackling the UK’s £150 billion deficit we inherited last year has inevitably led to some tough decisions, few of which we had wanted to make and which more benign circumstances would have spared us.  </p> <p>But as a package the Strategic Defence and Security Review has ensured that we will remain in the premier league of military powers, supported by the 4th largest defence budget in the world.  The MoD will be spending around £50 billion on equipment and support over the next four years.  <br><br>And for the RAF that means new Typhoons, A330 Voyager tankers, A400M Atlas transporters, JSF and UAVs. But the circumstances mean that - now more than ever - we have to make every penny count.  The long-term prosperity of British industry will depend on being competitive and market sensitive to increase export prospects while delivering better value for money to the taxpayer.</p> <p>And let me offer one word of caution, as a politician.  We can not, nor should we, rely on our American friends to act as our substitutes for the things we must all do as sovereign nations.  In Europe, unless NATO members are willing to pay their premiums, the validity of their insurance policies must be in serious doubt.  </p> <p>Let me end pretty much as I began. </p> <p>As an aviator, I have to say that RIAT is just the most magnificent gathering of airmen and women - a veritable aeronautical garden party; and of proponents and exponents of Air Power.  </p> <p>However, one of the most unexpectedly astute views on Air Power I’ve come across was by Field Marshal Montgomery.  Monty said:<br><br>“Air Power is indivisible. If you split it up into compartments, you merely pull it to pieces and destroy its greatest asset - its flexibility.”</p> <p>Air Power is, quite simply, mission critical, and I’m quite sure it will play as strong a role in the future Defence of our respective countries and our interests as it has done, so remarkably, in the past.</p> <p>Thank you for giving me the supreme honour of addressing you, this gathering of the clan, this band of aviator brothers, my friends.</p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinISD/20110715RoyalInternationalAirTattooriatGalaDinner.htm Gerald Howarth 2011/07/15 - Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) Gala Dinner uk.org.publicwhip/member/40039 05/08/2011 Ministry of Defence RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire
<p>Thank you Giles [Merritt, SDA Director] for that kind introduction, and to you and Jaap [de Hoop Scheffer, former NATO Secretary General &amp; SDA Co-President] - together with the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung - for hosting this timely event.  </p> <p>The title of this session is ‘Equipping NATO for different threats and new tasks’.  Recent developments around the world have once again shown the volatility of the world we live in, and the pace of change we need to manage and respond to.  In just the last six months, bin Laden has been killed; Mladić put on trial; the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt swept away by a tide of change which is washing across the Middle East.  </p> <p>And Afghanistan and Libya are proof, if ever we needed it, that the pursuit of our national and collective security cannot be confined to the Euro-Atlantic area. </p> <p>Nor is the world just a geographic entity anymore - it is networked and virtual.  Recent cyber attacks on diverse organisations like Lockheed Martin and the IMF are a foretaste of what is to come.  And some threats are still with us - no-one can be certain that state-on-state conflict has been abolished, and nuclear proliferation remains a growing threat. </p> <p>That we have a range of different threats and new tasks before us is not in question.  Our challenge is how to tackle them. </p> <p>As it has for over 60 years, NATO continues to be the bedrock of our security.  The 28 NATO Allies set themselves an ambitious vision of NATO’s role in the world when they agreed the new Strategic Concept last year.  But questions are being raised again about NATO’s funding, capability, and political will.  </p> <p>I was hugely impressed with Bob Gates’s forensic dissection of the challenges facing the Alliance earlier this month, and I congratulate the SDA on hosting that event.  It was both a warning, and a clarion call for pressing on with NATO reform.</p> <p>When the Soviet threat was at its height, there was roughly a 50:50 split in funding between the US and the rest of the Alliance - a reasonable share of risk and reward.  Now, America contributes some 75% of the funding, while Europe’s percentage has roughly halved.  </p> <p>Even in times of plenty, this is a questionable imbalance.  But Secretary Gates was clear that the gaze of US lawmakers is being held ever more tightly by the increasingly capable and global Armed Forces of emerging powers in Asia.  And when the US, like many of us, faces the serious pressure of balancing budgets in a time of austerity, it can no longer justify producing security for those who merely consume it.  It was a clear warning to Europeans to take this imbalance in NATO seriously. </p> <p>And it’s not just about money.  Not all members can contribute meaningful capability, and not all those who have such assets choose to do so.  Events in Libya have underscored this starkly.  <br>So unless the rest of NATO strengthens its finances, its capabilities, and its political will to commit to missions of collective security we all agreed in the Strategic Concept, the ‘dim and dismal future’ which Bob Gates spoke of will be upon us.</p> <p>Rectifying these deficiencies in our Alliance is well within our means.  </p> <p>But will NATO cross its Rubicon?  </p> <p>I’d like to look at all three components today - finance, capability, and political will - and their influence on internal NATO reform. </p> <p>We all know how tough the financial situation is.  In Britain, we have had to make some difficult decisions to bring balance to our Defence budget because we inherited a massive national budget deficit which, unless addressed, would itself constitute a threat to our national security.  We also believe that investment in security is insurance for future prosperity.  </p> <p>That’s why our recent Strategic Defence and Security Review reaffirmed that we will continue to meet the NATO 2% of GDP target throughout our current spending period.  Yet, although our allies also reaffirmed their commitment to this target as recently as March, it is very depressing that 23 out of 28 allies currently fail to meet it. </p> <p>So it is imperative that we find ways of sharing the burden of collective Defence more equitably.  In some cases this will mean spending more, which we in Britain acknowledged by allocating an additional £650m to strengthen our understanding, our resilience, and our defences in cyber space.  In some cases this will mean spending differently.  For example, some European countries have punched well above their weight by focusing on deployability or on assets which are of greatest utility to the Alliance as well as their national defence.  </p> <p>And we are quite clear that talking up the EU as an alternative route does not address diminishing defence budgets.  As our Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, has observed, “Double hatting doesn’t increase capacity or capability. It doesn’t create one more bullet, one more gun, one more plane.” </p> <p>This places even greater emphasis on spending our scarce resources wisely by targeting our most pressing capability needs.  </p> <p>We need to identify and reduce areas of duplication among the Allies - and NATO’s Allied Command Transformation has an important role to play here in advising Allies to help deliver the Secretary General’s Smart Defence initiative and fill critical capability gaps.  </p> <p>The Anglo-French Defence Treaty is a model of how this could evolve.  It will also make us stronger partners with our NATO and EU allies.  Indeed, we hope that our example will encourage other partners to seek better value for money and improve capability through co-operation with each other.  However, such arrangements would have to be pragmatic and have clear military utility at their core - like the future Combined Joint Expeditionary Force - or they are, at best, political symbolism.  So we view our collaboration with France as a strategic imperative; as natural as it’s necessary.  Indeed, the US has long argued that Europe as a whole needs more effective, operationally viable forces.  I agree, though this has to come with improved access to US technology, and research and development. </p> <p>But we need to be clear that while pooling and sharing, and collaborative working is an important tool for delivering better value for money, it is not a panacea.  And it’s no good complaining, for example, about multiple shipyards or armoured vehicle manufacturers in Europe unless you are clear about the capability you are prepared to give up or collaborate on.</p> <p>That brings me to the question of political will.  NATO’s teeth, not its tail, have made it the most successful military alliance in history.  But NATO’s success in securing more than 60 years of peace and ending the continent’s Cold War divisions means far less to younger generations than to those of us who lived through those years.</p> <p>Media and public opposition to military intervention has increasingly tested the resolve of all European governments; in some cases they have been found wanting.  Of course, politicians must be sensitive to the views of their electors, and we must be more adept at communicating the relevance of threats to the lives of our people.</p> <p>But we cannot duck our responsibilities: Defence of the realm is the first duty of the British government and, I would trust, all Allied Governments.  We must articulate the cost of inaction: threats don’t disappear because we choose not to confront them.  On the contrary, history tells us that they grow when this happens.  So we believe that countries should look forwards and outwards - not backwards or inwards.  And while they should understand their history, they should not be governed by it.  Ultimately, as a military alliance, if we agree on the need for force we must be willing to deploy force.<br><br>NATO’s Strategic Concept offers the blueprint for the future, and Liam Fox has set out three important reasons why full and speedy implementation is so important.</p> <p>First - it reaffirms the centrality of Article 5 and the pledge to defend one another, whether large or small, old or new allies - it is the very foundation upon which the Alliance and Europe’s security is built.  </p> <p>But it also recognises - and this has been reinforced by Afghanistan and Libya, and is consistent with our own SDSR - that European security today means much more than sitting at home, hoping to be able to repel attacks, however unexpected and from whatever quarter. <br><br>Second, the emphasis on deployability for both Article 5 and non-Article 5 activities is central to the effectiveness of NATO in preserving our security in the future.  That is why, for example, we place a priority on Force Generation and the delivery of deployable capability and force.  </p> <p>Third - as our experience in Afghanistan has shown and the Strategic Concept acknowledges, NATO needs better capabilities in linking civilian and military effect when undertaking these kinds of missions.  That civilian capacity should predominantly come from NATO’s partners - the UN and the EU - and from the Allies themselves.  </p> <p>But NATO needs to be able to develop its own plans as it works with these partners and operate alongside them, so we need to get a civilian planning capability in NATO up and running.</p> <p>I would add a fourth reason - public legitimacy.  The Strategic Concept was right to address internal reform and transformation.  <br>So I welcome the decision to streamline the Command Structure, and the recent agreement on where the Commands should be - in particular the Maritime Command in Northwood.  The decision, when implemented, should deliver the effective, leaner, and affordable Command Structure which the NATO Secretary General has championed.  We need to apply similar rigour to reform other parts of NATO: the Headquarters (including International and Military Staffs), and the Agencies.</p> <p>NATO’s End to End Review of Capability Development highlights duplication taking place across numerous areas: we need to stop these wasteful, self-serving working practices and will be looking for concrete recommendations for Defence Ministers.  Co-locating the Brussels Headquarters’ 1,600 civilian and military staff would also be a first step towards more effective ways of working.  And we believe NATO’s Committee structures need to be re-examined and, where appropriate, outsourcing of support services should be considered. </p> <p>Finally, although progress has been made, it strikes us as odd that the Secretary General does not have more control over the way his own HQ is run.  For example - and Jaap, you may have some thoughts on this - the post remains extremely limited in how it can flex manpower to meet peaks and troughs in work.</p> <p>Furthermore, when difficult decisions are being made across the alliance on the affordability of military capability, we should consider carefully whether the generous terms for NATO appointments -  such as average tax-free salaries of 95,000 euros, substantial housing allowances, and paying for dependents’ education up to the age of 26 - real world requirements.</p> <p>In these austere times, it is tempting to defer the cost, pass on the burden, and recoil from change.  But Europe needs to reflect on the fact that it is in large measure the US taxpayer who has provided the shield which since 1945 has enabled the continent to recover its prosperity.  It’s not simply a question of thanks.  It’s not simply a question of money.  It’s equally about deployability, and the political will to do so, which only the US and a few of the more capable and willing allies possess. </p> <p>Let me end on a positive note.  Writing in The Economist in 1996 about NATO’s future, Brian Beedham wrote that: </p> <p>“The chief task of the new NATO will be to support western foreign policy in areas outside the Alliance’s own territory.  Its purpose will be power projection.”  </p> <p>He excluded large parts of the world but concluded: “this still leaves to the new NATO’s zone of responsibility a huge stretch of territory -South-West Asia and much of Africa - which also happens to be the most unpredictably explosive part of today’s world…  Out of this turbulent region could come, in the next 20 or 30 years, a dozen requirements for power projection.  The Atlantic countries will need to preserve their access to the region’s oil…” </p> <p>“Their conscience may insist that they act to stop the worst outbreaks of ethnic or dictatorial brutality. They may even, when they judge it can be done without too much difficulty, try to open the door to democracy for some of the area’s imprisoned peoples.”</p> <p>Perceptive stuff indeed, but surely Afghanistan and Libya - and as your old friend George Robertson reminded me last night, Kosovo -  have illustrated that NATO has matched up to the challenge foreseen 15 years ago. In particular, the speed with which NATO was able to offer its proven structures and systems to implement UNSCR 1973 is testament to NATO’s ability to generate and deliver capability, although we do need to remind ourselves that Libya is not a NATO operation but a NATO commanded operation, and as Secretary Gates rightly pointed out, a mission which does not involve ground troops under fire. </p> <p>We want the world’s greatest military alliance to remain viable and powerful, but that requires reform - right here, right now. As former winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, René Cassin, once remarked, “Building for the future is a very difficult thing to do; we cannot hope to complete the work in one generation; all the more reason to begin at once.”</p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinISD/20110629shapingNatosReformAgendaConference.htm Gerald Howarth 2011/06/29 - ‘Shaping NATO’s Reform Agenda’ Conference uk.org.publicwhip/member/40039 30/06/2011 Ministry of Defence Cercle Gaulois, Brussels
<p>Thank you, Michael [Professor Michael Clarke, Director, RUSI], for that kind introduction and for inviting me to RUSI.  I feel rather flattered as an aviator to be invited to address a Land Warfare conference, although I suppose the timing could not have been more propitious as the Army Air Corps stands ready to deploy its AH-64 Apaches on operations in Libya, illustrating the wide role of air power across all three arms.</p> <p>I am delighted that so many old friends are here at RUSI to exchange ideas at a time of immense change and turmoil in the world, and it’s a pleasure to welcome new friends such as General Enzo, Commander of the Brazilian Army. </p> <p>I’m particularly pleased that General Hertling [Commanding General, US Army Europe] could join our panel.  We have much in common.  </p> <p>Like me, General, you know the joys of living and working in Germany.  </p> <p>Like me, I’m sure you appreciate the wisdom of your 15th President, James Buchanan who repeated Thomas Jefferson’s warning against “entangling alliances” - which may also explain why Buchanan was the only President to remain a life-long bachelor! </p> <p>Yet, like me, I know you appreciate the enormous benefits of an alliance which has for six decades - and counting - been the most successful military alliance the world has ever seen. </p> <p>And I think NATO does provide us with a useful starting point for any discussion about interagency and international.  With most national budgets under severe pressure, we do not have the luxury of engaging in unnecessary duplication, institution building, or spreading resources wide and thin.  We have to focus - both in what we do and how we collaborate - on what works. </p> <p>And NATO works. </p> <p>NATO prevented the Cold War from becoming hot.  It proved its continued utility in bringing peace to the Balkans.  And after 9/11, NATO took the unprecedented decision to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - this time Europe went to the aid of the United States.  </p> <p>But time doesn’t stand still.  While by most measures, Europe is, territorially, more secure than at any point in its history, we must recognise that today our national and collective security is inevitably affected by what happens outside the Euro-Atlantic zone. </p> <p>Recent events should give a timely wake up call to those who have failed to acknowledge that today’s world is a seriously unpredictable place.  I’m mindful that General Dempsey [Chief of Staff, US Army] is a fan of Shakespeare which brought to mind a line from Macbeth, “If you can look into the seeds of time, and say which grain will grow and which will not, speak then to me.”</p> <p>Indeed, who here would have thought as they marked the Christmas festivities that within weeks the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt would be swept away on a tide of street uprisings?  That the regimes in Libya and Syria would be challenged as never before?  Or that a decade after 9/11 the spiritual leader of Al-Qaeda would be clinically taken out on Pakistani soil by US forces;  or that, 16 years on, the long arm of international law would catch up with Mladić?</p> <p>So these events have served to validate the kernel of our Strategic Defence and Security Review - the SDSR - in terms of our commitment to an adaptable posture and flexible forces. What is happening in Libya in particular is a very different operation from that in Afghanistan and both offer perspectives on the changing character of conflict.  </p> <p>To prepare for that flexible force structure we took the decision to restructure the Army into five new multi-role brigades which will consist of around 6,500 personnel.  These will provide a wide range of capabilities, allowing them to operate across a variety of possible conflicts which we envisage could arise over the next decades.  <br><br>Crucially, they will also allow greater choice in the size and composition of the force which might be deployed, without having to draw on other elements from the rest of the Army as has been the case in recent times.</p> <p>The multi-role brigades will include: reconnaissance forces to gain information even in high-threat situations; tanks, which continue to provide a unique combination of protection, mobility and firepower; and infantry operating from a range of protected vehicles.  The brigades will be self-supporting, having their own artillery, engineer, communications, intelligence, logistic and medical support.</p> <p>Libya is also further evidence that important as NATO’s Article V is - and make no mistake it is the very foundation upon which the organisation is built - European security means much more than sitting at home and waiting to repel attacks.  That’s why over 150,000 brave men and women are committed to NATO-commanded operations on three continents, as well as many non-NATO countries who have come on board of their own volition.</p> <p>NATO is proving itself as the only practical instrument of choice for internationally agreed operations.  <br><br>When the UN Security Council swiftly passed resolution 1973 it was to NATO that everyone looked to provide the nuts and bolts of the operation.  To its credit, NATO, too, responded incredibly fast and as a result Benghazi was saved from a brutal attack by Ghadaffi’s forces.  So when Europe can operate decisively through NATO, why would we need a parallel bureaucratic alternative?  </p> <p>And when we are faced with a global economic squeeze the like of which we have not seen for generations, we need to maximise co-operation.  We need action, not posturing.  We need capability not tokenism. </p> <p>NATO has demonstrated in Libya that it can offer all of these, although it is important to remember that Libya is not a NATO operation but a NATO-commanded operation.  </p> <p>And there is a very important difference in that. <br></p> <p>Of course, more work needs to be done to improve NATO, making it more efficient and cost-effective, a project on which my boss, the Secretary of State, Dr Liam Fox, is playing a forceful role.  At the same time, there is evidence that the relationship between NATO and the EU is improving as the recognition increases that duplication is expensive.  And as we mark the 40th anniversary of the Five Power Defence Arrangements with Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Singapore later this year, I can see merit in discussing how NATO might interact with major powers and regional organisations assuming we’re no longer in a fixed campaign cycle.</p> <p>But where I see the greatest opportunity for transformation is international partnership. </p> <p>To some, that’s simply code for spending less.  It’s true, of course, that we inherited, as Liam Fox said recently, “a level of debt and economic mismanagement which represents a national economic emergency.”  It’s true that our budget deficit is also a threat to our national security.  And it’s true that we are seeking better value for money from industry.  </p> <p>Yet even in times of plenty, the case for partnership and collaboration is compelling.  As Dr Fox has also said, we increasingly rely on our allies, and we will deepen our multilateral and bilateral defence relationships.  Let me use our recent Treaty with France as an exemplar.   </p> <p>In Europe, Britain and France are the major Defence powers, with Armed Forces of comparable size and capability.  Both are Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council, and nuclear powers. Importantly, we have the political will to use them in pursuit of our national interests, which are increasingly aligned.  It is sensible therefore that we have the right means to use our forces together. </p> <p>I also should point out that one of the most enthusiastic supporters of our closer co-operation with France has been the US.  They have long argued that Europe as a whole needs more effective, operationally viable forces, though the quid pro quo has to be improved access to US technology, and research and development.  <br></p> <p>Most importantly, it is about practical effect.  Collaboration is a real force multiplier.  And it’s not just about hardware.  It’s also about access, understanding, and empathy in parts of the world in which we may find ourselves operating in the future.  Our historical, economic, and cultural ties within the Commonwealth epitomise this opportunity. </p> <p>So collaboration with France is a strategic imperative; as natural as it is necessary.</p> <p>It doesn’t mean our competitive streak with the French has been completely lost!</p> <p>And let me scotch a few other misconceptions. </p> <p>For example, pooling arrangements are often disparaged as meaning “you have fast jets and they have ships.”  In fact, we recognise the benefits of pooling and sharing capabilities, while ensuring that sovereign requirements can still be met; there’s no point entering these things with delusions. </p> <p>Other misconceptions are that the France Treaty is Saint Malo mark 2, and a threat to what we plan to do alone if necessary or with other countries.  We want a closer bilateral relationship with Norway, which is one of our key strategic partners in the increasingly important High North region.  We want to create a NATO framework which makes it easier for Sweden and Finland to have a closer relationship, and as a nuclear power we want to give even greater reassurance to the Baltic states about the reality of Article 5 of the NATO treaty.  We also want to create regional structures to make it easier to engage with Russia, where we can, on regional problem solving.  </p> <p>It is also a useful lesson for the UK that in a world in which there is a multi-polar power base, we need more different levers to act in the interests of our national security - and regional security, not restricted to the continent of Europe.  I have already mentioned the Five Power Defence Arrangements which we hope can take on a new dimension as we move into its fifth decade of existence, but we are also actively developing reinvigorated relationships with countries like India and Brazil with which the UK has unique long-standing historic bonds - bonds which I think no other nation in the world can boast. </p> <p>The truth is that our Treaty with France is a bilateral agreement between sovereign nations to increase collaboration and capability, and is intended to complement NATO and the EU. And it’s an opportunity to allow our Armed Forces to deploy as a significant and influential part of a coalition which can undertake complex military tasks.  </p> <p>But we need to make this happen at a practical level.  Take the ongoing development of a Combined Joint Expeditionary Force.  This will be a high readiness force able to undertake complex and early interventions, and we are working towards full operational capability in 2016.  We have already started training together.  </p> <p>So as we adapt to life in a volatile world, so too must our Armed Forces. </p> <p>Collaboration and partnership will play a major part. </p> <p>But we should not forget the principles and values which guide us.  They are the same today as those which steered our predecessors through two World Wars, a Cold War, and the immediate aftermath of 9/11. </p> <p>We must show our resolve against tyranny and terrorism.  We must support those who seek the freedoms we take for granted.  And we must fight to make the world a better place for the next generation.</p> <p>As President Obama said last week in Westminster Hall, “if we fail to take that responsibility, who would take our place?”</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinISD/20110601LandWarfareConference.htm Gerald Howarth 2011/06/01 - Land Warfare Conference uk.org.publicwhip/member/40039 02/06/2011 Ministry of Defence the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), London
<p>Thank you Robin [Niblett, Director, Chatham House] for that introduction and to the organisers and sponsors of this important round table.  It’s a pleasure to be back in Poland once more.  </p> <p>Britain’s Defence budget is the fourth largest in the world, and Poland is one of the few nations in Europe which is increasing Defence expenditure.  We are both leading members of NATO and the EU.  We both have extensive operational experience, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan where Poland is contributing 2,527 troops, and I pay tribute to that effort.  We feel each other’s casualties keenly, and we value your solidarity enormously. Today’s event is a further mark of how seriously we take our friendship and alliance with Poland, and how keen we are to develop our relationship.  <br><br>So I’m delighted to be sharing this session with my good friend, Zbigniew Włosowicz.  We have met many times at EU meetings.  We have a lot in common, particularly as non-Eurozone members…  I was planning to take Defence Minister Idzik for a flight in an RAF Hawk aircraft recently.  Alas, the Minister had to postpone his visit, but let me extend the same invitation to you when you’re next in Britain.  You will have to assess my flying skills for yourself, but since we have the BAE SYSTEMS man with us today - Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy - I can at least assure you of a Hawk to fly in...  He has a small quantity of outstanding aircraft available if you would like to buy them. I’m sure I can fix a good price for you! </p> <p>I’d like to start my contribution to our discussion by talking about the likely impact of recent events on NATO and the EU.</p> <p>I’m mindful of the Danish physicist, Niels Bohr, who once said, “prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”  Yet as difficult as it may be in today’s volatile world, in Security and Defence, we have no choice. Men and materiel cannot be produced overnight. </p> <p>The new world order is springing constant surprises upon us.  So reforming to meet future threats is already a massive task -  particularly when we are focusing our energy on meeting current threats.  With national budgets being squeezed, all our taxpayers expect the money we spend to be ruthlessly prioritised.  We do not have the luxury to engage in unnecessary duplication, institutional empire building, or to spread resources wide and thin.  We have to focus - both in what we do and how we collaborate - to maximise practical, tangible effect.</p> <p>We live in an age of rapid change.  Regional tectonic plates, as we speak, are engaged in a fundamental shift.  Power balances are shifting, mirroring relative economic growth and decline.  While by most measures, Europe is, territorially, more secure than at many points in its history, we must recognise that our national and collective security is inevitably affected by what happens outside the Euro-Atlantic zone.  Recent events should have driven home to those who have failed to acknowledge this that the world is seriously unpredictable, which makes the task of framing policy and creating capability for Defence and Security much more difficult. </p> <p>For example, Al-Qaeda and their affiliates may be displaced from Afghanistan and shorn of their spiritual and operational leader.  But all of us need to prepare for retaliation, not least the potential for terror within our midst.  Al-Qaeda continues to peddle its brand of extremist Islam, particularly in Pakistan, Yemen, and North Africa with sympathisers in places like Somalia, and with continued significant terrorist activity wherever there are failing states or weak government. </p> <p>Speaking of Pakistan, it’s easy to be critical, but there are two sides to the Pakistan coin.  As David Cameron, our Prime Minister, said recently, “Pakistan has suffered more from terrorism than any other country in the world.”  As many as 30,000 innocent civilians have been killed in that country, and more Pakistani soldiers and security forces have died fighting extremism than international forces killed in Afghanistan.  However, Pakistan has to look west as well as east, and reconcile the inherent tension of placating a domestic audience with accepting support from the west.  Bin Laden was Pakistan’s enemy too.<br><br>And while there has been real recognition of the regional implications of Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons, and of North Korea’s possession of them and unfussy attitude over who it sells them to, there has been less recognition of the risks a destabilised, nuclear-armed Pakistan would present - not just to the region but to us all.</p> <p>Then there’s the ‘Arab Spring’.  Many supposed there were only two choices in this region: feudal, authoritarian regimes or fundamentalism.  It’s now clear that some form of democracy is emerging as a potential third option. </p> <p>And then there are issues such as piracy which threaten international trade.  Piracy is growing.  As a whole, EU countries depend on imports for more than half the energy they consume - indeed for major counties like Germany and Italy it is 60% and 80% respectively.  Though Britain and Poland are closer to 30%, it’s a figure which has grown at astonishing rates in recent years.  So ensuring an uninterrupted energy supply from diverse sources is a major consideration for politicians. </p> <p>Finally, as politicians, we live in a world of 24 hour rolling news where the pressure to respond instantly - without any reference to the context or time to take advice or take stock - is unremitting and damaging.</p> <p>This range of diverse threats, and of course the unpredictability of further strategic shocks, accords with our characterisation of an “Age of Uncertainty”.  And on that basis, our recent Strategic Defence and Security Review has been validated in terms of the Government’s commitment to an adaptable posture with flexible forces - able to address the needs of today, yet able to be rebalanced swiftly for the threats of tomorrow - and validated by what’s happening in Libya. </p> <p>Libya is right on Europe’s borders.  Had we failed to act swiftly and decisively following the UN’s call for action, Benghazi would most certainly have fallen and Gadaffi would have fulfilled his promise of burning out the opposition, house by house.  I have to say that the French were pretty decisive. <br><br>Libya was also further evidence, if it were needed, that, important as NATO’s Article V is - and it is important and the cornerstone of NATO - European security means much more than sitting at home and waiting to repel attacks.  We did - both politically, through a tough EU sanctions regime, and militarily, with NATO commanding the UN-authorised mission in Libya.  European countries have demonstrated that, even when the US is not in the lead, many of them can step up to the mark by contributing to the Alliance of which they are part.  NATO has proved in Afghanistan, and now in Libya, that it is an instrument of policy and security, adapted beyond all recognition from its Cold War stance. </p> <p>And let’s be clear.  Some have suggested that if only the EU had its own Operation Headquarters in Brussels we could have launched an EU operation instead.  I think that’s nonsense.  Even France, whose decisiveness helped to save Benghazi, did not once advocate an EU-led command for its air power.  And when Europe can operate decisively through NATO, the world’s foremost military alliance, why should one look elsewhere?  <br></p> <p>NATO provides Europe with strong, clear, proven military structures.  It has the ability to access American power in support of our objectives.  It brings the valuable contributions of countries such as Norway, Denmark, Canada and Turkey.  And through its unique partnership framework, NATO ensured that the Arab countries who originally called on the international community for military action were also able to contribute, just as many non-NATO countries contribute to Afghanistan through the ISAF operation.  </p> <p>In crises we need to maximise involvement, not insist on autonomy.  We need action, not posturing.  We need capability, not tokenism. NATO has demonstrated in Libya that it can offer all of these.  Of course we need to work hard continually to improve its effectiveness.  But that’s why NATO remains the cornerstone of both British and Polish national defence.<br></p> <p>That’s not to say that there is no military role for the EU - on the contrary, the Petersberg Tasks are wide ranging.  Nor does it mean that we shouldn’t pursue a more effective relationship between NATO and the EU, including in crisis management.  Indeed, just last week, Britain and Poland were signatories to a letter signed by 15 Foreign Ministers of EU and NATO nations -  including France and Germany - calling for just that.  I must say that at EU meetings I’ve been encouraged by the consensus for closer EU/NATO working. </p> <p>But we must ensure that a lack of consensus does not lead to paralysis, and that we are able to deal with threats appropriately and in a timely manner.  It is really rather absurd that, because of procedural wrangling, the only security issue which NATO and the EU can discuss when they meet is Bosnia.  We all want a solution to the Cyprus problem, but we cannot allow it to go on holding up practical co-operation between these two organisations.<br></p> <p>We welcome the Weimar letter as a contribution to the debate on generating deployable forces, and we support the principle of pooling and sharing.  Indeed, Britain has taken the lead with our French colleagues to share some capabilities whilst a number of other countries are pooling lift capability.  However, we remain deeply sceptical of the need for additional structures and institutions for CSDP. </p> <p>That’s why we’ve been at the forefront of NATO reform through the new Strategic Concept, and the drive to develop and sustain deployable capabilities for NATO.  We want to improve the EU’s civilian-military capabilities without duplication of effort. And perhaps I can observe that many EU countries see their principal role as being humanitarian, so an EU operation can genuinely complement a NATO one.</p> <p>And in these volatile times, a closer Franco-British partnership is as natural as it is necessary.  Far from seeking to replace or undermine the multi-lateral organisations to which we both belong, our partnership with France is intended to complement NATO and the EU - this is not Saint-Malo 2.  This is a bilateral agreement between the sovereign nations of Britain and France to increase capability.</p> <p>And if the Anglo-French partnership can provide a roadmap for others to strengthen their capability by working with each other in similar ways, it will be to the benefit of both NATO and the EU.  It should not, and does not, stop us working with others - like our friends in Poland - who are ready to invest in the same kind of deployable capability which Britain and France possess. </p> <p>It was Henry Kissinger who said "We cannot always assure the future of our friends but we have a better chance of assuring our future if we remember who our friends are." - a rather profound observation.  So in conclusion, as we come together to discuss how we can best protect and advance the causes of security and freedom which we all share, surely there could not be a more fitting venue than Krakow - the spiritual home of the late Pope John Paul II - whose whole life was committed to those values.  As a church warden in an “allied church”, I was heartened to see the huge turnout in Rome to witness his recent beatification, which I’m sure stirred the heart of every Polish patriot.  If ever a man symbolised freedom, the rule of law, and dignity, it was Pope John Paul II. </p> <p><br> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinISD/20110513PolishbritishRoundTable.htm Gerald Howarth 2011/05/13 - Polish-British Round Table uk.org.publicwhip/member/40039 08/06/2011 Ministry of Defence Villa Decius, Krakow, Poland
<p>Thank you for that kind introduction. It’s a genuine pleasure to be with you at this inaugural Jakarta International Defence Dialogue. </p> <p>As we discuss international consensus building, it’s entirely fitting that Indonesia - one of the most stable and open democracies in Asia; a G20 member; and the current chair of ASEAN - should be our hosts, and I congratulate the Indonesian Defence Minister on seizing this important initiative and thank them on behalf of all of us for their warm hospitality.</p> <p>Britain and Indonesia have a long history, stretching back to a time when nutmeg was the oil of its day as Britain wrestled with the Dutch over control of the Spice Islands. </p> <p>And a time when Sir Stamford Raffles - more usually associated with Singapore - was Lieutenant Governor of Java - 200 years ago this year. Raffles was an unusually perceptive man, appreciating the Javanese as a “highly polished people, considerably advanced in science, highly inquisitive, and full of penetration.” Which will no doubt be reflected in the questions later.</p> <p>Of course, this conference is about the entire Asia-Pacific region, and the options we have to tackle Defence and Security issues which blur national and regional boundaries. It’s an incredibly diverse region in terms of population size, wealth, resources, customs, economies, and politics. That’s reflected in the impressive list of nations who have come to attend, and I’m delighted to be sharing this opening panel with colleagues from Indonesia and Australia; and from China and Singapore. </p> <p>Indeed, when we talk of international consensus building I think that Indonesia’s national motto - “Bhinneka tunggal ika" - translated as “Unity in Diversity” - is as good a starting point as any. Because the first step in building Defence and Security consensus is deciding whether regional security will be defined by co-operation or competition. <br><br>All nations have their own agendas based on opportunities, challenges, strengths, weaknesses and priorities. But consensus is most likely when nations agree that many of the threats they face are similar, or indeed shared - threats such as trans-national terrorism, border protection, and climate change all fall into that category. </p> <p>The next step is building a robust and pragmatic mixture of formal and informal Defence and Security arrangements which have the flexibility to deal with unexpected threats and events at short notice. Organisations like ASEAN, the Commonwealth, and the Five Power Defence Arrangements, have a good track record in promoting dialogue and fostering consensus. </p> <p>However, the maze of bilateral, multilateral, regional, and international fora can make it difficult to co-ordinate a region-wide position or approach. We know this from our own region, and it’s why we’ve been at the forefront of NATO reform. I challenge anyone to convince me that having 350 or 400 committees, each acting in the spirit of consensus before any decision has moved forward, is an efficient way for NATO to deal with the world as we find it today.  </p> <p>We must also recognise the limits of consensus. For example, not all nations have the same view of democracy. Not all believe in a free press. Not all believe in the logic of nuclear non-proliferation. This shouldn’t necessarily mean we stop engaging with these countries - far from it. And when a group comes to consensus on a matter, they don’t all have to think it’s the best decision. They just have to agree they can live with it. </p> <p>But important as building consensus is, it only takes you so far. It must be backed by effective strategies, and in our view the most effective strategies are underpinned by genuine partnerships. That’s why I want to talk about consensus and partnership in the Asia-Pacific region, and how Britain might help with both. </p> <p>As the President said, today we live in a world which is more volatile, more uncertain, and more interconnected than ever before. Just look at the consequences of 9/11, the international financial crisis; and rapidly-moving events in North Africa and the Middle East. <br><br>In particular, the situation in Libya shows how quickly the international community can be drawn in, and highlights the intense diplomatic effort required to achieve a consensus. Under the backing of UN Resolution 1973, the United Nations acted with extraordinary speed and remarkable consensus to come together with the express and focused purpose of protecting civilians, and allowing the people of Libya to determine their own future, free from the appalling brutality unleashed by the Gaddafi regime. </p> <p>What we are doing there is necessary, legal, and right - not only because we are under a moral duty to intervene, but also because it is in the interests of national and international security to do so. We in Britain remember the consequences of a Libyan regime working against international stability. We cannot forget, for example, Libya’s responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, the biggest terrorist attack ever on British soil. <br><br>In Britain, these events validate our decision to reject the notion of ‘strategic shrinkage’ and to remain a global player. Our recent Strategic Defence and Security Review committed us to having Armed Forces which remain among the very top rank of military powers - supported by the fourth largest Defence budget in the world - and which can adapt and respond to new world realities. We will continue to protect our national security, wherever it is threatened.</p> <p>But we all recognise the importance and value of partners and alliances if we are to deal with issues which go beyond our borders in this volatile world. Threats originating in one part of the globe can quickly become threats in all parts of the globe. Addressing them increasingly requires an equally rapid and co-ordinated global response - as UN Resolution 1973 illustrates. Strong, reliable, and enduring alliances and partnerships, underpinned by a series of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, bring influence. </p> <p>We also believe that by helping other nations to build up their own Defence and Security capabilities, Britain can contribute to regional security and help to tackle threats to our own security closer to their source. <br><br>And in this region, the case for strategic partnerships is unarguable. Britain's national interests are directly affected by the Defence and Security challenges here, and intimately linked to those of our friends and our partners. Our economies, people, and interests are linked as never before. </p> <p>So let me set out five areas where Defence and Security consensus should be underpinned by partnership, and where Britain might help.</p> <p>The first area is political. Defence and Security dialogue can exert huge leverage on bilateral and regional relationships. But there has to be the political will and commitment to build stronger bilateral and multilateral relationships across the Asia-Pacific region. </p> <p>As my colleague Dr Liam Fox, the British Defence Secretary has said, “this new era is one of necessity, one of beneficial partnership between nations, not optional isolation. It is not a choice between multilateral or bilateral - the requirement is for both.” This is beneficial to all, not a threat to sovereignty - strong, enduring alliances and partnerships do not constrain power and influence, but multiply their effect.</p> <p>It begins with dialogue - which is why I’m here today. Britain has long maintained an unrivalled network of relationships. But for too long there has been a tendency amongst previous British Governments to allow our relations with this part of the world to lapse into what some have referred to as ‘benign neglect’. To put it bluntly, we were in danger of being seen as single-issue lobbyists, with limited influence on the broader things which matter most. That’s why we put building new partnerships with significant emerging powers like Indonesia, and reinvigorating long-standing partnerships elsewhere in the region, right at the top of our agenda.  </p> <p>The second area is building consensus on rules-based norms -  often referred to as the ‘global commons’. Relationships take time to build, but the effect of enhanced dialogue is a better understanding of the values which bind us such as justice, the rule of law, and freedom. And values like these have influenced the evolution of organisations such as ASEAN, ISAF and FPDA - now in its fortieth year and the cornerstone of Britain’s engagement with the Asia Pacific region - adding to their legitimacy and making them more effective. </p> <p>The third area is accepting that no-one has a monopoly on good ideas. For example, counter-terrorism is something which both Britain and Indonesia have extensive experience, and can share best practice. And nothing sharpens the skills like joint exercises, joint planning, and learning the lessons. </p> <p>That’s why we look forward to the forthcoming visit of HMS RICHMOND to the region, including Jakarta in May. That’s why we are delighted to sponsor a Master’s degree course in Defence and Security Management at the new Defence University here in Jakarta. And that’s why we offer places on our prestigious courses such as the Royal College of Defence Studies to countries from this region and around the world.</p> <p>Fourthly, crisis management. If the 2004 Asian Tsunami and recent events in Libya, New Zealand, and Japan have taught us anything, it’s that crises can sometimes emerge with little or no notice which are beyond the capacity of any one nation to deal with. <br><br>It’s at times like these that we rely on international co-ordination and co-operation. But there has to be better co-operation between Defence and Security, and our diplomats and international development organisations - what we call a ‘Comprehensive Approach’. </p> <p>The fifth area where consensus and partnership go hand in hand is, of course, trade. In today’s global economy, our prosperity and security are inextricably bound with each other.</p> <p>Here, we see real opportunities. There are opportunities for more effective burden sharing arrangements - and I pay tribute to the contribution which many countries here are making to Peace Support Operations and in Afghanistan not to mention counter piracy in the Arabian Sea supporting world trade and security in the region. There are opportunities for pooling and sharing expertise with those allies and partners whose security interests and military capabilities are closest to our own. <br><br>And one of the key conclusions of our Defence and Security Review was that diversity of supply becomes even more important when resources are scarce. Together, we should examine all the barriers to closer industrial partnerships in this region such as collaborating on research, development, and production of high technology equipment, and, increasingly, technology sharing and transfer, and related Industrial Participation. </p> <p>For instance, as we plan our new frigate programme and as part of our thinking on our future warship programmes, we are committed to establishing an early dialogue in order to share thinking on operational requirements. And to assessing the scope for working together closely in order to deliver much-needed international interoperability and genuinely affordable solutions. </p> <p>In recent decades, this region has enjoyed extraordinary economic growth rates. A confident and prosperous Asia-Pacific matters. </p> <p>But for all the benefits which globalisation has brought, we know it has a darker side too. The changes which have brought the promise of common prosperity have also brought threats to common security.<br><br>So this region needs Defence and Security arrangements which matter, and which are truly effective. </p> <p>Building a consensus will have a major role to play. That’s why we will do whatever we can to help the healthy development of a cohesive and responsible ASEAN. And that’s why our commitment to FPDA remains as strong as ever. </p> <p>We also need to start thinking of each other as Defence and Security partners. Because how we tackle, collectively, the challenges we face is one of the defining questions of our generation. </p> <p>As the Elizabethan courtier and scientist, Francis Bacon, noted, “He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils; for time is the greatest innovator.”</p> <p> </p> <p><br> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinISD/20110323JakartaInternationalDefenceDialoguejidd.htm Gerald Howarth 2011/03/23 - Jakarta International Defence Dialogue (JIDD) uk.org.publicwhip/member/40039 01/04/2011 Ministry of Defence the Jakarta Convention Centre, Jakarta, Indonesia
<p>Thank you Andrew [Manley, Director General Defence Commercial] for that introduction, and for inviting me to speak today, together with my great friend, Peter Luff.</p> <p>When this Government came into office, the UK needed urgently to take stock of the changed international scene; to review its role in the world; and to configure its Armed Forces accordingly. With the loss of the Cold War certainties, it became essential to look to enhance existing alliances and foster new ones, in the wider interest of promoting regional stability, By helping other nations to build up their own Defence and Security capabilities, we can contribute to regional security and to help tackle threats to our own security closer to their source. </p> <p>We were also clear that Government support for responsible Defence and Security exports could play a key role in the promotion of our foreign policy objectives, as part of our approach to national security. </p> <p>And on top of this, in 2009 Defence and Security exports contributed almost £9 billion to our balance of trade. The Defence and Security industries employ and sustain hundreds of thousands of high tech jobs despite one of the worst recessions any of us in this room has ever experienced. And they are providing our Armed Forces with the best equipment they have ever had - and here I pay tribute to some of the decisions of the previous government such as the Light Protected Patrol Vehicle - the LPPV. </p> <p>So Defence exports therefore help sustain those high end skills. And they help sustain the innovation which keeps the UK at the forefront of technology, and gives our Armed Forces the advantage over their enemies. Above all, Defence exports leverage more influence in bilateral relations with our friends and allies than any other area of trade. <br></p> <p>So our policy is clear: helping one of Britain’s most dynamic and successful industries to export is unarguably in the British national interest, which is why the Government attaches so much importance to responsible Defence and Security exporting.  </p> <p>The question is: how best can we deliver this?</p> <p>And that’s why the Green Paper asked how the Government and industry can best support responsible Defence and Security exports by UK-based companies to our friends and allies.</p> <p>We’ve made a good start in our first months in office, and I want to say a few words about progress so far. But I also want be candid about the challenges we face.</p> <p>Before I do, let me elaborate on the principles behind Defence and Security exports.</p> <p>I believe that our mission is threefold.</p> <p>First, we are gathered here at the Royal Institute of Great Britain. Not ‘Timid Britain’, not some mythological ‘Fortress Britain’, but Great Britain. That’s not some abstract or nostalgic concept. As William Hague said in his first speech as Foreign Secretary, Britain must have more “global reach and influence.” </p> <p>Importantly, he acknowledged that “the world has changed and if we do not change with it Britain's role is set to decline with all that means for our influence in world affairs, our national security and our economy.” So Britain will continue to be a global player and we reject the notion of “strategic shrinkage.”</p> <p>Secondly, we live in a more volatile world than that which we faced during the Cold War, and we must never forget that context. In these more complex times, it’s important to have strong allies and friends. Britain has long maintained an unrivalled network of relationships. There are those one might call our immediate family - the transatlantic alliance, NATO, and the Commonwealth. And there is the extended family of nations whose people and Governments are on the side of justice, of the rule of law, and of freedom.</p> <p>But for too long, many members of this family have been neglected or taken for granted. As I said a moment ago, nothing has the capacity to leverage a bilateral relationship like Defence, and it remains one of the aces in our pack on the world stage. Recent events illustrate this: in the Gulf States we have been able to influence events; in Egypt our influence was, by contrast, limited. </p> <p>The lesson is clear - if you have partnerships you have influence; without partnership, your influence is limited. That’s why the SDSR stressed the importance of building strong, reliable and enduring alliances and partnerships, underpinned by a series of bilateral and multilateral arrangements. As Liam Fox said last month, “this new era is one of necessity, one of beneficial partnership between nations, not optional isolation. It is not a choice between multilateral or bilateral – the requirement is for both.” <br><br>Thirdly, this Government did not come into power to preside over the decline and fall of Britain plc. We know that a healthy industry, including SMEs, brings wider economic benefits in terms of jobs, skills, and the balance of payments. We have the sixth largest economy in the world; we can boast some of the world’s leading authorities and institutions in the fields of science, technology, and innovation; and we have cutting-edge Defence and Security industrial sectors. And with some of the toughest strategic export controls in the world, we should be proud - as this Government is, and I personally am - to support proper Defence and Security exports. </p> <p>Exportability and exports themselves are vital components of any overall strategy for growth, and for the future of the British Defence and Security industry, as much as for the protection of the United Kingdom’s influence in the world. <br></p> <p>But the biggest risk to the nation’s future would be failure to restore the public finances to good order. British business cannot prosper while the risk of a debt crisis continues to hang over the economy. We could not ignore the biggest crisis in the international system in decades where we inherited the largest budget deficit of any major economy - at 12% of GDP - including national debt increasing at the rate of £3 billion per week. </p> <p>Nor could we ignore the fact that Defence was the worst in a grim set of inheritances. Any Defence Review, at a time of scarce resources, has to address the challenge of making more effective use of what we have, and prioritise our missions, otherwise it is not ‘strategic’ at all – though it doesn’t make taking the tough decisions we had to take, like retiring the Harrier, any easier.</p> <p>As Labour’s outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury put it in a rare display of succinct honesty: “I’m afraid there is no money. Kind regards - and good luck!”</p> <p>Thanks - very kind.</p> <p>All of this has implications for industry and exports. It means providing better value for money in our acquisition programmes here at home. </p> <p>One important option is likely to be greater co-ordination and collaboration with those allies and partners whose security interests and military capabilities are closest to our own - and I’m sure that Peter will say more about this later.</p> <p>It also means being market aware and customer-focused abroad, and earning a reputation for delivering what we promise, on time, and to budget - so industry please take note. It means collaborating on research, development, and production of high technology equipment. And increasingly means technology sharing and transfer. It means Industrial Participation. </p> <p>However, these initiatives are not without challenges or risk. The bargaining over technology transfer will be intense, and we shall need to strike a balance between co-operation and selling the crown jewels.</p> <p>Let me turn to the Green Paper, and the section on exports – specifically marketing overseas, and support for exports here at home by ensuring that our acquisition processes give our exporters a fighting chance. </p> <p>Wherever Defence and Security exports serve wider MoD interests, they will receive the maximum support which the MoD - in co-operation with UKTI DSO - can provide - and here I’d like to pay a very warm tribute to Richard Paniguian and the fantastic support his team are providing industry. Indeed, the visits I’ve undertaken have been precisely because they offer the opportunity of strategic government to government relationships, and I have a programme of quite intense visits coming up.</p> <p>On the process side, we’re committed to factoring in exportability at an early stage in our acquisition process - and we are considering exportability in the Project Start Up stage as one of the necessary criteria to be considered. <br><br>Nowhere is this new philosophy addressed more than in our approach to our new Global Combat Ship. As we frame our requirement, we see a tremendous opportunity for establishing a partnership with other nations which have similar requirements. The benefits are self-evident - economies of scale and reduced through life costs for our own equipment, sustaining skills and high quality jobs, but, more importantly, the chance to strengthen existing alliances and develop new ones for the longer-term - a point I set out at the outset. So our aim with GCS is to develop jointly and internationally, an approach which will allow us to adapt the core capability for our own specific needs, while offering an affordable, yet flexible, mix of systems and roles which match the aspirations of others. And I’m pleased that the response so far from several countries has been encouraging, and that dialogue continues. I’ve also been encouraged by the positive response shown by the MoD at Abbey Wood and the Royal Navy. </p> <p>So we now need to move ahead with exportability across a wide range of requirements, building on the progress on the GCS and also in the field of Complex Weapons.</p> <p>Of course, the Green Paper is all about seeking your views. But, so far, we’ve received disappointingly little response to the questions raised in the section on exports. This is your best chance to influence our exports policy for Defence and Security for the next five years. You’ve got until 31 March to comment formally - do not miss this opportunity. Because once our White Paper is published later this year, the policy will be set in motion. </p> <p>I recognise, however, that there are a number of difficult circles which we have to square. For instance, I recognise the tension between our own inventory and industry’s. It was at the UKTI DSO conference last year that the Turkish Defence Minister said to me, “If you have not got it in your own inventory, who else is going to buy it?” Clearly we have neither the ability nor the desire to buy everything which British industry produces, as good as it undoubtedly is. But HMG will lend its full support to those exports campaigns which further our national interest, even if the equipment is not in-service with the British Armed Forces.<br><br>I also recognise that some see a tension between buying off-the-shelf wherever we possibly can and an export-led growth strategy. The Secretary of State has said that he hopes the shelf will be stocked with British products, but of course not everything we need will be on British shelves. This is about better value for money, not perpetuating weakness, but exportability generally should be a useful marketing tool for British industry when making the case on an MoD programme.</p> <p>And I recognise our own resources in the MoD are constrained. We are always receptive to good ideas - that’s the whole purpose of the Green Paper - and on this we’re open to the consideration of novel solutions proposed by industry that mean we can support exports even better. </p> <p>So let me conclude. </p> <p>20 years ago, this country, led by Margaret Thatcher, fought side by side with Kuwait and an international coalition to liberate Kuwait, and fight against the naked aggression of Saddam Hussein. <br></p> <p>As the Prime Minister said recently, “To those who question whether it is right to take Defence companies on a visit to Kuwait, I would say that 20 years ago we risked the lives of our Service personnel to free that country. It seems to me an odd argument to say that Kuwait should not have the means of its own Defence.” </p> <p>Quite so. </p> <p>I know that the competition is fierce. As the Prime Minister said at the weekend, “do you think the Germans, and the French, and the Americans are all sitting at home waiting for business to fall into their lap?”</p> <p>Quite so again.</p> <p>But our national interest is at stake; our ability to help shape an uncertain world is at stake. </p> <p>That’s why I’m not a defender of the Defence and Security industry; I’m its most passionate supporter!</p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinISD/20110309GreenPaperConsultationEventexports.htm Gerald Howarth 2011/03/09 - Green Paper Consultation Event (Exports) uk.org.publicwhip/member/40039 10/03/2011 Ministry of Defence the Royal Institution of Great Britain, London
<p>Your Highness [HH Sheikh Hazza bin Zayed Al Nahyan, National Security Advisor and Vice Chairman of the Abu Dhabi Executive Council].</p> <p>Your Excellency [Major General Essa Saif Mohammed Al Mazrouei, Deputy Chief of Staff of the UAE Armed Forces, and previous speaker]. </p> <p>It is a pleasure to be here in Abu Dhabi at the centre of this important regional conference - and I am most grateful for the exceptional hospitality which my team and I have been shown. </p> <p>It was a particular pleasure to be greeted at the airport by Brigadier General Jamal Mohammad Al Kaabi, Commander of Minhad Air Base. </p> <p>We found that we both learned to fly at the same airfield on the same aircraft…!</p> <p>It is an honour to represent Her Majesty The Queen at this conference. <br><br>I am delighted that Her Majesty had such a successful and memorable visit last autumn, and that the Royal Air Force was able to attend with our magnificent Typhoon aircraft. </p> <p>And it is a privilege to lead the largest ever British Defence and Security industry delegation to this the 10th IDEX, and to the inaugural Naval Defence Exhibition - NAVDEX.</p> <p>This has tripled the number of companies represented. </p> <p>In a region where naval spending alone is forecast to reach $76.4 billion over the next 10 years, it’s clear that this region understands the continuing relevance of naval power in today’s world; and we’re delighted that HMS PEMBROKE could join us in Abu Dhabi.</p> <p>IDEX is as integral to the international Defence and Security calendar as DSEi in London later this year or the Farnborough Air Show in my own constituency in the UK, and I am sure NAVDEX will only add to that reputation. </p> <p>We’re excited to have the opportunity to show where Britain leads the way in Defence and Security capabilities.  </p> <p>But today I want to delve a little bit deeper. </p> <p>Because trade, though essential, is just one part of a far greater goal. </p> <p>We want the UK to be your partner of choice, at all levels. </p> <p>We want to build truly strong, reliable, and enduring strategic partnerships, throughout the Gulf region. </p> <p>Of course, this conference comes at a critical time for the region. </p> <p>It is a moment of opportunity in the Middle East, with calls for greater economic and political development, and a renewed focus on the needs and aspirations of all the people in the region. </p> <p>The UK will support all those working to respond to these calls, while respecting the different cultures, histories, and traditions of each nation. </p> <p>I’m also conscious of Oscar Wilde’s comment that: “appearance blinds whereas words reveal”. </p> <p>Perception does indeed matter. </p> <p>So I want to use this opportunity to set out as clearly as I can what true friendship, partnership, and co-operation with Britain looks like in the 21st century. </p> <p>To do that, let us first reflect on our past. </p> <p>Britain has stood firm in the face of aggression on many occasions - in both 1914 and 1939, for example, we stood by our treaty obligations. <br><br>But you do not need to look that far back either. </p> <p>Just 20 years ago, Saddam Hussein committed an act of naked aggression against Kuwait. </p> <p>Our then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, whom I was pleased to serve as Parliamentary Private Secretary, along with the international community, did not hesitate to stand by Kuwait. </p> <p>Kuwait was liberated, an event which will be marked next week.</p> <p>It is inconceivable that any British government faced with an act of external aggression against one of our Gulf allies would act differently. </p> <p>And our success, as part of NATO - one of the strongest military alliances in history - in winning the Cold War tells you that we work with our friends and allies to see it through when faced by shared challenges. </p> <p>Today, when Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens not only regional security but the international community, too, you can be assured that we will not look away or back down. </p> <p>While we can learn much from history, however, we must not be selective. </p> <p>Britain enjoys a long historical connection with the UAE, and with the Gulf more generally. </p> <p>Over many years, our bonds of friendship, understanding, and respect have grown. </p> <p>But we in Britain should also acknowledge that the decision to withdraw from East of Suez in the 1960s and 70s was not without its complications - as our hosts here today know only too well - nor indeed without impact on how you perceived us. </p> <p>This government does not take our historical links or your continued friendship for granted.</p> <p>But, equally, we must not be shackled by history. </p> <p>The Gulf is a region of enormous opportunity and promise. </p> <p>Nearly 200,000 British people now live and work in the Gulf. Our ties stretch across education, commerce, and culture. </p> <p>And as it’s always been, the Gulf is a region of strategic importance. </p> <p>Our 1996 Defence Co-operation Accord with the UAE, for example, remains an agreement of which we feel proud. </p> <p>Yet, for too long, we failed to capitalise on the extraordinary breadth of Britain’s historic relationships. </p> <p>Some of those have been neglected; others have been taken for granted. </p> <p>On top of this, we arrived in Government last year to be faced with the biggest crisis in the international financial system for decades, and at home a budget deficit out of control.</p> <p>The timid but perfectly reasonable option would have been to accept a diminished role in the world. </p> <p>Forgive me, but this Government rejects the notion of “strategic shrinkage”. </p> <p>Demanding operations in Afghanistan, where I was last weekend, and a tough financial climate force us to prioritise. </p> <p>But our recent Strategic Defence and Security Review was designed to ensure that we maintain our place among the very top rank of military powers supported by the fourth largest Defence budget in the world. <br> <br>Nor did we come into Government to preside over the closure of Great Britain plc - the sixth largest economy in the world - particularly when we have some of the world’s leading authorities and institutions in the fields of science, technology, and innovation; and cutting-edge Defence and Security industrial sectors, as we will see at IDEX this week.<br><br>And while we work to achieve multilateral solutions to the pressing problems of our time, we should not neglect the need for strong bilateral relations. </p> <p>That’s why, since the formation of the new Coalition Government in Britain last May, there has been an unprecedented amount of energy - and a renewed sense of determination - to deepen our engagement across the region. </p> <p>I can sum up the reaction in the words of one Ambassador I met at a reception in London a few months ago who simply looked at me and said: “Where have you been? Welcome back!” </p> <p>As I’ve said, perception matters. </p> <p>And building and strengthening strategic partnerships with some of Britain’s closest allies, in one of the world’s most important strategic areas, is what the Americans would call a “no brainer”. </p> <p>But it’s also important to back your words with deeds. </p> <p>Because with our economies, people, and interests linked as never before, threats originating in one part of the globe can become threats in all parts of the globe - and very quickly. </p> <p>Addressing them frequently requires an equally rapid and co-ordinated global response. <br><br>Many of the threats we face are shared: trans-national terrorism, border protection, and drugs are obvious examples. </p> <p>Some threats are new, such as cyber warfare, and one of the up arrows of our Defence Review, one of the new priority areas identified, was £650m of new investment over the next four years in a new National Cyber Security Programme. </p> <p>We all need to understand the significant of Cyber attacks. </p> <p>Everyone in this audience has mobile phones, i-Pads, and so on, and most people rely on electronic systems to receive pay. </p> <p>Just imagine the impact of bringing down the banking system. </p> <p>Britain still packs a mighty military punch. </p> <p>And we continue to make a significant military contribution to security in the Gulf. </p> <p>Most notably, we maintain a sizeable naval presence in the region, including a permanent task group of mine counter measure vessels to assist in the free movement of international shipping up and down the Gulf.</p> <p>Partnership is more than friendship - even the best friendships need to be supported by mutual self-interest. <br><br>And this extends to industrial co-operation. </p> <p>It is an integral component of any strong, reliable, and enduring strategic partnership. </p> <p>This means collaborating on research, development and production of high technology equipment. </p> <p>This means technology sharing and transfer. </p> <p>This means offset.  </p> <p>The results are there for all to see. </p> <p>In the UAE alone, there have already been several examples of British and Emirati companies co-operating in areas such as propulsion systems for Baynunah corvettes; on power systems; and on security training. </p> <p>Our relationship with the UAE continues to deepen. </p> <p>And it’s the same story elsewhere in the Gulf, and I’m confident that this week will produce many more similar successes.</p> <p>So, in conclusion, Britain will continue to be a global player. </p> <p>But we can only do so by building solid strategic partnerships, particularly in those parts of the world where our strategic interests clearly coincide. </p> <p>Much has changed here since my first visit to the Gulf region as a manager at European Arab Bank in the 1970s. </p> <p>Your people have benefited hugely from the extraordinary advances made possible by the benign use of your oil wealth.   </p> <p>However, one thing has certainly remained the same in this region: alliances are not established overnight. </p> <p>Personal relationships underpin our shared interests, and this requires trust, honesty, and friendship. </p> <p>We are fortunate: there is a long and deep relationship upon which we can continue to build - in the interests of our two countries, but even more importantly, in the interests of security in a region vital to both East and West. </p> <p>Thank you.</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinISD/20110219GulfDefenceConference.htm Gerald Howarth 2011/02/19 - Gulf Defence Conference uk.org.publicwhip/member/40039 03/03/2011 Ministry of Defence the Gulf Defence Conference, Armed Forces Officers’ Club, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
<p>Übersetzung</p> <p>Vielen Dank für Ihre freundliche Einführung.</p> <p>Ich freue mich, wieder einmal bei alten Freunden hier in Bayern zu sein, dessen Industrie wegen ihrer Leistungsfähigkeit und Innovationskraft seit langem weltweites Ansehen genießt.</p> <p>Meine Damen und Herren, </p> <p>wie vielen von Ihnen bekannt ist, haben wir in Großbritannien gerade eine Strategische Verteidigungs-und Sicherheitsüberprüfung - abgekürzt SDSR - hinter uns. </p> <p>Ich weiß, dass Sie in Deutschland ebenfalls an einer Reform Ihrer Streitkräfte arbeiten. </p> <p>Hier werden wir zweifellos mit ähnlichen Herausforderungen konfrontiert werden.</p> <p>Ich werde Ihnen also ein paar Gedanken zu unserer Herangehensweise an die SDSR vortragen; zu ihren Auswirkungen auf Militär und Industrie; und zu den Herausforderungen bei der Umsetzung. <br><br>Ich werde auch über die Chancen für die Entwicklung engerer Verbindungen in der Industrie sprechen, die die SDSR strategischen Partnern wie Deutschland eröffnet.</p> <p>Einiges haben alle Verteidigungsreformen gemeinsam.</p> <p>Bei allen steht man vor dem Problem, die Zukunft vorhersehen zu müssen. </p> <p>Die relativen Gewissheiten des Kalten Krieges liegen lange zurück.</p> <p>Bei allen darf man sich nicht zu der Annahme verleiten lassen, die Kriege von morgen sähen zwangsläufig so aus wie die von heute. </p> <p>Genauso töricht wäre es allerdings, die Lehren der Geschichte zu ignorieren. </p> <p>Und jede Verteidigungsreform sollte mit einer lebhaften Debatte verbunden sein.</p> <p>Es ist kein Wunder, dass wir mancherlei Kritik einstecken mussten.<br><br>So hieß es beispielsweise, dass wir uns mehr Zeit hätten nehmen sollen; dass die finanzielle Seite separat und nach der strategischen Analyse hätte betrachtet werden müssen; dass die SDSR nicht strategisch sei, usw. </p> <p>Allerdings konnten wir uns angesichts der desolaten Lage der öffentlichen Finanzen den Luxus gar nicht leisten, die SDSR geruhsam anzugehen.</p> <p>Wir haben das größte Haushaltsdefizit aller großen Volkswirtschaften geerbt – 12% des BIP – mit einem Anstieg der Staatsverschuldung von £3 Mrd. pro Woche und jährlichen Schuldzinsen, die höher sind als der gesamte Verteidigungsetat.</p> <p>Dazu kamen einige Besonderheiten:</p> <p>Außerdem mussten wir bei unseren Schlussfolgerungen darauf achten, dass die Kernfähigkeiten, die gegenseitige Verpflichtung und Verbundenheit zwischen den Angehörigen unserer Streitkräfte und der Nation, sowie kritische industrielle Fähigkeiten keinen Schaden nehmen würden, wobei wir in der Opposition definitiv beschlossen hatten, keine Queerbeet-Kürzungen nach der Salamitaktik vorzunehmen. </p> <p>Wir mussten uns also der Realität stellen. </p> <p>Das ist keine Ausgangsposition, die wir uns gewünscht hätten. </p> <p>Es war absolut notwendig, einige Prinzipien zu haben, von denen man sich leiten lassen konnte. </p> <p>Wir hatten zwei.</p> <p>Das eine war, dass unser Einsatz in Afghanistan erhalten werden sollte, und an dieser Stelle möchte ich Deutschlands wichtigen und weitreichenden Beitrag würdigen, nicht zuletzt auch Christian Schmidts Bemühungen um die Schaffung zusätzlicher Fähigkeiten.</p> <p>Das zweite war, dass wir einen Kurs abstecken wollten für unsere „Future Force 2020“ und die Zeit danach, für den allmählichen Übergang von der strategischen Neuausrichtung in den ersten fünf Jahren zu einer Wiederaufstockung unserer Fähigkeiten im zweiten Fünf-Jahres-Zeitraum. </p> <p>Deshalb mussten jetzt einige sachliche und unsentimentale Beschlüsse gefasst werden, die gemäßigt wurden von den Ratschlägen, die uns die Militärs gaben.</p> <p>In den nächsten fünf Jahren werden wir die Personalstärke in der Royal Navy um rund 5000 kürzen, in der Armee um rund 7000, in der RAF um rund 5000, und bei den Zivilangestellten um rund 25.000.</p> <p>Und im Verlauf des gesamten Jahrzehnts werden wir Fähigkeiten, die uns hinterlassen wurden, sowie die Zahl der Typen von Ausrüstungen mit gleichen oder ähnlichen Fähigkeiten reduzieren.</p> <p>Um Ihnen ein paar Beispiele zu geben, werden wir auf See die HMS Ark Royal sofort außer Dienst stellen, außerdem vier Fregatten und ein Schiff für die amphibische Unterstützung der Bay-Klasse.</p> <p>An Land werden wir unsere Bestände von Panzern vom Typ Challenger 2 um rund 40% und von schwerer Artillerie um rund 35% verringern. </p> <p>In der Luft werden wir den Harrier ausmustern und künftig zu einer Kampfjet-Flotte mit dem Eurofighter Typhoon und dem Gemeinsamen Kampfflugzeug (Joint Strike Fighter) übergehen, wobei wir den Tornado behalten werden, der weiterhin in Afghanistan eingesetzt wird; und wir werden die Nimrod MRA4 nicht in Dienst stellen.</p> <p>Aber bis hinauf zum Premierminister sind wir alle überzeugt, dass die Struktur, die wir für 2020 beschlossen haben, nach 2015 ein jährliches reales Wachstum des Verteidigungshaushalts erfordern wird.</p> <p>Vorgesehen ist auch die Wiedereinführung einer Angriffsfähigkeit von Flugzeugträgern aus, mit dem JSF, und einer Geleitflotte von Zerstörern vom Typ 45 sowie, bald nach 2020, dem Global Combat Ship Typ 26.</p> <p>Wir werden in neue Technologien und Fähigkeiten investieren, die für den wahrscheinlichen Charakter künftiger Konflikte besser taugen, und uns gleichzeitig die Möglichkeit erhalten, Fähigkeiten zu regenerieren, die im Augenblick nicht gebraucht werden, falls die Bedrohungslage sich ändern sollte. </p> <p>Und wir werden eine autonome Fähigkeit beibehalten, substanzielle und fähige Kräfte gegebenenfalls dauerhaft sowohl zur Intervention wie auch zur Stabilisierung einzusetzen, mit Personalstärken, die sich von den heutigen nicht sehr unterscheiden.</p> <p>Auf diese Weise ist sichergestellt worden, dass die in der SDSR vorgesehenen Maßnahmen nur begrenzte Auswirkungen darauf haben, welche Art von Streitkräften wir einsetzen können.</p> <p>Die größte Herausforderung lautet nun: wie setzt man radikale Beschlüsse um? <br><br>Wir müssen dafür sorgen, dass die beschlossenen Streitkräftestrukturen jetzt umgesetzt werden, mit allen Detailplanungen, die damit verbunden sind. </p> <p>Einige Bereiche müssen noch genauer geprüft werden, vor allem unsere Reservestreitkräfte, unsere Liegenschaften und unsere Industrie- und Technologiepolitik.</p> <p>Wir müssen auch sehr darauf achten, dass die Kosten der Programme, die wir beibehalten haben, nicht in die Höhe klettern; dass wir die Möglichkeiten für Effizienzeinsparungen, die wir erkannt haben, tatsächlich umsetzen und neue finden; und dass wir notwendige Streichungen nicht aufschieben, da wir von einer Erhöhung des Verteidigungshaushalts nach 2015 ausgehen. </p> <p>Wir haben außerdem eine „Verteidigungsreformüberprüfung“ eingeleitet, um von Grund auf neu zu evaluieren, wie das Verteidigungsministerium strukturiert ist und geleitet wird und wie es Streitkräftefähigkeiten schafft. </p> <p>Der Auftrag dieser Überprüfung versucht drei klare Fehler der Vergangenheit zu vermeiden.</p> <p>Erstens wurde sie vom Verteidigungsminister angeordnet und wird unter seiner Aufsicht stehen. Bei früheren Überprüfungen fehlte eine solche ministerielle Vorgabe. </p> <p>Zweitens befasst sich die Überprüfung mit dem gesamten Ministerium. Bei früheren Überprüfungen ging es meist um spezielle Bereiche des Ministeriums, so dass das Gesamtbild nicht gesehen wurde.</p> <p>Drittens wird die Überprüfung sich die Kenntnisse einer hochkarätigen externen Lenkungsgruppe zunutze machen. </p> <p>Das Ministerium versucht also nicht, sich selber zu reformieren.</p> <p>Außerdem ist uns sehr wohl bewusst, welche personellen Auswirkungen unsere Entscheidungen haben, vor allem für Arbeitsplätze und Einkommen.</p> <p>Wir versuchen zum Beispiel, den Zeitplan für die Verlegung der Standorte zu beschleunigen, um alle britischen Soldaten in Deutschland bis Ende des Jahrzehnts nach Großbritannien zurückzuholen. </p> <p>Dieser Schritt ist sicherlich ein trauriger Moment in diesen glücklichen Beziehungen, die über ein halbes Jahrhundert andauerten. </p> <p>Die Herzlichkeit und Freundschaft, mit der die britischen und anderen alliierten Streitkräfte in der deutschen Bevölkerung aufgenommen wurden - und aus der viele deutsch-britische Ehen hervorgegangen sind - ist sehr geschätzt worden. Für die Familien ist das enorm wichtig, vor allem wenn die Soldaten in Einsätzen sind.</p> <p>Wir werden mit der deutschen Regierung und ihren Behörden zusammenarbeiten, damit der Übergang behutsam vonstatten geht. </p> <p>Trotz der Kostenreduzierungen darf nicht vergessen werden, dass wir in Großbritannien in den nächsten vier Jahren rund £50 Mrd. für Wehrtechnik und Unterstützung ausgeben werden.</p> <p>Der Steuerzahler erwartet von uns, dass wir sein hart verdientes Geld klug ausgeben, damit unsere Streitkräfte immer das zur Verfügung haben, was sie brauchen, um die Arbeit, die wir ihnen auftragen, erledigen zu können.</p> <p>Sosehr wir die Bedeutung einer starken Verteidigungsindustriebasis anerkennen, legen wir doch Wert auf ein besseres Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis. Wir werden mehr „von der Stange“ kaufen, obwohl wir hoffen, dort auch ein breites Angebot an britischen Produkten zu finden.</p> <p>Und wir werden beim Export einen deutlichen Akzent setzen. Großbritannien ist weltweit der zweitgrößte Exporteur von Rüstungsgütern, Deutschland zählt zu den Top-5. Wenn wir diese Position erhalten wollen, müssen wir jedoch wettbewerbsfähig bleiben. </p> <p>Nehmen Sie den Eurofighter Typhoon, bei dem EADS die Federführung für das aus vier Nationen gebildete Eurofighter-Team hat. <br></p> <p>Er hat in einer technischen Prüfung durch die Indian Air Force gerade hervorragende Leistungen gezeigt, dank einer wirklich gemeinsamen Anstrengung der Luftwaffe und der RAF bei den Evaluationserprobungen.</p> <p>Wir brauchen die starke politische Unterstützung der führenden Politiker in Deutschland, wenn wir den Kampagnen der USA, Russlands oder Frankreichs etwas entgegenhalten wollen.</p> <p>Dieser Wettbewerb verdeutlicht die Notwendigkeit einer koordinierten und engagierten politischen Unterstützung, und ich weiß, dass unser Premierminister und Bundeskanzlerin Merkel hier schon miteinander in Kontakt waren.</p> <p>Was die Zukunft anbelangt, ist davon auszugehen, dass eine verstärkte europäische Verteidigungs- und Rüstungskooperation, auch mit gegenseitiger Abhängigkeit, an Bedeutung gewinnt.</p> <p>Lassen Sie mich aber Folgendes klar stellen: mit Europa meine ich das geographische Europa, nicht das politische. </p> <p>Wir können uns Anlässe vorstellen, bei denen die EU das Potenzial hat, allein zu handeln - zum Beispiel bei der Bekämpfung der Piraterie. </p> <p>Das Fundament unserer Verteidigung ist und bleibt aber die NATO, die aus unverletzbaren souveränen Nationen besteht. </p> <p>Es darf kein Zweifel bestehen, dass die Europäische Kommission unser Diener, nicht unser Herr ist, und dass Verteidigung nicht in die Zuständigkeit der Kommission fällt. </p> <p>Wenn ich also von europäischer Zusammenarbeit spreche, meine ich Zusammenarbeit auf praktischer Ebene, keine Bühnenrhetorik im Stil der EU.</p> <p>Ich sehe auch die Vorteile einer Zusammenlegung und gemeinsamen Nutzung von Fähigkeiten, wenn sichergestellt ist, dass keine Bedenken hinsichtlich der nationalen operativen Souveränität bestehen.</p> <p>Kompromisse müssen immer gefunden werden, und das muss in einer Atmosphäre des Verständnisses füreinander geschehen. </p> <p>Es macht zum Beispiel keinen Sinn zu argumentieren, man brauche in Europa keine sechs Werften oder 23 Hersteller von gepanzerten Fahrzeugen, wenn man nicht auch klar sagt, was das eigene Land aufzugeben bereit ist.</p> <p>Europas Bilanz ist hier uneinheitlich. </p> <p>Während beim Tornado, beim Typhoon, bei Raketensystemen und in der Avionik Erfolge vorzuweisen sind, gab es Versäumnisse beim Bemühen, aus unseren Stärken Kapital zu schlagen.</p> <p>Ich glaube, es gibt viele gute Vorbilder für die wehrtechnische Zusammenarbeit. </p> <p>Zum Beispiel das Gemeinsame Kampfflugzeug, insofern es eine „lead nation“ geben sollte (nicht unbedingt die USA oder Großbritannien), und dann eine abgestufte Teilnahme (und Rechte), je nachdem, was ein Land anzubieten und beizusteuern hat.</p> <p>Den Luxus der juste retour können wir uns nicht länger leisten. </p> <p>Wir müssen nach dem Prinzip des „besten Athleten“ verfahren. </p> <p>Und es ist gewöhnlich besser, wenn die Industrie die Federführung übernimmt. </p> <p>Als Gegenleistung braucht sie jedoch eine solide politische Unterstützung von Seiten der Regierungen, vor allem beim Export.</p> <p>Wie jeder Minister einer nationalen Regierung möchte ich Großbritanniens Fähigkeiten bestmöglich zum Einsatz bringen.</p> <p>Und Kompromisse sind auch bei den wehrtechnische Fähigkeiten nötig. </p> <p>Was wir auf jeden Fall gelernt haben, ist, dass der Anspruch, eine 100-prozentige Lösung für eine Fähigkeitslücke zu finden, häufig die Kosten in die Höhe getrieben und zu Verzögerungen bei der Auslieferung geführt hat. </p> <p>Und wenn das Produkt schließlich auf den Markt kommt, wird es viel bewundert, aber kaum gekauft.</p> <p>Schutz, Beweglichkeit und Feuerkraft haben alle ihren Platz, aber es sollte uns klar sein, dass das Wichtigste die Wirkung ist. </p> <p>Wir tun uns auch keinen Gefallen, wenn wir nicht an die Exportfähigkeit denken. </p> <p>Außerdem glaube ich, dass die NATO die Instrumente haben sollte - und schon hat -, um unnötige Verdoppelungen sowie Fähigkeitslücken in Europa, die infolge der Mittelkürzungen in fast allen Ländern entstehen werden, bewerten zu können.</p> <p>So könnten Deutschland und andere NATO-Mitglieder bestimmte Fähigkeiten, die vielleicht anderswo in der NATO Mangelware sind, erkennen und erhalten.</p> <p>Tatsächlich war der in der NATO bestehende Mangel an Zwei-Sterne-Hauptquartieren, die das gesamte Spektrum von Einsätzen führen können, ein wichtiger Grund dafür, dass wir in der SDSR an dieser Fähigkeit festgehalten haben.</p> <p>Wie Sie wissen, wollen wir eng mit anderen Nationen zusammenarbeiten.</p> <p>An erster Stelle nenne ich die Amerikaner und Franzosen wegen der jüngsten bedeutenden Fortschritte in unseren strategischen Beziehungen zu beiden Ländern.</p> <p>Aber unsere Ambitionen reichen noch weiter, und ich sehe Wege für eine noch engere Zusammenarbeit mit anderen strategischen Partnern wie Deutschland und Italien. Deshalb bin ich hier.</p> <p>Deutschland ist wirtschaftlich und technologisch erfolgreich, und Großbritannien und Deutschland können eine gute industrielle Zusammenarbeit vorweisen. </p> <p>Wir haben eine Führungsposition in der Verteidigungsindustrie, und darauf sollten wir aufbauen, aber wir sollten auch offen miteinander sprechen. </p> <p>Wir würden es begrüßen, wenn die deutschen Rüstungsexport-Richtlinien es der Industrie ermöglichen würden, schneller in die Wettbewerbs- und Kooperationsphase einzutreten. </p> <p>Und sofern die nationale Sicherheit es erlaubt und Fähigkeiten, die die Souveränität berühren, nicht gefährdet sind, sollten wir jede Möglichkeit für eine Verbesserung der Interoperabilität unserer Streitkräfte, eine Maximierung unserer Fähigkeiten und die Erzielung eines besseren Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnisses prüfen.</p> <p>Meine Damen und Herren, angesichts der Kürzungen der Verteidigungshaushalte in Europa ist es wichtig, dass die Politiker nach Gemeinsamkeiten suchen und dass sie zur Gewährleistung der Sicherheit unserer Bürger einen maximalen Beitrag leisten.</p> <p>Wir haben die relativen Gewissheiten des Kalten Krieges gegen die Ungewissheiten einer turbulenteren Welt ausgetauscht, in der neue Bedrohungen entstehen: Al Qaida und ihre Anhänger verbreiten das Gift des Terrorismus, die Piraterie bedroht unsere Handelsrouten, und der Wettstreit um natürliche Ressourcen birgt eine Vielfalt von Gefahren.<br><br>Wenn wir unsere freiheitlichen Werte und unseren Wohlstand schützen wollen, müssen wir enger zusammenarbeiten.</p> <p>Wie Edmund Burke, ein berühmter englischer Politiker und Philosoph des 19. Jahrhunderts schon sagte: „Für den Triumph des Bösen reicht es, wenn die Guten nichts tun“. </p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinISD/20101120UkPerspectiveSharedSecurityChallengesAndSharedSolutionsincludingGermanTranslation.htm Gerald Howarth 2010/11/20 - UK Perspective: Shared Security Challenges and Shared Solutions - (Including German Translation) uk.org.publicwhip/member/40039 24/11/2010 Ministry of Defence the International Congress Centre, Munich, Germany
<p>Thank you very much indeed Michael [Professor Clarke, Director of RUSI] for that kind introduction. </p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, friends, Good morning. </p> <p>Or should I say, “Bonjour, tout le monde”? </p> <p>I’m delighted to be here. </p> <p>I have attended many of these annual gatherings in the past, which have served as valuable and candid forums to measure the health of the UK’s Defence exports business, so it is a real pleasure to be here this year as the Minister responsible for this part of the shop. </p> <p>As some of you know, for years I’ve talked about the three great lies in the world – “the cheque’s in the post”; “Of course darling I’ll still love you in the morning”; and “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.”</p> <p>So you will appreciate my predicament when I say: I am from the Government, and I am here to help… </p> <p>This Government has been clear from the outset, and so have I: we are proud to support the biggest Defence exports drive in decades. </p> <p>The whole country should care about exports which last year contributed £7,200 million to our balance of trade. </p> <p>Because our security relies on a healthy economy. </p> <p>As you know, we inherited a national debt which was growing at the rate of £150 billion a year – enough to fund three Type 45 destroyers per week. </p> <p>And we’ve been left with a £38 billion ‘black hole’ in the Defence budget.<br><br>So addressing the deficit and bringing the Defence budget back into balance is not an option; it is a vital part of how we protect our security.</p> <p>That’s why the SDSR had to take the tough but realistic decisions it did. </p> <p>But I do want to emphasise that the SDSR marks the start – not the end – of the road to our Future Force 2020. </p> <p>We are fundamentally reviewing how the MoD delivers its capability. </p> <p>As part of our reforms, we have decided that there should be Defence Reviews every five years, broadly in line with the term of each Parliament. </p> <p>So that means there will be another Defence Review in 2015, which we hope will take place in more benign circumstances than prevail today. </p> <p>And I share the Prime Minister’s strong view that making Future Force 2020 a reality will, and I quote, “require year-on-year real terms growth in the Defence budget beyond 2015.”</p> <p>So fiscal responsibility will help the economy to grow. </p> <p>But that is only one part of the equation.</p> <p>We need a balanced and sustainable plan for that growth. </p> <p>Part of that will be our exports strategy which allows businesses to benefit from the expanding global economy; and enables them to compete, not fall at the first hurdle. </p> <p>In some quarters, there is a tendency to view the rise of India, Brazil and others in apprehensive competitive terms. </p> <p>Instead, I think we should be seeing terrific export opportunities, and encouraging these countries to be open to trade so that everyone reaps the benefits of competition and innovation.</p> <p>Vince Cable made the point this morning that the Government’s focus must be on exporting, not spending, our way out of recession. </p> <p>In Britain, we are fortunate; we have the ingredients to make this work. <br><br>We have some of the world’s leading authorities and institutions in the fields of science, technology, and innovation – a point I will come back to later.</p> <p>Our Armed Forces are universally recognised as being among the finest in the world, and a source of immense pride to the people of this country. <br> <br>We have the training and heritage which so many other countries are keen to use as a model for their own Armed Forces. </p> <p>And in UKTI DSO, superbly led by Richard Paniguian, we have a world-class team who are doing a fantastic job, supported by a small, but perfectly formed, team in the MoD itself. </p> <p>And I know that industry is appreciative; they tell me regularly.</p> <p>I have a number of letters, including a recent one from Paul Everington, the Chairman of Ballistic Toolkit, who complimented the “total support from UKTI DSO” and the “real help in empowering SMEs to release their true potential”.<br><br>I think that’s very important. </p> <p>It isn’t just the big players, and is an indication that DSO is here to help SMEs too.</p> <p>The other key ingredient is all of you in industry. </p> <p>I’m a rugby man, and there are many important positions across a team. </p> <p>But, as in politics, I believe the most important number is, of course, Number 10... </p> <p>The skills required by an outside-half are the ones which industry must show too - vision, quick thinking, and consistently taking decisions which move the ball forward. </p> <p>You’re going to need those skills because two weeks ago, when we published our Strategic Defence and Security Review, all of you here today were picked to play.</p> <p>Yesterday, some of you will have heard my colleague, Peter Luff, set out what the SDSR means for industry. </p> <p>I won’t repeat what he had to say, except to say that we will publish a Green Paper by the end of this year which will set out our intended approach to industrial policy and technology policy. </p> <p>Our main priorities will be: strengthening bi-lateral co-operation and collaboration; supporting the small and medium-sized enterprises which are a vital source of innovation and flexibility – and we will be working closely with Mark Prisk and our new enterprise adviser, Lord Young, on this; protecting the industrial capabilities associated with our sovereign requirements; recognising the vital importance of Science and Technology to our future security; and giving our full support to exports.</p> <p>So between now and the Green Paper being published later this year is your big opportunity to make sure we’re asking the right questions, and to offer solutions.</p> <p>After a formal consultation period in the New Year, we will publish a White Paper next Spring which will set the strategic context until the next strategic review in 2015, and bring clarity to and build confidence in our plans.</p> <p>This is not just about Defence, as you’ve already heard. </p> <p>To reflect the scope of the SDSR itself, both the Green and White Papers will also include security issues. </p> <p>This will mean we can better reflect the new challenges which have been identified such as cyber-related threats, which Baroness Neville-Jones will talk about later.</p> <p>This work will formalise the Government’s support to Defence- and security-related exports. </p> <p>In practice, this means embedding exportability from the outset. </p> <p>We must end the quest for what US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has called the “exquisite solution”, which has so often meant higher costs and delivery delays.</p> <p>As Peter said yesterday, that solution, when it is finally delivered, is “often admired, but rarely bought.”</p> <p>That’s why the Type 26 Global Combat Ships, which will replace the Royal Navy’s current generation of frigates, present us with an immediate and timely opportunity to change. </p> <p>As we design them, we see a tremendous opportunity for establishing a partnership with other nations which have a similar requirement, along the lines of the JSF programme in the United States. </p> <p>Furthermore, it offers the opportunity to move from traditional customer-supplier relationships to potentially more rewarding ones. <br><br>The benefits are considerable – economies of scale and reduced costs for our own equipment, sustaining skills and high quality jobs, but, more importantly, the chance to strengthen existing alliances and develop new ones for the longer-term, thereby fashioning a network of alliances which could make a significant contribution to enhancing Britain’s ability to help shape the world in which we find ourselves – an increasingly unstable one. </p> <p>So our aim with the Type 26 GCS is to develop jointly, internationally, a modular approach which will allow us to adapt the capability for our own specific needs, but offering an affordable, yet flexible, mix of systems and roles. </p> <p>Increasingly, there is a new reality which we have to recognise: partner nations will require technology transfer. </p> <p>This presents a new and potentially exciting opportunity, but clearly not without risk. </p> <p>It will require changing cultures, primarily in industry, though it is manifestly not without serious implications for Government.<br> <br>But in Britain we are ahead of the game. </p> <p>We have considerable experience in sharing our expertise with our friends, as for example we are doing on the Hawk programme in India, and we will work with industry to reach a common position.</p> <p>And as you know, we are also looking to work closely with other nations, as yesterday’s Anglo-French summit indicated.</p> <p>And I am pleased to welcome some of our key partners from the US, Turkey, Malaysia, and South Korea today, so that we can hear at first hand their experience as customers of British Defence equipment. </p> <p>Thank you very much for coming. </p> <p>And we are pleased that the US Congress has at last ratified the US-UK Defence Trade Co-operation Treaty, which we hope will simplify export licensing arrangements for the end-use of both countries, reduce the bureaucratic burden on industry, and ultimately help our front line Armed Forces.</p> <p>All this is happening today, and a great many people are involved, but I would particularly like to thank the project teams, especially the joint MoD-Industry-UKTI DSO-Type 26 GCS team, for recognising the importance of exportability.</p> <p>Because it is something that everyone’s got to understand.  </p> <p>But of course, having a marketable product and a level playing field is only one half of the story; sealing the deal and supporting it is what really counts.</p> <p>And while we will take account of exportability in future systems, as Richard said, we must also promote existing systems and strengthen existing relationships with the same partnership messages – he mentioned Typhoon as an example. </p> <p>The good news is that this government’s foreign policy recognises that Britain’s prosperity and security are bound up with those of others. </p> <p>Critically, the policy recognises that Defence exports are a key driver in securing our Defence Diplomacy objectives. <br><br>So where Defence exports serve wider MoD interests, they will receive the maximum support which the MoD can provide. </p> <p>This includes a sharper focus on promoting our national security and prosperity through our global diplomatic network, as the Foreign Secretary himself is insisting.  </p> <p>Because even with 21st century communications there is no real substitute for having the right person on the ground. </p> <p>And building personal relationships between Ministers is vital too.</p> <p>That’s why Richard and I have undertaken what I regard as truly joined up visits across Government and with industry – notably to Poland and Brazil – precisely because they offer the opportunity of strategic government to government relationships.</p> <p>The Prime Minister has led from the front, visiting India and UAE; the Foreign Secretary has been to Japan; and Vince Cable to Brazil.</p> <p>And we have launched a major initiative with our friends and allies in the Gulf – including Ministerial visits to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman, among others – reviving and strengthening traditional, long-standing relationships in a region which Britain has historically understood. </p> <p>The common refrain has been: “Where have you been? We’re delighted you’re back”!</p> <p>As part of this reinvigorated Defence Diplomacy campaign, we have undertaken to these countries that we will return on a regular basis. </p> <p>However, there is only so much that government can, and should, do.</p> <p>We cannot support every campaign. </p> <p>We look to you in industry to tell us when you need our focused support, because we know there’s much that you can and should do without Government assistance. </p> <p>So help us to help you!</p> <p>You need to think more carefully about each campaign in terms of understanding the customer’s requirements and timescales, as well as things like local build, local regulations, and the support you offer into your eventual bid. </p> <p>And let me be candid: if you promise something to your customer, you must deliver it. </p> <p>An entire country engagement strategy, worked out over a period of years, can be wiped out by not giving customers the respect and attention they deserve.  </p> <p>With profit comes responsibility and we will not take kindly to companies which harm the opportunities for those that follow.</p> <p>One final point, I’m a Minister for Her Majesty’s Government, not an arms salesman. </p> <p>Knowing when to engage Ministers effectively requires careful orchestration. </p> <p>I always admired the former Commons Speaker, Bernard “Jack” Weatherill, who perfected the art of calling Members to speak. </p> <p>He knew when to choose the triangle, and when to call the double bass.</p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, and friends, I hope I’ve been clear about our objectives.</p> <p>This Government is full-square behind an exports drive, the like of which this country hasn’t seen for a very long time. </p> <p>If industry plays its part – here at home and overseas – the prize is an export-led recovery, and a re-balanced and stronger economy where industry will play a major role.</p> <p>Together with our overseas partners, we can achieve this.</p> <p><br> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinISD/20101103UktiDsoSymposium.htm Gerald Howarth 2010/11/03 - UKTI DSO Symposium uk.org.publicwhip/member/40039 09/11/2010 Ministry of Defence the Riverside Plaza, London
<p> <strong>Introduction</strong> </p> <p>Salutations etc</p> <p>I would like to thank Sir Nigel Essenhigh for his kind remarks and inviting me here today to open formally the UK Cyber Test Range.</p> <p>This is a unique collaboration between government, business and academia - developed by Northrop Grumman – under direction of the UK Technology Strategy Board – in collaboration with BT and Warwick and Oxford Universities.</p> <p>Through the work undertaken at this Range we hope better to understand the common cyber security challenges we face, and be well placed to protect our information systems against the diverse and growing cyber threats which target our citizens, our businesses and very importantly our country’s critical infrastructure.<br><br>The National Security Strategy, published this week, judges that cyber attack, including from other states, terrorists and organised crime, ranks among the top four highest priority risks the country faces over the next five years.</p> <p>That is indeed why we are making £650m of new investment over the next four years in the new National Cyber Security Programme which I will come to later.  This is very much one of the up-arrows that the Secretary of State indicated at the start of the SDSR process.</p> <p><strong>The Digital Society</strong></p> <p>I am particularly pleased to meet Jean Valentine today, who worked as a code-breaker during Bletchley Park during World War Two.  We owe a lot to the committed, talented and disciplined operatives.</p> <p>In a sense, by working to break the German enigma code, Jean can claim to be one of the first ‘hackers’ – albeit working for the national good.</p> <p>As today we mark the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain was not won simply because we had the best pilots – but because we had the best planes (Spitfire) and Radar.</p> <p>Trafalgar too it is worth recalling was not won simply by Admiral Nelson and superior naval tactics – but by superior ships which had copper bottoms enabling them to travel more swiftly through the water.</p> <p>And it was technology that enabled us to break into German communications.</p> <p>This Coalition Government, 70 years on, recognises the importance of investing in technology to meet modern threats.</p> <p>But much has changed since Jean was at Bletchley, using the new computing technology.</p> <p>Then it was the nation state that held the advantage in exploiting this kind of advance.</p> <p>Now, although Government clearly has a role to play, most advanced R&amp;D is now in the private sector.</p> <p>So our approach must change too.</p> <p>It is difficult to underplay how far, in a few short decades, our society has come to depend on the digital world for many of the things which allow normal life to function smoothly. </p> <p>From the high street to the home, from the City to the small business, the efficiencies that digital technologies provide are becoming common-place – and often taken for granted.</p> <p>Our dependency on digital technologies runs deeper than many of us appreciate. </p> <p>Every aspect of our society now depends on computers - from our electricity grid, through our banking system, to the computers which control our buildings and transport systems.</p> <p>The Armed Forces too rely on digital networks, not just on operations, but in all the business which is done over commercial networks and the internet.</p> <p><strong>The Risks in Cyberspace</strong></p> <p>With all the positive things the digital age has brought – accessibility, efficiency, networking, information at the fingertips – twitter, facebook, google; it is equally exploitable by those who mean to do wrong.</p> <p>Though impossible to put a precise figure on the direct and indirect financial losses caused by cyber criminals, we do know that the problem is growing progressively worse. </p> <p>For example, we know that:</p> <p>So, it is not a matter of if or when our country faces cyber attack, it is happening now.</p> <p>As the GCHQ director, Iain Lobben, has said “cyber space is contested every day, every hour, every minute, every second.”</p> <p>The threat is complex - from low level, disorganised hacking; through serious organised crime defrauding people and businesses, stealing information and identities; to state-sponsored espionage. </p> <p>And of course from terrorists who conduct their activities in cyberspace.</p> <p>It is worth noting that cyber technology is a particularly powerful weapon in the hands of non-state actors, as we face increasing threat of asymmetric warfare.</p> <p>In places like Afghanistan, where infrastructure remains weak, organisations like the Taliban or Al-Qaeda have leapfrogged a technological generation and make good use of modern wireless communications.</p> <p>So with the digital highway rapidly becoming the backbone of our society and central to our military operations - to ensure good health we need to develop a strong ‘nervous system’ to warn us of dangers and ‘active anti-bodies’ to ward off attacks.</p> <p><strong>Cyber Security Partnership</strong></p> <p>We need a flexible cyber security response - led by government, yes – but shared by all who have a reliance on digital technologies, in business and in their personal lives too.</p> <p>As Sir Nigel emphasised in his slides, we must draw more effectively on the knowledge, experiences and resources of the private sector – recognising that the private sector owns and operates large parts of the critical networks that deliver our essential services. </p> <p>We have strong capabilities on which we must build.</p> <p>You would not expect me to go into precise detail on our capabilities and research nor on our intimate plans for the future.</p> <p>But I can say that our National Cyber Security Programme will mean government working together with the private sector and academia to create policies and plans to protect our country.</p> <p>A major part of the programme will focus on the UK’s ability to detect and defend itself against cyber attack, as well as ensuring we overhaul our approach to tackling cyber crime and ensure our critical networks are secure from electronic attack.</p> <p>At home we believe in partnership between government, industry and academia as the way forward.</p> <p>But we cannot do this in the UK in isolation.</p> <p>Our partnerships also need to be international, because geography is no barrier in cyberspace. </p> <p>The strong alliances we have forged over the years, particularly with the US and other NATO partners, will help us to address the common threats we face.</p> <p>That is why I am particularly pleased that Northrop Grumman has given practical effect to this partnership by drawing on its US experience to help build this range here in Fareham.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion<br></strong><br>Ladies and Gentlemen,</p> <p>I am delighted to open this cyber range today.</p> <p>This represents just the kind of partnership we require to make a real contribution to our future cyber security.</p> <p>To coin a phrase – “we are all in this together.”</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinISD/20101022OpeningOfCyberTestRange.htm Gerald Howarth 2010/10/22 - Opening of Cyber Test Range uk.org.publicwhip/member/40039 25/10/2010 Ministry of Defence Northrup Grumman, Fareham, Hants
<p>Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen. </p> <p>It makes a great change to be representing the government. </p> <p>Thank you Geoffrey [Sir Geoffrey Pattie] for that kind introduction. </p> <p>I’ve known Geoffrey for many years, and, with the exception of Mrs. Thatcher, I always thought that he held more levers of power than anyone I’d ever met; until I came face to face with the Treasury! </p> <p>And Marc [Lee, Chairman of City Forum], I am grateful to you for inviting me to speak at this forum. </p> <p>Tonight, there’s an edition of the Channel 4 programme, Despatches, which includes a piece on my relationship with BAE SYSTEMS.  They’re acting as public prosecutors, so let me just say this. </p> <p>I of course care about BAE SYSTEMS’ success, not least because they are based in my constituency. </p> <p>But I’ve never received a penny from them. </p> <p>That said, it really is a pleasure to be here at the Liberal Club this morning, which I come to with a much greater spring in my step now I am in a Coalition Government! </p> <p>If I had been giving this speech 20 years ago, I would probably have had very different things to say. </p> <p>The world would still have been in the grip of the Cold War. </p> <p>The world was dominated by two global superpowers, each with its sphere of influence virtually set in stone. </p> <p>But we are not only decades away from the Cold War, but approaching the end of the post-Cold War era too.</p> <p>The circle of international decision making has become wider and more multi-lateral as new, increasingly self-confident and potentially powerful, nations seek to press their claim to a part on the world stage.</p> <p>We face new and growing threats. </p> <p>The nature and character of conflict itself is changing. </p> <p>We continue to deal with the strategic shock of 9/11.</p> <p>The growing power of terrorists to harness technology to inflict disproportionate damage on large populations has emerged as one of the key challenges of our times. </p> <p>Yet we cannot be certain that state-on-state conflict has ended forever.</p> <p>Additionally, we are having to deal with the changes brought about by the fiscal crisis – both in terms of the prospects for the world economy, and in dealing with the repercussions for our domestic economies – particularly the requirement for reducing Britain’s deficit.</p> <p>There is no doubt that during the election campaign the public understood that the Government had overspent and that action would have to be taken. </p> <p>But, the truth is that no politician was willing to spell out the true magnitude of the spectacular and catastrophic growth in the public debt inflicted upon the nation by Gordon Brown, a man who claimed to understand economics, and the consequences of restoring them to order. </p> <p>Not only did the debt double in the past five years, but it would continue to grow at the rate of £3 billion a week – to this audience, that’s three Type 45 destroyers each and every week – unless drastic action were taken. </p> <p>All of this has major resonance for the defence of the Realm which, as the Prime Minister said, is the first priority of government. <br><br>Not only have we to play our part in restoring the public finances, but the previous administration left a funding gap of several hundred millions in this year’s Defence budget.</p> <p>So, if the current Defence programme is unaffordable, tough choices will have to be made. </p> <p>The programme for the next 10 years is £38 billion over-committed – a sum that we simply cannot fund. </p> <p>Yet we must also ensure that our Armed Forces are able to meet today’s challenges, and at the same time prepare for a range of challenges that we may face in the future. </p> <p>You will forgive me for not commenting on the possible outcome of the Strategic Defence and Security Review – the SDSR – which we expect to announce next month. </p> <p>I well understand that there is a perception that the Review is being rushed, but it is the need to tackle the deficit now which is driving the pace of the review.<br><br>Clearly, the world has changed and Britain is changing with it, with a re-energised approach to Defence and Security policy. </p> <p>I’d like to spend a few minutes explaining what this means in practice, and how it touches on the issues that will be discussed in this forum.</p> <p>Britain remains a formidable force across the whole spectrum of world affairs. </p> <p>But William Hague put it well when he said, “Britain stands to lose a good deal of its ability to shape world affairs unless we decide we will not accept that and are prepared to do what is needed.”</p> <p>We have some of the world’s leading people and institutions in the fields of science, technology, and innovation.</p> <p>Our Armed Forces, together with our defence industry are universally recognised as being among the finest in the world.<br> <br>Our scientists are as innovative as ever – we develop, produce, and use cutting-edge technology which commands respect around the world.<br><br>And we have the training and heritage which so many other countries would like to use as a model for their own Armed Forces. </p> <p>But we are not complacent. </p> <p>If yesterday’s magnificent and moving event to mark the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain taught us anything, it reminded us that victory owed so much to the skill and courage of the pilots. </p> <p>They, in turn, were helped by the invaluable leading-edge technology developed by our scientists. </p> <p>The Spitfire outperformed the Me109, and we had invented radar. </p> <p>We need a new approach to British foreign policy because we cannot do it alone. </p> <p>We need credible, beneficial, and sustainable partnerships with a whole range of countries which will stand the test of time. </p> <p>That will mean working even more closely with our diplomatic and development colleagues in government.</p> <p>That is why some of what we in Defence do will take on a new salience.</p> <p>That is where Defence Diplomacy comes in. </p> <p>Today’s environment is clearly more demanding in some respects since the certainties of the Cold War disappeared.</p> <p>Britain’s relationship with the United States remains critical for our security. </p> <p>It is our most important and prized relationship, although we do need to be aware that it is a relationship which faces some real challenges, not least the propensity of judges here to take decisions which can have serious adverse consequences for the essential trust upon which the relationship is founded.</p> <p>NATO remains our first instrument of choice for responding to the collective challenges we face. <br><br>In the last decade, NATO has moved unambiguously outside its traditional geographic area, with some European allies, such as Germany, deploying forces abroad in ways which would have been inconceivable a decade ago. </p> <p>In places like Afghanistan, we are now operating alongside non-NATO partners, both military and civilian. </p> <p>In today’s environment, attempts to solve major security issues by military means alone will seldom succeed in the long run. </p> <p>Military commanders have reinforced that message: “Don’t leave it all to us”, they rightly say. </p> <p>So, a key component of any overall solution is personal contact and networking.</p> <p>We should never underestimate the importance of talking in order to identify common interests and goals and, even more importantly, mutual agreement on solutions.  </p> <p>And one of the lessons of the Cold War is that success in warfare in its most expansive sense requires the application of all levers of power – diplomacy, development, economic strength, trade, cultural influence, and military capability – underpinned by intelligence and information to ensure that they are used as effectively as possible. </p> <p>That is why we have brought together the three policy pillars of defence, diplomacy, and development in our new National Security Council. </p> <p>Joint training can deliver valuable results in gaining influence, not least because the training we give our Armed Forces is widely respected throughout the world. </p> <p>As is our world-leading Royal College of Defence Studies course in London, and the Advanced Command and Staff Course at our Defence Academy.</p> <p>And we must also step up bi-lateral Defence co-operation, particularly with nations who share our interests, and are prepared to both pay and fight, such as France.</p> <p>That’s why, within the SDSR, and despite the financial challenges, a broad programme of Defence Diplomacy is required. </p> <p>Even with 21st century communications, there is no real substitute for having the right person on the ground. </p> <p>Someone who speaks the language, knows the people, and has a real handle on their particular cultural sensitivities. </p> <p>Presence is no substitute for influence when a crisis brews. </p> <p>Defence exports are already a key driver in securing our Defence Diplomacy objectives. </p> <p>We are keen to explore opportunities for bi-lateral joint ventures and industrial partnerships, backed by the Government where appropriate.</p> <p>To that end, we have a tremendous asset in UKTI DSO, headed by Richard Paniguian, with whom I have been working very closely.</p> <p>Similarly, if another country’s industry has technology to improve our capabilities, reduce costs, and manage risk, our door is open; we actively encourage inward investment in Britain. </p> <p>Take the Type 26 ships – or Global Combat Ships as they are also known – that will replace the Royal Navy’s current generation of frigates. </p> <p>This programme presents us with an immediate opportunity to implement policy. </p> <p>As we design them, we see a tremendous opportunity for partnering with several countries rather than simply through a customer-supplier relationship. </p> <p>The benefits are considerable – economies of scale and reduced costs for our own equipment, but also the chance to strengthen existing alliances and develop new ones. </p> <p>However, there is often going to be a harsh reality which is that partner nations will require technology transfer. </p> <p>But the UK is well-placed as we have considerable experience in managing the problem. </p> <p>Our aim with the T26 is to develop jointly, internationally, a modular approach which will allow us all to adapt the capability for our own specific needs, perhaps using a common hull, but offering a flexible mix of systems and roles. </p> <p>That’s why we have set out five criteria – capability, affordability, adaptability, interoperability, and exportability – against which future equipment programmes will be assessed. </p> <p>We will support Britain’s Defence industry as a strategic asset through acquisition reform and through growing the UK’s share of the global Defence market, to name but two methods. </p> <p>Together with Richard Paniguian, I have just undertaken high profile visits to Brazil and Poland precisely because they both offer the opportunity of strategic government to government relationships. </p> <p>However, there is only so much that government can, and should do. <br><br>And we look to industry to tell us when they need our focused support because we know there’s much that they can and should do without government assistance. </p> <p>Industry needs to think more carefully about each campaign in terms of understanding the customer’s requirements and timescales, as well as things like local build, local regulations, and the support it offers into its eventual bid. </p> <p>On top of this, the Defence Secretary has been candid that industry needs to bring more to the table here at home. </p> <p>Industry’s long-term prosperity also rests on offering better value for money to the British taxpayer.</p> <p>We expect to see cost containment in our current domestic programmes. </p> <p>I also expect that if HMG is to play a vigorous role in promoting Defence sales, industry needs to understand that is has an enduring responsibility to ensure the customer receives an excellent after-sales service.<br><br>Making this quid pro quo a successful reality will be vital for the UK’s economic recovery, and also for equipping our own Armed Forces.</p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, in the four short months since the new coalition government came to power, we’ve hit the ground running and we’ve set out our stall. </p> <p>We await the SDSR and associated work, but I hope I’ve managed to illustrate that in parallel with that work we are forging ahead with our promise in Opposition to promote Defence exports, to the benefit not only of British industry, but also of the British economy more generally.</p> <p>Particularly that our new distinctive foreign policy has at its heart, the pursuit and defence of UK interests – and recognises that our prosperity and security are bound up with those of others. </p> <p>Where Defence exports serve wider MoD interests, then they will receive the maximum support that the MoD can provide. </p> <p>That said, while exports are an intrinsic part of our Defence Diplomacy effort, our bilateral relations are not predicated on exports. <br><br>And while strong Defence Diplomacy is crucial to our reinvigorated approach to exports, it is the wider Defence and Security interests they serve which advance our national interest most of all.  </p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinISD/20100920CityForum.htm Gerald Howarth 2010/09/20 - City Forum uk.org.publicwhip/member/40039 05/10/2010 Ministry of Defence The Liberal Club, London
<p>Thank you Sir Merrick for that introduction.</p> <p>My congratulations on organising a fascinating day with some excellent speakers - they’re still to come..! -and workshops. </p> <p>I used to be a Councillor myself, and my wife is currently - within Westminster - so I have some understanding of the issues you face.</p> <p>It’s fantastic to see so many representatives from across local government, and the voluntary and charitable sector. </p> <p>You are in the vanguard of our plans to cement the bond between our communities and the Armed Forces through the Armed Forces Covenant and Community Covenant. </p> <p>Not everyone down the years would have embraced such localism. </p> <p>General de Gaulle once observed of France, “How can you govern a country which has 246 varieties of cheese?”</p> <p>He would have really struggled in Britain which - according to the gloriously named British Cheese Board - boasts over 700 distinct local cheeses! </p> <p>And he would have despaired at your job, Merrick, representing as you do hundreds of councils and thousands of councillors. </p> <p>Because, in part, De Gaulle’s complaint seems to have been that localism interferes with the smooth pursuit of the national interest.</p> <p>Perhaps so in France, but in Britain I’ve always believed that’s the wrong way round. </p> <p>This Government believes in 'small government'. </p> <p>Of course Westminster and Whitehall should lead on those issues which are truly national in scope. </p> <p>But, at most, they should complement - not substitute - local efforts on everything else.  </p> <p>It’s why decentralising power is at the heart of this government’s agenda. </p> <p>Yet Britain’s Armed Forces straddle the national and local divide.</p> <p>At one level, they are rooted in lock communities.<br><br>For instance, the British infantry system of county regiments helped to forge deep ties between those who serve - often alongside neighbours and friends - and the communities they left behind. </p> <p>At another level, our Armed Forces are woven into the fabric of our nation’s history and psyche. </p> <p>Nelson on the quarterdeck; the Pals on the Somme; the SAS on TV as they stormed the Iranian Embassy. </p> <p>Courage, sacrifice, excellence.  </p> <p>It’s why the British public have a deep respect for, and pride in, our Armed Forces. </p> <p>But respect and pride are not the same as understanding. </p> <p>Our Armed Forces Community may be an integral part of our society, but in recent decades the link has declined. </p> <p>When World War II ended in 1945, there were around five million men and women in uniform. </p> <p>Almost everyone in the country knew someone close who had served. </p> <p>My parents and her generation gave up their youth in the service of this country. </p> <p>The National Service generation only added to the ledger.  </p> <p>But for many years, our Armed Forces have been a professional, volunteer force - declining in number - while the older generations have dwindled. </p> <p>Public understanding of our Armed Forces has declined as a result. <br><br>This matters hugely. </p> <p>The effectiveness of our Armed Forces depends on them knowing that they have their country’s support.</p> <p>Parliament has taken to welcoming home units of the Armed Forces, and yesterday we welcomed 3 Commando. </p> <p>We asked them to go to war, and it is right that we welcome them home.</p> <p>Such support requires the public to understand the role of our Armed Forces, and the sacrifice our men and women in uniform make with their families. </p> <p>We should never take public support for granted, even in times of plenty. <br></p> <p>Nor should we under-estimate their principled conviction that our Armed Forces Community should get the support they need and the dignity they deserve. </p> <p>That they should suffer no disadvantage as a result of serving; indeed should receive special consideration in some instances. </p> <p>And that they have a right to expect a whole of society approach - not just a top-down, or bottom-up one. </p> <p>So I’m pleased to say that in the 18 months since the General Election we’ve taken action over a very broad canvas. </p> <p>For the first time ever, the principles I have mentioned (no disadvantage) will be recognised in the law of the land through the Armed Forces Bill. </p> <p>On the front line, we’ve doubled the operational allowance and extended it to Libya. </p> <p>We’ve improved the Rest and Recuperation leave. </p> <p>And we’ve doubled Council Tax relief from 25% to 50% for all personnel on operations, including Libya. </p> <p>In May, we set out - in the ‘Today and Tomorrow’ paper - what we’re doing to give the Covenant practical effect.  </p> <p>For instance, we have endorsed all of Andrew Murrison’s recommendations for improving mental health care. </p> <p>We have allocated resources for 36,000 Service children as part of the pupil premium, and introduced a separate fund for schools with high proportions of Service children. <br><br>And we are giving our personnel a high priority in Affordable Housing Schemes. </p> <p>Yet, as I’ve said, the Armed Forces Covenant is not just about action from the centre. </p> <p>There are fewer than 200,000 serving members of our Armed Forces, whereas there are still more than four and a half million people who have served. </p> <p>With their families, our Armed Forces Community is roughly one in six of the total population. </p> <p>Providing support to this vast number of people involves all areas of local government working with communities up and down the land. </p> <p>The 10 NHS Armed Forces Networks have proved particularly useful in ironing out local healthcare and adult social care issues through their extensive local networks. <br><br>For example, an RAF couple were devastated to hear that their application to adopt a child had been scuppered by orders posting them overseas. </p> <p>The Local Authority had withdrawn from the process as 'suitable' counselling services would not be available. </p> <p>By contacting their regional Armed Forces Network lead, they were able to get SSAFA Forces Help to liaise with the Local Authority until the issue was resolved and the adoption went ahead. </p> <p>This is the 'no disadvantage from service' principle in action. </p> <p>It also shows the importance of local authorities forging links with Service charities and the wider voluntary and charitable sector. </p> <p>And in June, four counties became the first in Britain to demonstrate community-led support for the Armed Forces through the Community Covenant scheme.</p> <p>You’ll hear more about best practice later this morning from three of the counties involved so far - Oxfordshire, Hampshire, and North Yorkshire. </p> <p>A further seven councils have signed, with over 30 in the pipeline. </p> <p>The Community Covenant has been well-received, and my hope is that every community will sign one. </p> <p>It’s important as a symbol of our beliefs, and it’s important as a commitment to action. </p> <p>This afternoon you will hear more about the Community Covenant Grant Scheme. <br><br>We have allocated up to £30 million until 2015 to fund projects which support the aims of the Community Covenant. </p> <p>A panel considered the first bids last month. </p> <p>I am delighted to announce that we have approved 11 superb bids in full, and another two in part, totalling over £400,000.  </p> <p>I am particularly pleased to see that those bids will draw in matched funding of over a quarter of a million pounds.</p> <p>As to the successful bids themselves, they include help towards a new Scout and Guides Headquarters in Bedale; supporting the Dover Diamond Jubilee Tattoo; and helping elderly residents in their village during adverse weather.</p> <p>Decisions on another 14 applications will be made once we have received some additional information. <br><br>If they are all approved, it would take total project funding past £1 million in just this first round. </p> <p>Panels are due to sit again in December and March, and quarterly thereafter - so it’s not too late! </p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, Defence is a very human endeavour -  and the consequences of Service life are very human too.</p> <p>I hope that today inspires you to deepen the relationship between our Armed Forces and the communities they’re drawn from. </p> <p>Because that relationship is as important now as it’s ever been. </p> <p>How we, as a nation, treat our Armed Forces Community is a litmus test of who we are as a nation.  </p> <p>I’m confident that the nation will respond to the challenge. </p> <p>And that it will be driven in part by localism in the national interest. </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinVet/20111101LocalGovernmentAssociationConference.htm Andrew Robathan 2011/11/01 - Local Government Association Conference uk.org.publicwhip/member/40548 01/11/2011 Ministry of Defence the Smith Square Conference Centre, London
<p>Thank you Tony [Air Vice-Marshal Tony Stables, Royal Air Force (ret’d), Chairman, COBSEO] for that introduction. </p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning. </p> <p>[As Tony said], it is indeed a privilege to meet here in St. James’s Palace, and we are honoured that the Prince of Wales will be joining us shortly in his new capacity as COBSEO Patron. </p> <p>I understand that Simon Burns from the Department of Health spoke at last year’s event. </p> <p>Today I’ll speak on behalf of the MoD. <br><br>Next year, perhaps a Minister from another government department - maybe even a Lib Dem?! </p> <p>It’s a shrewd move. </p> <p>It sends a clear message that the contract between the nation and the Armed Forces Community goes beyond one Department or one sector of society. </p> <p>COBSEO is at the heart of that contract.</p> <p>You represent the best of what the French philosopher, Tocqueville, called “the art of association”, which gives society a “habit and taste for serving others.” </p> <p>It would be difficult for Government to engage in a meaningful way with each of the 180 or so organisations - including some 66 regimental associations - which come under the COBSEO umbrella. </p> <p>Because of COBSEO, we are able to develop a far greater degree of coherence across government in our approach to all these organisations and the important work they do.</p> <p>And COBSEO makes their voice in Government far more powerful as a result. </p> <p>You are also a helpful voice of conciliation. </p> <p>Our overriding objective is the same: to dignify, honour, and support our Armed Forces Community.</p> <p>Yet sometimes the priorities of one organisation do not always mesh with those of another. </p> <p>Sometimes they overlap. </p> <p>The MoD has no role in telling your members what to do; individual organisations, not government, know what’s best for them. </p> <p>But as the Chairman of SSAFA Forces Help, Sir Kevin O’Donoghue has said, “As time goes by, it is natural and right that some organisations merge with others.”</p> <p>For example, Poppyscotland and the Royal British Legion have recently merged.  </p> <p>It hasn’t changed the brand of Poppyscotland; the Scottish poppy and Scottish Poppy Appeal remain firmly in place; and the manufacture of poppies continues - as it has for almost 90 years - at Lady Haig’s Poppy Factory in Edinburgh. </p> <p>What it has provided is major additional investment, which will mean better services for ex-Service personnel and their families north of the border. </p> <p>Similarly, SSAFA Forces Help have taken on the charitable objectives and assets of The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation which supported Britain’s forces and their families for 156 years.<br><br>Examples like these underscore Sir Kevin’s view, and I know that COBSEO has lent a deft touch. </p> <p>I believe that (where appropriate) the voluntary and charitable sector should consolidate, not diverge. </p> <p>That doesn’t have to mean mergers. </p> <p>Often, the way forward will lie in better co-operation and collaboration. </p> <p>Ultimately, what matters most is the service and the best way of providing it, not the structures. </p> <p>We’ve seen that with the Defence Recovery Capability which has taken the way we support our wounded, injured, and sick personnel to a new level. </p> <p>In large part, this is thanks to Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion pooling their resources with the MoD. </p> <p>In fact, this partnership represents the single largest charitable contribution to the Armed Forces in British history. </p> <p>Of course, Government has a major role to play too, and I’ll come to that in a minute. </p> <p>But, as I’ve said before, action from the top, or just from the bottom, is rarely the panacea. </p> <p>The glass will only be half-full unless Government, local authorities, the Devolved Administrations, charities, businesses, communities, and individuals come together and maximise the benefit their services can offer the Armed Forces Community. </p> <p>We need a whole of society approach. </p> <p>Let me illustrate that with some specific issues which I know are close to COBSEO’s heart. </p> <p>Take transition issues. <br><br>Early Service leavers are said to be a particularly vulnerable group.</p> <p>As well as finding a new job, they may often have welfare, housing, education, healthcare, and psychological needs which have to be addressed simultaneously. </p> <p>There are so many organisations out there willing and able to help. </p> <p>I recently visited one of the smaller COBSEO members - the recently renamed Stoll. </p> <p>The housing and support they provide for vulnerable and disabled ex-Service personnel - particularly the homeless - is quite simply the Big Society in action. </p> <p>Support and advice is provided by the voluntary and charitable sector across the UK so that those who choose to serve their country can look to their country with confidence when they most need help. </p> <p>Yet it can nonetheless be daunting for those who need help to know where to turn, and we’re addressing this issue through the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency hotline and website. </p> <p>But COBSEO has also helped enormously as people can now look at their website and their inaugural ‘handbook’ to find out who does what. </p> <p>COBSEO is also running a transition system for early Service leavers to trial. </p> <p>And they’ve set up a number of cluster groups within COBSEO to look at specific issues such as residential and care homes; criminal justice support; and welfare delivery.</p> <p>Last, but not least, through the “Forces in Mind” trust, COBSEO is leading a partnership of Service charities and mental health organisations seeking Big Lottery funding to support the psychological well-being and successful transition of Service leavers and their families into civilian life. </p> <p>We’ll know if they’ve been successful shortly, and I wish them every success. </p> <p>I said I would come back to the Government’s role. </p> <p>There are some areas where the MoD is firmly in the lead within government - the operational allowance to the Veterans’ helpline. </p> <p>But my colleagues across Whitehall recognise the role they have too. <br><br>The MoD has developed a Transition Protocol with the Department of Health, Devolved Administrations, and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services to ensure a seamless transition for the most seriously ill and injured Service personnel.  </p> <p>Last week, the Prime Minister announced investment in the NHS of up to £15 million to improve the prosthetics services for ex-Service personnel who have lost a limb due to activities while serving their country. </p> <p>There is also much more going on as part of our wider work on the Armed Forces Covenant and Community Covenant. </p> <p>Next week, for example, we shall be announcing the first tranche of grant funding for projects which support the aims of the Community Covenant. </p> <p>In other areas, we work together, taking the lead or complementing the efforts of your members. </p> <p>We must work together, but we must also talk to each other. </p> <p>We value the input of the independent members of the Covenant Reference Group, of which COBSEO is a member along with TRBL, SSAFA Forces Help, the War Widows Association, the three Family Federations, and Professor Hew Strachan.</p> <p>It will be a particularly important contribution as we prepare the new Annual Report on the Covenant, as required by the Armed Forces Bill. </p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, we all know that times are tough. <br><br>Yet such is the respect in which our Armed Forces are held that the public continues to support so many service charities to re-pay the debt of honour we all owe those who serve.  </p> <p>And I know that COBSEO will be in the vanguard of that effort.<br></p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinVet/20111027TheConfederationOfServiceCharitiescobseoAgm.htm Andrew Robathan 2011/10/27 - The Confederation of Service Charities (COBSEO) AGM uk.org.publicwhip/member/40548 31/10/2011 Ministry of Defence St James’s Palace, London
<p>Thank you Sir John [Field Marshal Sir John Chapple, President, Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation] for that introduction, and for inviting me to join your AGM. </p> <p>Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen. </p> <p>The housing and support which the Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation provides for vulnerable and disabled veterans - particularly the homeless - is quite simply the Big Society in action. </p> <p>It’s replicated across the charitable and voluntary sector so that those who choose to serve their country can look to their country with confidence when they most need help.  <br><br>The sheer breadth and depth of this effort never ceases to amaze me. </p> <p>An excellent example is Pryors Bank Café, here in Fulham, which, as you know, is a not-for-profit business run in partnership with the Foundation. </p> <p>It was founded by a former soldier, which to my mind gave it a fighting chance from the outset.</p> <p>It trains former Service personnel to NVQ standard with the chance of working in West End Restaurants. </p> <p>Most importantly, it pays people a wage, gives them a chance to study at college, and assists them in finding accommodation. </p> <p>So when your Chief Executive invited me to see for myself the terrific work the Foundation does, I was only too happy to oblige. </p> <p>It’s also a good opportunity for me to set your work in the broader context of Government policy towards serving and former Service personnel. </p> <p>These are testing times for the country - and Defence is no exception. </p> <p>As the Government seeks to put the public finances back on a sustainable path, we in Defence are doing the same for a Defence budget which has been in disarray for some time. </p> <p>We are also seeking to transform our Armed Forces so that they are fit for the 21st century and the demands which living in this century will place on our Servicemen and women.</p> <p>There is no denying that there are serious issues to address, and the context in which we will operate will be tough. </p> <p>The Government has had to make some difficult, painful, but necessary decisions to get the Defence budget broadly back towards balance, and further tough decisions lie ahead of us. </p> <p>We have had to prioritise ruthlessly in order to ensure that any extra money we can spend, we do so wisely, and on those things that are most urgent.</p> <p>So it’s at times like these that having some guiding principles stands us in good stead. </p> <p>For those serving today, we are clear that our priorities are caring for those who are physically and mentally injured in the course of their service. </p> <p>And for those who have ever put country before self we are determined that the country as a whole should unite in its determination to provide the very best support possible in return. </p> <p>That’s why we have published the first ever Tri-Service Armed Forces Covenant in which these key principles will be recognised, among others, for the first time, in the law of land. </p> <p>And in the ‘Today and Tomorrow’ paper, we have set out what we’re doing to give the Covenant practical effect, for example in the areas of Healthcare, Education, and Housing. </p> <p>Of course, Government has a major role. </p> <p>Intervention by the charitable and voluntary sector has a long tradition of making an impact - this Foundation alone has been operating since 1917. </p> <p>But action just from the top, or just from the bottom, is rarely the panacea. <br></p> <p>The glass will only be half-full unless Government, local authorities, Devolved Administrations, charities, businesses, communities, and individuals come together and maximise the benefit their services can offer the Defence Community. </p> <p>We need a whole of society approach.</p> <p>For example, with the Army Recovery Capability, we’ve seen the way we support our wounded, injured, and sick personnel taken to a new level. </p> <p>In large part, that’s thanks to the MoD, Help for Heroes, and the Royal British Legion pooling their resources in a common aim. </p> <p>Similarly, the MoD has developed a Transition Protocol with the Department of Health, Devolved Administrations, and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services to ensure a seamless transition for the most seriously ill and injured Service personnel. <br><br>And the new Big White Wall on-line support network to support the mental health needs of the Armed Forces community is another example excellent example of a whole of society approach. </p> <p>But there is clearly still more to do. </p> <p>Housing the homeless is the subject most dear to your hearts, so let me say a few words about that.</p> <p>As the Prime Minister has said, “It is an affront to this country that last winter, one of the coldest on record, there were people still sleeping rough on our streets.”</p> <p>Sadly, some of those on the streets in that bitter winter cold were former Service personnel. </p> <p>Some may have been affected by their experiences of active service; others by what happened to them before or since. </p> <p>While other Departments have the lead role, we in the MoD have an ongoing duty of care to those who serve our nation. </p> <p>So we are leaving no stone unturned to see if there are preventative measures we can take in-Service to minimise the impact on our people when they leave.  I mentioned the Transition Protocol just now, but there are other initiatives. </p> <p>For example, we intend to consult on how the Armed Forces are managed on social housing lists. </p> <p>And current and former members of the Armed Forces will be put at the front of the queue for the new FirstBuy scheme, and other Government initiatives to support first time buyers. </p> <p>But Service in our Armed Forces is not a pre-requisite for homelessness. </p> <p>So at the Ministerial level, we’re taking a broad approach to homelessness through the inter-Ministerial Working Group on homeless issues. </p> <p>In July, we published a cross-Government report called, ‘Vision To End Rough Sleeping: No Second Night Out Nationwide’.</p> <p>The aim is to tackle the complex causes of homelessness - not only housing, but family breakdown and mental health; drug addiction and alcoholism.</p> <p>And it’s about partnership at all levels with the ultimate aim of helping the homeless along the path to full independent living. </p> <p>Of course, Government can only do so much; the whole of society must play its part. </p> <p>It’s here that the excellent work of the Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation really comes into its own, and you should be proud of the high-regard in which you are held by the ex-Service community. </p> <p>The latest figures show a reduction in rough sleeping by ex-Service personnel in London, and your hard work has undoubtedly played a major part. </p> <p>We wish you the best with your Veterans Nomination Scheme which dovetails neatly with the Covenant and the Big Society. </p> <p>I should also pay tribute to other initiatives such as ‘The Beacon’ near Catterick Garrison which offers 31 flats to homeless veterans.</p> <p>Once again, these projects would not have been possible without effective partnership at all levels. </p> <p>So despite the tough times we are going through, there are reasons to be cheerful. </p> <p>As Brigadier Ricketts of Veterans Aid said recently, “I’m still firmly of the opinion that if you are in crisis in Britain today, you are lucky if you are a veteran. There is a huge military family that will reach out to you in your hour of need.”</p> <p>I agree. </p> <p>But it’s more than that: there is a grateful society at large to turn to as well. </p> <p>And at the forefront of that effort - as it has been for almost a century - is the Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation. </p> <p>You are further proof that compassion for those who serve on our behalf remains at the heart of who we are as a nation. </p> <p><br> </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinVet/20110919SirOswaldStollFoundationAgm.htm Andrew Robathan 2011/09/19 - Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation AGM uk.org.publicwhip/member/40548 20/09/2011 Ministry of Defence 446 Fulham Road, London
<p> <strong>Introduction</strong> </p> <p>I would like to add my thanks to all of you who have come and all the organisations represented here today.</p> <p>In difficult times it is especially important than we come together to discuss policy, to swap ideas, to share concerns, to suggest solutions.</p> <p>Why? Because this is a testing time for the country - and for Defence.</p> <p><strong>Testing Times</strong></p> <p>A time of austerity - as the Government seeks to put the public finances back on a sustainable path - and seeks to do the same for a Defence budget that has been in disarray for some time.</p> <p>And a time of change - as we seek to transform our Armed Forces for the rigours of modern warfare - and for the rigours of modern life.</p> <p>At times like this the men and women of our Armed Forces need people like you - not only to support them, but to speak up for them too.</p> <p>So I know that this conference is not going to be all sweetness and light.</p> <p>There are serious issues to address.</p> <p>And for the next few years the context in which we will operate will be tough. </p> <p>The Government has had to make some difficult, very painful but necessary decisions to get the Defence budget broadly back towards balance and further tough decisions lie ahead of us.</p> <p>This has meant that we have had to prioritise ruthlessly in order to ensure that any extra money we can spend, we do so wisely and on those things that are most urgent.</p> <p><strong>Operational Welfare</strong></p> <p>Operations have to come first - making sure that those in the firing line have the tools and protection they need to do the job.</p> <p>But this has not been just about strategy and equipment, but about making sure they and their families are looked after too.</p> <p>As Montgomery set out in his principles of warfare - 'the morale of the soldier is the most important single factor in war'.</p> <p>That is why on the welfare side we doubled the Operational Allowance and extended it to Libya, and improved Rest and Recuperation leave and increased compensation for those who suffer both physical and mental injuries. </p> <p>This year we have doubled Council Tax relief from 25% to 50%, for all personnel on operations, including in Libya.</p> <p>This focus of operations has meant that in other areas we haven't been able to go as far and as fast as we want - for instance on the speed with which we improve housing.</p> <p>Although 96% of Service Family Accommodation properties are now in the top two standards for condition, and we will continue to target efforts on the most pressing accommodation issues, there will be a three-year pause in the programme to upgrade lower quality SFA homes. </p> <p><strong>Action</strong></p> <p>But I hope you will agree with me that we have been as consultative as possible and where we have been able to act we have done so in the right areas.</p> <p>For instance, we have endorsed all of Andrew Murrison's proposals for improving mental health care. In particular:</p> <p>And, for those who need it at the time of discharge, a specialist opinion and any follow on treatment by the MOD's Mental Health Service for a period of six months'.</p> <p>We have laid the foundations for a new understanding between Armed Forces personnel and society.</p> <p>Building on the Service Personnel Command Paper, we have published the first ever tri-service Armed Forces Covenant in which the key principles will be recognised, for the first time, in the law of the land.</p> <p>And in the 'Today and Tomorrow' paper we have set out what we're doing to give the Covenant practical effect, for example in the areas of Healthcare, Education and Housing.</p> <p>Of course, this isn't just about action from the centre or from the top.</p> <p>You'll be hearing from the Armed Forces Networks later today.</p> <p>These have proved particularly useful in ironing out local level issues between the MOD and the local NHS.</p> <p>And in June four counties - Oxfordshire, Hampshire, North Yorkshire, and Vale of Glamorgan - became the first in Britain to demonstrate community-led support for the Armed Forces through the Community Covenant scheme. </p> <p>In Oxfordshire alone, more than £100,000 of Council money will be spent in the next 12 months to help people leaving the forces to resettle in the county, topped up with grants from Government. </p> <p>Local authorities, Devolved Administrations, charities, businesses, communities, and individuals have come together by offering their services to help the Defence Community. </p> <p>But there is still a place for central support, for instance, extra Government money for schools which educate pupils from forces' families. </p> <p>This whole of society approach has been central to what - together - we have been able to achieve. </p> <p>For instance, the Army Recovery Capability - a joint venture between the MoD, Help for Heroes, and the Royal British Legion - is taking the way we support our wounded, injured, and sick personnel to a new level.</p> <p>To improve the transition from Service to civilian life, the MoD has developed a Transition Protocol with the Department of Health, Devolved Administrations, and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services to ensure a seamless transition for the most seriously ill and injured Service personnel. </p> <p>And the new, round-the-clock, veterans' mental health helpline is funded by the NHS and run by Rethink Mental Health on behalf of Combat Stress. </p> <p><strong>Challenges</strong></p> <p>There are challenges ahead.</p> <p>Looking to the future, we are determined to be bold and ambitious, and to build formidable, well-managed Armed Forces structured for the rigours of future conflict, supported by an affordable defence programme, and sensitive to the needs of the people who serve. </p> <p>Those who serve today, and their families, have very different expectations and needs from those of even a generation ago. </p> <p>The Armed Forces need to offer a comprehensive package of pay, benefits, education, training, medical support, career progression, and job satisfaction - among other things - to recruit and retain personnel. </p> <p>But they also need to ensure that life in the Forces meets the needs of modern families too. </p> <p>This is what lies behind our thinking on the New Employment Model.</p> <p>It is clear that a large number of Service Personnel and there families would benefit from a more stable lifestyle - everything from schooling the children to buying a home to providing better stability for spouse's careers.</p> <p>It is also clear that the Defence budget would benefit.</p> <p>It would enable us to reduce housing stock and relocation costs.</p> <p>It would also allow us to minimise spending on expensive allowances.</p> <p>But while stability and predictability will please families, they are hardly the best slogans to put on adverts designed to attract the people we need in tomorrow's Armed Forces. Many people will still be required to move on a regular basis and support for this must remain in place.</p> <p>The balance may be difficult to achieve, and reaching it will present different challenges for each of the 3 Services. </p> <p>There is no panacea, and more work remains to be done - and this is an area in which we need input from you</p> <p>It's important that we offer flexibility and choice so that a life in the Armed Forces appeals to a broad range of the society from which our people are drawn. </p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, we have much to discuss and much work to do.</p> <p>We all know that times are tough and we need to be realistic.</p> <p>We may not always agree on what we prioritise, but I know that we all share a passion: to do our very best to support the men and women of our Armed Forces.</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinVet/20110901ModWelfareConference.htm Andrew Robathan 2011/09/01 - MOD Welfare conference uk.org.publicwhip/member/40548 09/06/2011 Ministry of Defence the Ministry of Defence, Main Building, Whitehall, London
<p>Thank you Brendan [Dr. Brendan McKeating, Chairman, BMA Armed Forces Committee] for that kind introduction. </p> <p>Last week, the Secretary of State was questioned about the potential for abuse of the Covenant by scurrilous members of the legal profession.</p> <p>He said that he had one sister who is a doctor and one who is a lawyer. </p> <p>His father used to say he had the best of both worlds: one licensed to kill; one licensed to steal.</p> <p>Now, Liam Fox is himself a Doctor and of course a politician.<br><br>He has therefore the licence not only to kill but to explain why it was the right thing to do.</p> <p>The work of the Defence Medical Services is a hugely important part of my Ministerial brief. </p> <p>I’ve made it a priority to meet as many Regular and Reserve DMS members as possible.</p> <p>On my visits to Afghanistan, I have visited Camp Bastion’s Role 3 medical facility - last time, commanded by Colonel Robin Jackson TA, and now by a RN Commander Carole Betteridge.</p> <p>As you may well know, on the office wall at Bastion is a map of Task Force Helmand (South West) with the facility in the middle surrounded by concentric circles.</p> <p>Each circle shows the distance a Medical Emergency Response Team can cover in a set time to reach a casualty.</p> <p>The first boundary is ten minutes - five minutes out, and five back again. </p> <p>And every minute matters.</p> <p>As many of you know personally, the Bastion team are doing quite remarkable work in difficult circumstances.</p> <p>Indeed, I am always very impressed at the sheer breadth of service which DMS members provide - from emergency life-saving procedures on operations to primary care at home and overseas.</p> <p>I also pay tribute to the civilian medical staff who support the Services and their families around the world.  </p> <p>So it’s right to take stock at this conference - of achievements and future challenges. <br><br>On behalf of the MoD Ministerial team I would like to pay tribute to everyone involved - regular, reserve, civilian - for the magnificent job they, you are doing; thank you. </p> <p>The challenges of the next 12 months are likely to be no less testing than the past 12 months. </p> <p>Afghanistan remains our number one priority. </p> <p>We also have the challenge of operations elsewhere - not least Libya.  </p> <p>And I saw on Saturday an RAF doctor working in Italy with the Typhoon/Tornado deployment on ops.</p> <p>And we face a major programme of change following the Strategic Defence and Security Review which will transform Defence for 2020 and beyond. </p> <p>The SDSR sets the vision for the Armed Forces we require. </p> <p>The implementation of the SDSR will take some time and there are a series of complicated second order consequences including the basing and reserves reviews, as well as the emerging work from the Defence Reform Unit.</p> <p>We recognise the uncertainty this places on you. </p> <p>You have jobs that are tough, often dangerous, and always vital. </p> <p>So it’s important to keep you updated. </p> <p>Today I would like to talk about four things which I know are of personal interest to you. </p> <p>First, the vexed issue of pay and allowances. </p> <p>All of us are tightening our belts, and I won’t pretend it’s pain free, including for the Armed Forces.</p> <p>In the current financial climate we cannot do as much to honour that obligation, or do it as quickly, as we would like, but where we can act we will.</p> <p>That’s why we have doubled the operational allowance - over £5000 tax free for a 6 month deployment; changed the Rest and Recuperation arrangements on operations; and maintained the annual increments for eligible military personnel.</p> <p>And the Armed Forces Pay Review Body will continue to review recruitment and retention levels of specific professions within the DMS, and where necessary introduce measures to improve conditions or recruitment. </p> <p>The obligation we owe to our service men and women, set against the commitment and sacrifice that they make, is enormous. <br></p> <p>The  Armed Forces Covenant  launched last week recognises  that service personnel should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of services and therefore require, in some circumstances, special consideration.</p> <p>There is much still to do. </p> <p>I have always been clear that the covenant is an evolving issue, not something completed overnight, and I believe that the British people understand that.</p> <p>This has to be a whole of Government effort, linked to what you are doing, what the NHS is doing, and what local government and the charitable sector is doing.</p> <p>A great example of that is the work the MOD is doing with the Health Department and charities to support Andrew Murrison’s review into the effectiveness of NHS prosthetic services.</p> <p>The second thing I want to talk about is the future shape of the DMS. <br><br>Admiral Jarvis will say more about this later, but as most of you know we have launched a comprehensive internal review - DMS 20 - to help shape the DMS for the next decade and beyond. </p> <p>Affordability will be a factor because everything we do has to be anchored in the art of the possible. </p> <p>But DMS 20 is primarily about the medical capabilities required to support Defence, and how best these can be delivered. </p> <p>The other significant workstrand for the DMS is the independent Future Reserves 20 study - commissioned by the Prime Minister - which is planning to publish its report later this year. </p> <p>There’s a limit to what I can say without pre-empting its work, but I will say this.  </p> <p>The continued deployment of significant numbers of DMS Reserves underlines their value to and integration with overall Defence capability. <br><br>The Reserves remain integral to the future of Britain’s Defence as part of the “Whole Force.” </p> <p>Third, mental health - a subject around which I tread very warily.</p> <p>In the course of their service, the men and women of our Armed Forces see things and experience things that push them to the limit. </p> <p>Some will have physical injuries. </p> <p>Some will have mental scars.</p> <p>Some will have both. </p> <p>Of course, good training, understanding leadership, the support of family and the comradeship of those who have been through the same thing can help. </p> <p>But psychological difficulties can be hard to diagnose, and, as you will know better than I, sometimes taking years to surface, often after people have left the forces.<br><br>That’s why we made tackling mental health issues such a high priority, and why we are putting extra funding aside for better healthcare. </p> <p>It’s why we welcomed Andrew Murrison’s independent study of mental health services for both current and former Service personnel. </p> <p>We’ve already put two of his recommendations into practice: a free, dedicated 24 hour support line for former and serving personnel and their families - and I have phoned it and can confirm that it works; and 30 additional mental health nurses for former personnel.</p> <p>Looking ahead, there will be an enhanced mental health assessment for serving personnel during medical examinations -in-Service and prior to discharge. </p> <p>And where our personnel do suffer mental health illness they must receive of course proper compensation. <br></p> <p>That’s why we’ve nearly trebled the maximum compensation payment for those suffering the most severe mental health problems under the AFCS, and increased the amounts that they are paid for life on leaving the Armed Forces.</p> <p>It’s simply the right thing to do.</p> <p>Fourth, what of the future? </p> <p>Hippocrates is quoted as saying that ‘war is the only proper school for a surgeon’. </p> <p>Certainly, the physical and mental toll of war has driven medical practice and innovation forward and refocused research into specific conditions. </p> <p>Our work benefits not just those on the front line or in the Armed Forces generally, but civilian patients too.  </p> <p>This is not new.  </p> <p>There was the foundation of the Red Cross in the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino in 1859. </p> <p>There was the pioneering work to develop penicillin in the Second World War.  </p> <p>And the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast became the world leader in treatment of gun shot wounds during the Troubles.</p> <p>This is one of the principles behind the new National Institute of Health Research for Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, the opening of which I attended earlier this year.</p> <p>Around 20,000 people in Britain suffer major trauma each year, and issues like haemorrhage control; resuscitation; and wound management remain challenges for society at large. <br></p> <p>The NIHR will help us continue to develop new techniques to treat our forces fighting in Afghanistan, and allow military surgeons to share rapid advances and surgical innovation in managing severe trauma with the NHS. </p> <p>That’s collaboration in action for the benefit of all.</p> <p>I hope that puts your Conference in context. </p> <p>Military service is never without risk.  </p> <p>We have a moral duty to ensure those who suffer in the service of our country are properly cared for.</p> <p>That is why making sure our people get the right medical support is such a vital component of the Armed Forces Covenant. </p> <p>There’s much to be resolved, but our intent is clear and with your help we will achieve it.  <br></p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinVet/20110525BritishMedicalAssociationbmaArmedForcesConference.htm Andrew Robathan 2011/05/25 - British Medical Association (BMA) Armed Forces Conference uk.org.publicwhip/member/40548 09/06/2011 Ministry of Defence BMA House, Tavistock Square, London
<p>Thank you Tom [Colonel Fleetwood, Commander Colchester Garrison] for those kind words of welcome, and for hosting me here today.  </p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning. </p> <p>It is one year to the day since the launch of the Army Recovery Capability initiative - the ARC. </p> <p>This joint venture - between the MoD, Help for Heroes, and the Royal British Legion - will take the way we treat our wounded, injured and sick personnel to a new level. <br><br>Twelve months on, and we have made real progress, which is why I am delighted to be able to ‘cut the turf’ at the first purpose-built Personnel Recovery Centre here at Colchester. </p> <p>I’m glad to see that so many of you from the local community could come and see this progress for yourselves, and learn about our future plans for the ARC. </p> <p>It’s your chance to speak to some of the Service personnel who have benefitted from the enhancements and facilities that the ARC has to offer, and the personnel employed to support them; I encourage you to do so. </p> <p>I’m also delighted to be sharing the platform with the Adjutant General, General Mans, who is making sure that the Army delivers its part of the bargain to make the ARC a success.   <br><br>He will explain why the ARC is so important and how it works in a little more detail shortly.  </p> <p>And it’s right and proper that Bryn Parry from Help for Heroes and Chris Simpkins from the Royal British Legion are here today too. </p> <p>Today’s event would not have been possible without them. </p> <p>The dedication and financial generosity of both charities, combined with the long-term commitment they have made to this initiative, is remarkable. </p> <p>It is RBL’s biggest single financial commitment in nearly 90 years, and Help for Heroes - which was only launched in 2007 - have also generated huge support and funding. </p> <p>We are extremely grateful for all that they do, and it’s part of our broader commitment to a long-term partnership with the Service charities. </p> <p>I said at the outset that the Army Recovery Capability takes the way we treat our wounded, injured and sick personnel to a new level. </p> <p>Let me explain why. </p> <p>The ARC ensures that that those who need it receive the right level of welfare support and access to key services to allow a successful return to duty; or to make the smoothest transition to an appropriately skilled and supported life outside the Service.<br><br>I’ve mentioned the contribution of our charitable partners, but it is also a multi-million pound commitment by the Ministry of Defence. </p> <p>The MoD has committed £35M over four years to ensure the success of this project, and we will be providing the personnel needed to staff the Personnel Recovery Centres - like the one to be built here in Colchester.  </p> <p>Experience shows that injured personnel find a military environment conducive to the best possible recovery, and the strength of Colchester’s connection with our Armed Forces - historically and today - made it a logical choice to be one of the four centres. </p> <p>In addition to the centres, a key component of the ARC is the Royal British Legion Battle Back Centre.  <br><br>Battle Back is a Tri-Service initiative which aims to improve and formalise the use of adventurous training and adaptive sport in the aftercare of wounded, injured and sick Service personnel in order to aid their rehabilitation and return to an active life.  </p> <p>We already know how much this type of activity can benefit an individual’s recovery, both physically and psychologically. </p> <p>Because the focus is on what an individual can do, not what they can’t.</p> <p>RBL will establish a Battle Back Centre by the summer which will integrate all Battle Back activity on behalf of Defence. </p> <p>It will be available to all personnel undergoing recovery from all three services, including mobilised reservists.  <br><br>But as important as the ARC is, it’s just one essential part of the support available to wounded, injured and sick personnel.  </p> <p>Our involvement in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted in an increasing number of wounded personnel, some of whom are suffering devastating injuries.  </p> <p>Thanks to the incredible professionalism and capabilities of the medical support - both in theatre and here at home - our personnel are now surviving those devastating injuries that once would have been life-threatening. </p> <p>The medical care and rehabilitation facilities that are available to our Service personnel are second to none.</p> <p>We will ensure that this remains the case.</p> <p>One way in which we are achieving this is by implementing a Transition Protocol between the MoD, the Department of Health, and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services to ensure a seamless transition from military to civilian life for wounded, injured, and sick Service personnel with ongoing health and/or social needs.  </p> <p>This protocol was agreed by all stakeholders in September 2010, and is currently being trialled. </p> <p>This trial period ends in March, and will then become Tri-Service policy, and firm policy for the other Departments involved.  </p> <p>And of course, help from charities like RBL and Help for Heroes extends beyond funding the Recovery Centres. </p> <p>For instance, Help for Heroes also provide funding in direct support of Individual Recovery Plans, which are tailored to meet the needs of recovering personnel.</p> <p>I’m sure we’ll here more from Bryn about that shortly. </p> <p>And all these initiatives - the ARC; first-class medical and clinical care; the implementation of the Transition Protocol - are part of our commitment to an Armed Forces Covenant, which will soon set out the moral obligation that this nation has to those who volunteer to defend it. </p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, we owe it to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces to make sure they are fit for life - both physically and mentally. </p> <p>Even in the difficult financial position we find ourselves in, that is what this Government is doing. </p> <p>The ARC embodies that effort, and today we mark a major milestone in our progress. </p> <p>I’m grateful for the hard work and dedication of all those involved, and I know you will make the ARC a huge success. </p> <p>With that, I’ll hand over to General Mans. </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinVet/20110211ArmyRecoveryCapability.htm Andrew Robathan 2011/02/11 - Army Recovery Capability uk.org.publicwhip/member/40548 18/02/2011 Ministry of Defence the Colchester Personnel Recovery Centre, Colchester Garrison
<p>Thank you Michael [Professor Clark, Director, RUSI] for that introduction, and for asking me to open today’s conference on the future of our Reserve forces. </p> <p>At the start of June, I gave two speeches to RUSI in the space of the week. </p> <p>How long ago that seems: </p> <p>Nick Clegg adorned every student’s wall;<br><br>This on the record so sorry boss: David Cameron was popular with Harrier pilots;</p> <p>And Ed Miliband was looking forward to Christmas with his brother…</p> <p>Some things stay the same, however - always a pleasure to be here at RUSI. </p> <p>Your Royal Highness, Your Grace, Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning. </p> <p>When we published the Strategic Defence and Security Review just over a month ago, the Prime Minister commissioned a six-month review of the Reserve Forces. </p> <p>We’re calling it the Future Reserves Study 2020, or FR20 for short.</p> <p>It is chaired by the Vice Chief, General Sir Nick Houghton. </p> <p>And supported by my friend and colleague, Julian Brazier, MP, who is the Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Reserves and Cadets, and was a TA officer for 13 years; and by Lieutenant General Sir Graeme Lamb - a distinguished career soldier, with whom I was a Troop Commander nearly 30 years ago.</p> <p>And I am delighted that subject matter experts drawn from across the Defence community have also agreed to support the Study.</p> <p>We could not be in better hands.</p> <p>Obviously, there’s a limit to what I can say about FR20 without pre-empting its work. </p> <p>But I want to set the scene for today’s conference by explaining the SDSR context in which FR20 will operate; and the principles that will guide us.</p> <p>The past few months have been unsettling for all of us in Defence, because we knew that change would come.  </p> <p>The first fundamental re-think in 12 years had to acknowledge:</p> <p>On top of this, we had to reach our conclusions while our Armed Forces are fighting hard in Afghanistan.</p> <p>In this context, the fact that the Defence budget is making a more modest contribution to deficit reduction than many other government departments shows the priority across Government that we attach to national security. </p> <p>The SDSR protects our mission in Afghanistan and provides a template for our future Defence posture and capabilities, but there is still a great deal of work to be done before the detailed picture of what we call our Future Force 2020 emerges.</p> <p>It includes this fundamental review of the Reserve Forces’ role and structure. </p> <p>When I spoke here in June, I summed up our approach to the SDSR in three words: relevance, realism, and responsibility.</p> <p>We will also apply these principles in FR20. </p> <p>First - Relevance.</p> <p>The Strategic Review of Reserves 2009, led by Major General Nicholas Cottam, focused largely on improvement to existing roles and structures. </p> <p>It was a valuable piece of work.</p> <p>Yet the SDSR was clear. </p> <p>Our posture and capabilities must be relevant to the challenges we will face in 2020 and beyond. </p> <p>FR20 will build on the proud history and traditions of the Reserves, and the vast operational experience many of them have gained in Iraq and Afghanistan. </p> <p>But its overriding task is to ensure that the Reserves fulfil a meaningful operational role within our Future Force 2020, and beyond.</p> <p>To do that, FR20 will explore the role of the Reserves as part of the Whole Force Concept - looking not just at the Regular/Reservist balance, but full gamut of non-Regular manpower, including the roles of contractors and civilians.  </p> <p>The second principle is Realism.</p> <p>Affordability will always be a constant pressure on Defence.</p> <p>So this Study must be anchored in the art of the possible.  </p> <p>Equally, we must challenge the view that Reserves are somehow seen as ‘Defence on the Cheap’. </p> <p>They are not. </p> <p>They are part of the inherent structure of Defence. </p> <p>And employers who release Reservists for duty get an excellent return on their investment. </p> <p>Estate issues will also be a key area of FR20, because as you will know, the volunteer estate was already lagging behind structural changes since the last Defence Review in 1998, and needs to be realigned with Future Force 2020. </p> <p>Although no decisions have been taken about precisely how the volunteer estate will change, it is likely that the total number of sites will reduce, but will be more suitable for the 21st century tasks required.  </p> <p>The infrastructure that remains must enable, not constrain, the organisation it is supporting. </p> <p>The third principle is responsibility.</p> <p>Serving in the Reserves must remain attractive, relevant, and beneficial.</p> <p>And we must ensure that they are looked after properly during and after service. </p> <p>We have another responsibility: to tell the public about the magnificent contribution our Reservists are making - month in, month out; year in, year out. </p> <p>In the 1980s, when Only Fools and Horses was the most popular TV show, the nation instinctively laughed when Marlene told Del Boy that she wasn’t pregnant because: "Boycie fires more blanks than a Territorial!"</p> <p>We laughed because Reserves were seen as the modern day equivalent of Dad’s Army: admirable in many ways, but perhaps taken more seriously by themselves than the British public or their Regular counterparts. </p> <p>In reality, time after time our Reserves have come to Britain’s aid - supporting the Regulars.<br><br>Military chiefs know that Reservists contribute a huge range of skills and capability to the Whole Force.</p> <p>They know how dependent operations in Afghanistan are on Reservists - particularly the specialists.</p> <p>And to the Regulars’ credit, the Reservists I’ve spoken to say how well they’ve been looked after and integrated. </p> <p>Let me be clear - the Reserves remain integral to the future of Britain’s Defence.</p> <p>Throughout this process, we will seek ideas from across the Services - Regulars and Reservists - and from close friends and allies, think tanks, and international organisations. </p> <p>We will consult through direct engagement, seminars, presentations, and focus groups.</p> <p>We will look at international models, noting the cultural context, and draw any appropriate lessons. </p> <p>And we will never forget the important place that our Reserves have in society. </p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, I have long admired Dr. Johnson’s observation that “Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea” - and I of course extend that to airmen.</p> <p>But it’s often forgotten that, in both World Wars, it was the Reserves who filled the gap and saved the day after the Regulars were hit hard in early battles. <br><br>They’re on the frontline again, in Afghanistan. </p> <p>They are not the ‘weekend warriors’ of popular myth. </p> <p>It takes a special kind of person to volunteer to serve in the Reserves - balancing the demands of 21st century civilian life with the demands of 21st century warfare. </p> <p>They bring incredible skills, experience, and capabilities to the Defence of the Realm.</p> <p>And they do so willingly. </p> <p>We must maximise their talents in a structure that serves the nation as well as our Reservists have always done.</p> <p>Today’s event is a chance to be bold and innovative, to challenge assumptions, and to think at a strategic level. </p> <p>I look forward to hearing your views - now and in the months ahead. </p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinVet/20101206ArmedForces2020ReservesInTransformationConference.htm Andrew Robathan 2010/12/06 - Armed Forces 2020: Reserves in Transformation Conference uk.org.publicwhip/member/40548 06/12/2010 Ministry of Defence the Royal United Services Institute, London
<p>Thank you David [Misselbrook, RSM Academic Dean] for those kinds words of introduction. </p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning. </p> <p>I’m delighted to be here this morning for three reasons. </p> <p>First, it’s an honour to address such a distinguished medical audience at the world-renowned Royal Society of Medicine. </p> <p>Second, this conference is particularly timely, coming hot on the heels of our Strategic Defence and Security Review - the SDSR -and the report on mental health by my friend and Parliamentary colleague, Dr. Andrew Murrison - which you may have read. </p> <p>But thirdly, tomorrow is Armistice Day and I have the honour of attending a lunch for the Victoria Cross and George Cross Association. </p> <p>They, too, have asked me to say a few words, and in my research I discovered that only three people have ever won the Victoria Cross twice. </p> <p>As you know, the VC is the ultimate award for valour in the face of the enemy. </p> <p>Two of these three were doctors in the Royal Army Medical Corps: Surgeon Captain Arthur Martin-Leake during the Boer War and the First World War; and Captain Noel Godfrey Chavasse who won both of his on the Western Front during World War I.  </p> <p>Their actions saved the lives of others who would have died without their total lack of regard for their own safety.</p> <p>I know that this evening you will be marking the sacrifice of many members of your profession on battlefields around the world.  </p> <p>But it’s their example which reminds us all why we are here today. </p> <p>In my first six months as a Defence Minister, I’ve met a great many of our Servicemen and women, both here in Britain and on deployments overseas. </p> <p>This has included meeting members of the Defence Medical Services.</p> <p>I am full of admiration for the professional and compassionate manner in which both Regular and Reserve DMS members carry out their duties, around the clock, and, in extremis, under enemy fire. <br><br>I saw that for myself two weeks ago when I visited Camp Bastion’s Role 3 medical facility, commanded by Colonel Robin Jackson. </p> <p>They are doing quite remarkable work.</p> <p>I also pay tribute to the civilian medical staff who support the Services and their families in Britain and overseas - indeed, given the earlier career of Dr Fox, the Secretary of State, for whom I work, who was a GP, it would be remiss of me not to!</p> <p>As a former Servicemen, I appreciate the tremendous progress that has been made since my time as a serving officer along the whole medical chain. </p> <p>History shows that armed conflict can lead to remarkable advances in medicine.</p> <p>Out of the tragedy of war comes some good - the world-leading gunshot specialists at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, for example.</p> <p>And like their predecessors, this generation of medical staff has introduced new clinical doctrine, practices, and procedures to guarantee the highest standards of care on operations, as we can see in Afghanistan.</p> <p>They have shown themselves to be imaginative and bold, continually monitoring and adjusting their ever-improving care according to the results they achieve. </p> <p>Our forces are reassured that they have a better chance of surviving a traumatic injury sustained in-theatre than they would given the same injury in a road traffic accident in Birmingham. </p> <p>The positive impact which this has on the Moral Component of fighting power is a particularly powerful support to commanders and the forces themselves. </p> <p>But military service is never without risk. </p> <p>As General Sir Rupert Smith once remarked, “the one certainty of contact with an enemy is the generation of casualties.”</p> <p>Whenever I see the wounded, at varying stages of what is for some an incredibly long, demanding, and challenging process, I cannot fail to be impressed by their remarkable spirit and their black Service humour! </p> <p>For example, at Headley Court I heard of a man admiring a double amputee’s sports car.  </p> <p>The latter responded by saying: “It’ll cost you an arm and a leg!”</p> <p>The same is true of their families, reacting to potentially life-changing events, as they support the wounded member of their family on the road to recovery. </p> <p>And as a nation, we owe a particular debt of gratitude to the casualties of war. </p> <p>That’s why the way in which we treat our wounded must be a top priority and a moral obligation for any country. </p> <p>Even in the difficult financial circumstances surrounding the SDSR, we’ve been clear that when it comes to our people our focus will be care for the injured and for their mental health.</p> <p>For example, we will maintain and further develop the medical support and social care provided by DMS and the NHS, which will include properly planned and supported transition from military to civilian life. </p> <p>We’ve announced an extra £20 million per year for better healthcare, specifically for additional medical staff, and to deliver better mental healthcare facilities. </p> <p>As I mentioned at the beginning, we also welcome Andrew Murrison’s Report on mental health - MP for Westbury.</p> <p>We strongly endorse its key themes and recommendations, and will be working on them as quickly as possible, working hand-in-glove with the Department of Health and all concerned, including voluntary and charitable organisations.</p> <p>We’re already putting two of his recommendations into practice: a free, dedicated 24 hour support line for former service personnel; and 30 additional mental health nurses in Mental Health Trusts. </p> <p>We owe it to those with mental scars to identify them far sooner, and we are examining various ways to do so, including trialling screening and surveillance techniques.</p> <p>In part, that’s why the Department of Health and the Scottish and Welsh Administrations - with our support - have undertaken community mental health pilots at six NHS Trusts. </p> <p>We are evaluating these schemes which will help with the provision of mental health services from next year.</p> <p>We are developing an overarching Armed Forces Mental Health Strategy, as well as a Stress Management Training Centre at the Defence Academy in Shrivenham. </p> <p>I am pleased to see that your programme today will touch on some these longer term aspects. </p> <p>Earlier, I mentioned the impact that war has on medical advances. </p> <p>DMS are achieving a standard of care and outcomes that are simply unprecedented, particularly in the area of trauma care. </p> <p>They have made changes throughout - from the moment someone is wounded; through the celebrated ‘MERT’ helicopter retrieval of casualties; the Field Hospitals; and the Aeromedical Evacaution service back home; to the new NHS Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham and the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court. </p> <p>So you will also hear a good deal about these changes, as well as hearing about the challenges facing our Permanent Joint Headquarters in ensuring optimum medical support many thousands of miles away from home base. </p> <p>And I believe that there is an obligation on us all to ensure that the skills that have been developed are shared and transferred across the NHS. </p> <p>The same is true of the lessons learned by the combined NHS and military teams in Birmingham, and the remarkable work carried out by the staff at Headley Court. </p> <p>I’m sure that today’s conference will help that process. </p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, I hope that puts your Conference today in context.</p> <p>When we say we will treat the invisible as well as visible scars of war, we mean it. </p> <p>But we couldn’t do it without you, the professionals. </p> <p>On behalf of the brave men and women you work so hard to support, you have our gratitude.</p> None http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/People/Speeches/MinVet/20101110RoyalSocietyOfMedicine.htm Andrew Robathan 2010/11/10 - Royal Society of Medicine uk.org.publicwhip/member/40548 12/11/2010 Ministry of Defence 1 Wimpole Street, London
<p>Thank you Lieutenant General Rollo.</p> <p>Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen, and welcome.</p> <p>I’m delighted to be here and will be back at the end of the day to answer questions. </p> <p>The year since the last MoD Welfare Conference has been one of considerable change, not least a different Government and a different Minister.</p> <p>A further difference is that we’re on the verge of the most significant period for Britain’s Defence in a generation.</p> <p>Defence needs, regrettably, to play its part in dealing with a deficit that this country can no longer sustain.</p> <p>Next year, the debt interest bill alone will be over £46 billion – more than the entire Defence budget for the UK.</p> <p>The Defence programme out to 2020 is over-committed by some £38 billion – a sum that neither the Department nor the Government can fund. </p> <p>That is additional to any requirement to cut budgets beyond that in order to address the UK’s extraordinarily large structural deficit. </p> <p>I think everyone here is aware of this. </p> <p>At the same time we are conducting a Strategic Defence and Security Review to ensure that our Armed Forces are able to meet a range of challenges today and prepare for a range of challenges that we may face in the future.  </p> <p>So whatever we want to do, everyone here has to understand that this will not be easy.</p> <p>But the Prime Minister’s mandate is clear: we want to create an atmosphere in which we, as a nation, “back, revere, and support the military.”</p> <p>Back in June, I gave a speech at RUSI which set out some of the principles that would underpin our approach. </p> <p>I would like to return to five of those principles and take stock of our progress to date. </p> <p>First, this government has pledged to treat Service personnel, their families, and former Service personnel with fairness and dignity. </p> <p>The Armed Forces Covenant will be the foundation of how the nation treats the Armed Forces Community, and will guide policy across government.</p> <p>Let me give you a couple of simple examples: looking at the voting rules for Service personnel; and looking at a Pupil Premium for Service children. </p> <p>But specific commitments like these are just the beginning. </p> <p>Earlier this summer, a Covenant Taskforce was asked to trawl for innovative ways to make the Armed Forces Covenant a reality. </p> <p>And I am most grateful to Professor Strachan, who is speaking later today, for all his work chairing this Taskforce over the summer. </p> <p>He recently provided his findings to the External Reference Group for consideration, and the final report will be sent to the Prime Minister shortly. </p> <p