Dr. Hugo Rosemont is Assistant Director of the Centre for Defence Studies at King’s College, London.
This week Kings of War and CCLKOW are happy to introduce a new author to the audience and participants, with Dr. Hugo Rosemont discussing British security policy, budgets and priorities as a key part of the impending General Election. Marking something of a departure from the usual, in this case our conceptualization expands beyond defence to consider the implications for policing as well as other facets of the security machine. Although the most obvious nexus lately among these worlds is in the unfolding stories of citizens leaving to join foreign extremists, the wider universe of human and contraband smuggling, money laundering, cyber crime and other transnational “crim-sec” activity is demolishing the neat sense of separation between these state functions which had arisen under modern administrative practices. While it is folly to redefine every problem according to a security framework, it is equally dangerous to ignore the relationship among these sectors and their influence upon the broad terms of security because of bureaucratic boundaries. In governmental policy, I think Hugo is correct to identify the absence of more holistic thinking and approaches as a serious gap in thinking on security. And although the focus is, at the moment, upon the United Kingdom, with an election impending in the US next year these issues will resonate as well. So, enjoy the article, give a thought to the questions, and join the discussion on Twitter at #CCLKOW. — Jill S. Russell
Whilst some people might look at the treatment of foreign policy, defence and security issues during the 2015 UK General Election campaign as a farce, is it not now becoming something much more akin to a tragedy? Several commentators have rightly pointed out (for example, here and here) that, with the exception of only a few issues, these topics have not featured prominently during the campaign. This is disappointing for a few reasons.
First, where it has taken place, debate in these areas has focused almost exclusively on the status of the UK political parties’ varying (non?) commitment to allocate 2% of UK GDP to defence expenditure, in line with the country’s stance on the associated NATO guideline, with a sprinkling of discussion emerging more recently on the national security credentials of party leaders, and on the prospects for renewing the country’s nuclear weapons capability. Most notably, the Prime Minister received a high profile grilling on the first issue in a BBC leadership interview last week – his performance was subsequently critiqued by many analysts, including the editor of The Spectator.
The 2% question is a critical issue and it is important that both politicians and public opinion are flushed out in particular around their level of commitment to the UK meeting the NATO guideline (full disclosure: the present author shares the belief of many people – including the 33 Members of Parliament to have signed an Early Day Motion on the issue – that the next Government should commit itself to the NATO figure). But the current, understandable emphasis on this matter is now beginning to do us all a disservice because it leaves little room for consideration of the parties’ approaches to other national security issues. In particular, it is striking how little contemplation there has been to date around some of the more eye-catching security policy ideas to have been proposed in the parties’ manifestos, and indeed on their relative silence towards some of the most urgent issues. With respect to the former, for example, why has there not been a deeper level of interest or more mainstream media attention towards such issues as:
– The Conservatives’ plan to ‘hold’ a National Security Strategy later this year
– Labour’s proposal to abolish elected Police and Crime Commissioners
– The Lib Dems’ belief that intervention is justified by a legal ‘and/or’ humanitarian case
– UKIP’s proposal to establish a new Director of National Intelligence for the UK
– The Scottish National Party’s idea that nuclear weapons are morally offensive
Second, whilst opinion will be likely to split on whether any or all of these ideas are good, bad, or even ugly, unfortunately there is an even bigger problem. It is the apparent lack of detail (consideration?) from the parties on how under their leadership – or as a result of their involvement – the next UK Government would approach such serious current issues as winning the battle of ideas underpinning the radicalization of British ‘foreign fighters’ inclined to travel to Iraq and Syria, and notably in respect of other ongoing crises in, for example, Yemen, Ukraine and Libya. Additionally, a serious connection has seemingly not yet been made by any of the leading contenders in respect of how they propose to handle what Professor Vernon Bogdanor calls ‘The Crisis of the Constitution’ and the impact that policy in this area might have on national security – including the integrity of the country, and its long-term economic prospects. Judging by the manifestos, there also appears to be an ongoing failure on the part of all parties to develop creative solutions for engaging the private sector in addressing many of the most complicated issues the UK faces, upon whom it now depends in numerous areas of national security.
Third, it is concerning that more attention has not been paid in the pre-election discussions to how the next Government should develop its overall approach to national security considered in the wider sense. In other recent election campaigns, most notably in 2010, UK voters were spoilt for choice in being provided with detailed and creative new thinking from the parties (should they want it) around how policies, structures and processes would be developed and implemented by way of a genuinely ‘joined-up’ approach to national security. There have been few such discussions this time but, happily, Charlie Edwards (the author of National Security for the Twenty-First Century, an important pamphlet that originally advanced the need for a ‘holistic’ UK national security strategy) and Calum Jeffray of the Royal United Services Institute have recently co-authored an excellent new paper that adopts such a broad perspective with its analysis on the future for research and development for security and intelligence purposes. It must be hoped that this prompts the UK security and political community into again considering alongside defence the importance of what the coalition Government has called ‘wider security’ issues. For now, it is worrying that, with the possible exception of some attention to limited aspects of police reform and the future powers for monitoring digital communications, deeper discussion on non-military security issues has been largely absent from this campaign to date.
There is clearly very limited time now before 7th May, so the emergence of a renewed emphasis on security issues might be difficult to achieve. It also has to be recognized that, in contrast to high profile proposals on domestic priorities such as health and education, it has often be observed that policies on defence, security and foreign affairs are simply not the same kind of ‘vote winners’. But a case can also be made that two straightforward changes in approach would help to improve the level and quality of the discussions. Firstly, in parallel to any ongoing scrutiny of their policies on defence, the parties could be encouraged (if not pressured) by national security journalists, academics, and any other interested parties, to clarify whether (and how specifically) they would propose to work with partners to develop and fund their approaches to non-military security risks such as terrorism, organized crime and cyber insecurity, at home and overseas. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly at this stage, all those with an interest or voice in the current UK defence funding debate should consider resisting the temptation to add further fuel to the fire on the 2% issue, as important and tempting as it is, or at least contemplate raising in the debate the merits (and importance) of discussing other proposals and obvious (often non-military) security priorities facing the UK.
The reality is that we now have a good idea of where the parties stand on the 2% defence spending issue, however satisfactory or unsatisfactory positions on this matter may be seen to be. Clearly this will need to be revisited after the Election but, in the meantime, it is imperative that answers are also now sought on how the parties would approach other pressing security concerns, including in respect of how (if?) non-military security risks would be genuinely considered in any Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) process held under their watch.
It is against this backdrop that it is hoped that the following questions will help to stimulate some more varied discussion on the future shape of UK defence and security policy in the remaining few weeks of the 2015 General Election:
1 How useful is the 2% NATO guideline as a measure of UK national security capability?
2 How much should the next Government spend on other security capabilities (e.g. cyber, counter-terrorism policing, intelligence etc.)?
3 What ‘security’ issues should/shouldn’t be covered in the 2015 SDSR?
Join the discussion on Twitter at #CCLKOW.
EDA Chief Executive Jorge Domecq travelled to Tallinn on 17 April for discussions with the Estonian Minister of Defence, Sven Mikser, on preparations of the June 2015 European Council and Estonia’s participation in EDA projects. Jorge Domecq also met with the Head of the Estonian Defence Forces, Lieutenant General Riho Terras and visited the Cooperative Cyber Defence Center of Excellence.
“The European Defence Agency is crucial for driving defence cooperation in the EU”, Estonian Minister of Defence Sven Mikser said at Friday’s meeting with EDA Chief Executive Jorge Domecq. “The task has been difficult during a period of heavy cuts in defence spending but we can give a positive assessment regardless.”
“We are quite pleased with many projects that we have worked on together such as joint procurement for Carl Gustav ammunition, and we are looking forward to the results of EDA’s cyber projects”, the Minister added.
“The cyber-attacks on European media in recent weeks illustrate that cyberspace has become a key challenge of our current security environment as well as the fifth domain of warfare, equally critical to military operations as land, sea, air, and space. The European Defence Agency supports Member States in improving their cyber defence capabilities. Our cyber defence programme with the active involvement of Estonia contains projects aimed at research, training and exercises, cyber situational awareness in CSDP operations, detection and protection”, Jorge Domecq said during his visit in Tallinn.
Mr. Domecq also exchanged views with other high-level officials of the Estonian Ministry of Defence as well as the Head of the Estonian Defence Forces Lieutenant General Riho Terras. During a visit at the Cooperative Cyber Defence Center of Excellence, ways to further enhance cooperation with EDA were discussed.
In the European Defence Agency capability development plan, cyber defence is one of the priority actions. A project team of EDA and its participating Member States’ representatives is responsible for jointly developing cyber defence capabilities within the EU common security and defence policy (CSDP). A network of EDA and Member States research & technology experts support this work through collaborative activities delivering the required technologies at the right time. All of this is positioned next to existing and planned efforts by civil communities (national and EU institutions) and NATO. Given that threats are multifaceted, a comprehensive approach is taken, seeking to enhance synergies between the civilian and military domains in protecting critical cyber assets.
The visit in Tallinn is part of a series of visits by Mr. Domecq to all EDA Member States following his appointment as EDA Chief Executive and ahead of the Ministerial Steering Board on 18 May 2015. So far, Mr. Domecq visited Spain, Lithuania, Latvia, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands, Ireland, France, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Croatia. Next week he will travel to Poland, Hungary, Greece and Cyprus.
Members of parliament have endorsed all sixteen candidates put forward by Afghanistan’s national unity government. This means that, six months into its term, the country has an almost complete cabinet – only the defence minister is still missing. This is the MPs’ second such vote. The first, on 28 January 2015, saw only a third of the candidates getting through. Kate Clark, Ehsan Qaane and Qayyum Suroush ask why there has been a change of heart from the parliament and hear charges of vote-buying and MPs’ fears that, if they did not endorse the sixteen, they would be castigated by a public impatient for the government to get on with governing.
Under the constitution, every minister needs the approval of parliament to take up his or her post. When the government put through its first choice of suggested ministers, MPs only endorsed a third of them. One third had already fallen by the wayside because they dual nationals, were wanted for criminal prosecution or had no higher education and never made it to the vote. One of those who had a second nationality, Sayed Mansur Naderi, re-appeared on the current list, although for a different ministry. A further third of the candidates in January were rejected. AAN wrote at the time that the list was rather weak, with few big-hitters and many candidates who had little experience or were not obvious fits for their proposed ministries. Today’s list had similar characteristics: half have no experience working in government and many lack experience in the subject area of their ministry. For example, Afghanistan now has a medical doctor at Justice, a women’s rights activist lawyer at Counter Narcotics and a businessman at Education. Other ministers do look better suited, eg a hydraulics engineer at Water and Energy. Several of the appointments also look to be political pay back for support during the election.
It is not obvious why the parliament voted in all candidates today when it rejected many on a similar list in January. In general, MPs endorsement does not necessarily mean they like what is on offer, as voting in favour or against often has as much to do with mood and timing and what messages MPs want to send the executive and the country. It might just be that the parliamentarians, like the general public, are tired of not having a government and also feared being lambasted if they were seen as having stood in the way of a cabinet finally being formed. However, there were also allegations that money had changed hands to ‘persuade’ MPs to endorse candidates. Hasht-e Subh, for example, reported that MPs were asking for iPhones and money and that government officials were complaining that, compared to the Karzai era, bribes had gone up “terribly.”
In the January vote, MPs rejected all the Hazara, Uzbek (the third and fourth largest ethnic groups respectively) and women candidates. Today’s sweeping endorsement of all sixteen candidates does mean that Afghanistan has a fairer-looking cabinet. Of the 25 ministers, there are four women (still not enough, many activists would say, but at least the number President Ghani had promised) and, as to ethnicity, nine Pashtuns, seven Tajiks, three Hazaras, two Uzbeks, one each from Ismailis, Shia Sayeds and Turkmen and one minister who is reported by different sources as either Tajik, Uzbek or Turkmen.
This is still not quite a full cabinet. The all-important post of defence minister remains to be filled. It was the reported cause of a major rift between Doctors Ghani and Abdullah earlier in the month. Abdullah was reportedly incensed by what he said were unilateral announcements by Ghani for Afzal Ludin as defence minister (1) and Shukria Barakzai as head of the Election Reform Commission. There are also some other significant gaps: the Attorney General, Head of the Supreme Court, Head of the Central Bank and most of the country’s governors.
As AAN and others have reported, there is growing discontent in the country with the lack of governing going on, particularly given the ailing economy and disturbing attacks by insurgents – 31 civilians kidnapped in Zabul in late February and still not freed, soldiers captured and beheaded in Badakhshan on 10 April 2015 and today, a major attack in Jalalabad which left more than thirty dead and more than one hundred injured and which overshadowed parliament’s vote. Addressing the nation live on television from Badakhshan today, President Ghani said:
On one hand, we are in a very sad situation, but from another a very happy one. What happened in Badakhshan and Nangarhar is our sad situation, but the approval of our 16 ministerial candidates by the parliament is the happy one. We have had problems in the economic sector and were not able to implement policies due to the lack of ministers.
The real test of the new cabinet is whether, now that the government’s key team is largely in place, it can finally start to govern better.
How the vote went
239 MPs voted (out of 246). To be confirmed, candidate needed a simple majority of 120 votes. The votes for the sixteen (read their full biographies here) went as follows:
(AA) and (AG) refers to whether it is believed Abdullah Abdullah or Ashraf Ghani put forward the candidate
1. Abdul Bari Jahani, Culture and Information (AG): 120 votes in favour (66 rejected, 35 blank, 6 invalid)
One of the leading Pashtun poets of modern times, a Kandahari who, for many years, worked in broadcasting with Voice of America in the United States. (2)
2. Assadullah Zamir, Agriculture (AG): 192 votes in favour (28 rejected, 15 blank, 4 invalid)
An ethnic Tajik in his late thirties, born in Kabul, one of the co-founders of Fourteen Hundred / 1400, a group of young(ish) Afghans interested in influencing policies; has many years of experience working in various ministries (rural development, education, mines and agriculture).
3. Muhammad Gulab Mangal, Border and Tribal Affairs (AG): 188 votes in favour (28 rejected, 13 blank, 8 invalid)
A Paktiawal and member of the communist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan before it seized power in the Saur Coup of 1978, who later joined the mujahedin; a former governor of Paktika, Laghman and Helmand.
4. Engineer Mahmud Balegh, Public Works (AG): 168 votes in favour (38 rejected, 23 blank, 8 invalid)
An ethnic Hazara from Daikundi and one of the youngest ministers; an engineer by education, a former editor of Eqtedar-e Melli newspaper (published by the Shia political party Hezb-e Eqtedar-e Melli, which split off the mujahedin party Harakat-e Islami under the late Kabul MP Mustafa Kazimi after the Taleban regime came down) and now a businessman, part owner of one of the largest construction companies in the country.
5. Abdul Satar Murad, Economy (AA): 152 votes in favour (51 rejected, 29 blank, 6 invalid)
A Tajik from Parwan province in his late 50s, he was deputy head of Abdullah’s electoral campaign team and chairman of the political committee of Jamiat-e Islami; taught English at a mujahedin military academy in the 1980s, served in the Rabbani government and in various Islamic State embassies and, post-2001, set up a construction company and was governor of Kapisa.
6. Dr Muhammadullah Batash, Transport and Aviation (AG): 176 votes in favour (32 rejected, 25 blank, 6 invalid)
An Uzbek in his mid-50s from Kunduz with a PhD from Moscow University who is a Jombesh party activist; has served as deputy and acting minister of transport, as governor of Faryab and as a government advisor.
7. Sayed Sadat Mansur Naderi, Urban Development (AG): 202 votes in favour (18 rejected, 10 blank, 4 invalid)
Son of Sayed Mansur Naderi (the Ismaili religious leader and former militia commander who was with the PDPA government until 1992 and then was one of the warring parties in the civil war, allied with the ‘Northern Alliance’) who is chair of a group of companies active in nearly all of Afghanistan’s main economic sectors (including fuel import and storage, construction, precious metals and gems, security, property dealing, advertising, supermarkets and insurance).
8. Dr Abdul Basir Anwar, Justice (AA): 138 votes in favour (65 rejected, 30 blank, 5 invalid)
An ethnic Tajik from Parwan and leading member of Hezb-e Islami; holder of a medical degree, he was deputy minister of health during the Rabbani government and advisor on social affairs to former President Karzai.
9. Abdul Razaq Wahidi, Telecommunication (AA): 152 votes in favour (53 rejected, 28 blank, 5 invalid)
A Hazara from Kabul in his late 30s who grew up in Iran and returned in 2002 to teach mathematics at Kabul University, after which he served on the Kankur Committee of the Higher Education Ministry and as General Administrative Director and Deputy Minister for Administration at the Ministry of Finance.
10. Dilbar Nazari, Women’s Affairs (AA): 131 votes in favour (70 rejected, 28 blank, 9 invalid)
An Uzbek from Balkh in her 50s with a background in education and NGOs (including Oxfam, German Agro-Action and UNICEF); a former MP.
11. Salamat Azimi, Counter Narcotics (AG): 155 votes in favour (60 rejected, 23 blank, no invalid)
A lawyer and women’s rights advocate from Andkhoi in Faryab (sources put her variously as Tajik, Uzbek and Turkman) who has served as professor, head of the criminal law department and deputy director of Balkh University, head of the section for children’s rights at the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission in Mazar-e-Sharif and a delegate at several loya jirgas.
12. Dr Farida Momand, Higher Education (AG): 184 votes in favour (31 rejected, 18 blank, 5 invalid)
A Pashtun from Nangarhar, a doctor, former professor at Kabul Medical University and dean of the pediatric department.
13. Dr Nasrin Oryakhel, Labour and Social Affairs (AG): 169 votes in favour (62 rejected, 21 blank, 5 invalid)
A Pashtun medical doctor from Paghman and leading member of President Ghani’s election campaign who has been the director of both Rabia Balkhi and Malalai hospitals in Kabul.
14. Ali Ahmad Osmani, Water and Energy (AA): 168 votes in favour (36 rejected, 29 blank, 5 invalid)
An ethnic Tajik in his early 40s, a hydraulic engineer by education and work experience (with the World Food Programme and in private business).
15. Humayun Rasa, Trade and Industries (AA): 170 votes in favour (39 rejected, 24 blank, 4 invalid)
An ethnic Hazara (with a Bayat mother) from the Qarabagh district of Ghazni who served as Deputy Minister for Literacy with the Ministry of Education and Deputy Head of Logistics in the National Directorate of Security.
16. Assadullah Hanif Balkhi, Education (AA): 161 votes in favour (27 rejected, 25 blank, 24 invalid)
An ethnic Tajik in his fifties from Balkh and member of Jamiat-e Islami (he was particularly close to the late Marshal Fahim); schooled at the Abu Hanifa madrassa and Sharia Faculty of Kabul University, he reportedly also studied in Saudi Arabia; a former ambassador to Kuwait and owner of a construction company.
(1) Afzal Ludin was commander of the presidential guard under Najibullah. This would have given the second ‘power ministry’ to a former PDPA regime representative, after Ulumi as interior minister.
(2) The one candidate to scrape through, Abdul Bari Jahani at Culture, was only given permission to present himself to the house this morning and accepted onto the voting list at the last minute.
A special commission had been in charge of reviewing the required documents of the candidates including university degrees, citizenship documents and documents showing they had committed no crimes. There were suspicions over the documents – citizenship or education – of eight nominees (Zamir, Baligh, Murad, Naderi, Osmani, Rasa, Balkhi and Batash), but in the end, only Bari Jahani was, initially, not allowed to present himself to parliament because of an alleged second (American) citizenship.
He should have appeared at the house on Wednesday 15 April 2015, but instead on that day, a letter was read to the house issued by the United States embassy in Kabul and sent via the Foreign Ministry and Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. This, however, was deemed insufficient to prove that Bari had started cancelling his second citizenship. Some of the Pashtun Kandahari MPs, such as Lalai Hamid Zai and Abdul Rahim Ayubi, shouted in the session, saying some MPs were not allowing a Kandahari to be a minister. Lalai asked for Jahani to be given the vote despite his dual citizenship. Hafiz Mansur was the only MP who argued against giving one more chance to Jahani, saying the special commission had given enough time to the candidates and he should be out of the list. Finally, the speaker asked the commission to review the US embassy letter, ask the US embassy for clarification and make a decision on Jahani’s case. The commission then allowed Jahani to make his presentation before the vote today and to be included in the vote.
Ante Kotromanović, Minister of Defence of the Republic of Croatia and Jorge Domecq, Chief Executive of the EDA met yesterday to exchange views ahead of the June 2015 European Council and to discuss Croatia’s participation in EDA projects.
Minister Kotromanović underlined the important role of the Agency in fostering cooperation between Member States and improving their capabilities. He said: "We see the Agency as an important platform and mechanism for strengthening and further development of European defence capabilities. As a new EDA member, Croatia recognises the possibilities the Agency can provide to Member States, and we're analysing programmes in which we see the potential for cooperation. Those projects will have our full support.” The Minister also emphasised capacities and significance of the Croatian defence industry sector and its achievements. “I strongly believe we need to support participation of small and medium enterprises in cooperative programmes, where dual-use programmes have great importance and potential".
“Croatia has joined the European Defence Agency not even two years ago. Notwithstanding this short period of time, Croatia is actively participating in some of our key projects as for example the military implementation of the Single European Sky. The role of the Agency is to act as an interface between the European Commission and the national Ministries of Defence to ensure that the military views are well taken into account in the modernisation of the European skies. At the same time, we also inform the Member States of the latest developments in Brussels. The Agency can furthermore provide valuable support to the national defence industry and in particular small and medium sized enterprises by providing information on funding for dual-use research”, Jorge Domecq stated during his visit in Zagreb.
The visit also included meetings with other high-level officials of the Croatian Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs and the Croatian Chamber of Economy. It is part of a series of visits by Mr. Domecq to all EDA Member States following his appointment as EDA Chief Executive and ahead of the Ministerial Steering Board on 18 May 2015. So far, Mr. Domecq visited Spain, Lithuania, Latvia, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands, Ireland, France, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovenia.
EDA Chief Executive Jorge Domecq met with Miloš Bizjak, the State Secretary at the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia, to exchange views ahead of the June 2015 European Council and to discuss Slovenia’s participation in EDA projects.
Slovenia sees a central role of EDA in coordinating, supporting and promoting cooperative defence projects, and expects added value in better implementing proposals to enhance capability development. Priority should be on development of capabilities, including niche capabilities, in accordance with the operational requirements at the national, EU and NATO levels.
“Slovenia appreciates the efforts of the EDA and welcomes the discussions ahead of the next 2015 European Council on defence. It is of vital importance that smaller industries and entities have better access to the European defence market. Inclusion of small and medium-sized enterprises in the market will help reduce fragmentation, increase competitiveness and provide opportunities for joint access and performance on the market”, said State Secretary Miloš Bizjak.
“The current security environment requires Europe to send strong signals confirming its commitment to defence. What European defence needs today is political will and a strong, innovative and competitive defence industry to secure our strategic autonomy. The further development of the defence industry requires among others common capability programmes and investment in research and technology.
In this respect, the European Defence Agency remains a strong instrument at the disposal of Member States. One way we can support Slovenia, its defence industry and especially small and medium sized enterprises is for example in facilitating access to markets in Europe through EU funding and market information The discussions by Heads of States and Government in June should give an important boost and top-level guidance”, said Jorge Domecq during his visit in Ljubljana.
The visit included meetings with other high-level officials of the Slovenian Ministry of Defence as well as the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia. It is part of a series of visits by Mr. Domecq to all EDA Member States following his appointment as EDA Chief Executive and ahead of the Ministerial Steering Board on 18 May 2015. So far, Mr. Domecq visited Spain, Lithuania, Latvia, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands, Ireland, France, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic.
Copyright picture: Ministry of Defence, Slovenia
More information:Alain Le Roy, who took office as Secretary General of the European External Action Service (EEAS) last month, visited the European Defence Agency on 9 April. He held discussions with EDA Chief Executive Jorge Domecq and EDA Directors on the Agency’s priorities for the upcoming European Council in June.
During his visit, the EEAS Secretary General exchanged views with the Agency’s top team ahead of the EDA Steering Board in May and the June European Council, where EU leaders will address defence issues and where the EDA will report on the progress being made since the December 2013 Council.
Alain Le Roy also met EDA teams and received briefings on some key work strands by the Agency’s project officers, with topics including support to operations, maritime surveillance and military airworthiness.