François Bayrou, maire de Pau, a reçu la 200e session en région de l’IHEDN ce vendredi 17 avril...
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.
Des centaines de milliers de personnes ont savouré le superbe spectacle offert par les festivités données à l’occasion du départ vers les Amériques de la réplique de la frégate Hermione, rendue célèbre par le marquis de La Fayette. Après avoir vogué et paradé sur la Charente, l’Hermione a rejoint l’île d’Aix d’où elle a pris le large en milieu de soirée après un grand spectacle pyrotechnique qui a embrasé la côte charentaise. La frégate est attendue le vendredi 5 juin 2015 à Yorktown, où les troupes américaines et françaises remportèrent le 19 octobre 1781 une bataille décisive contre les Anglais.
Samedi 18 avril 2015, deux cent trente-cinq ans après le départ du marquis de La Fayette à bord de l’Hermione, la réplique de la frégate française a gonflé ses voiles pour prendre la direction des États-Unis. Dans la matinée l’équipage s’était affairé sous un ciel bas et gris aux derniers préparatifs. L’après-midi le président de la République visitait le navire au mouillage de l’Ile d’Aix. À l’intention des hôtes américains, le chef de l’État avait remis au commandant Yann Cariou, un fac-similé de la Déclaration des droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen de 1789, texte fondateur de la République française, en partie inspiré par la déclaration d’Indépendance américaine de 1776. Puis François Hollande regagnait la presqu’île de Fouras pour prononcer un discours célébrant l’amitié franco-américaine. Barack Obama, président des États-Unis avait salué l’événement par la voix de son consul en France, Thomas Wolf ; « C’est un honneur de commémorer et de célébrer ainsi les liens indéfectibles d’amitié et de solidarité tissés entre nos deux nations ». Peu avant midi, le drapeau américain était hissé aux côtés du drapeau français à la poupe de l’Hermione. Puis la frégate avait quitté le port de la Rochefort, remontait la Charente et tirait les premiers coups à la sortie de l’estuaire afin de saluer la frégate Latouche-Tréville sur tribord. La Frégate Anti-Sous-Marine (FASM) Latouche-Tréville porte le nom du lieutenant de vaisseau commandant de l’Hermione lors de son départ pour le Nouveau Monde, en 1780.
L’Hermione est la reproduction à l’identique de la frégate qui a permis à Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette (1757-1834), de rejoindre la côte est des États-Unis en 1780 pour soutenir les indépendantistes opposés à la tutelle britannique. Lancé en 1995, il a fallu dix-huit ans pour mener à bien ce projet ambitieux. Il aura également fallu retrouver des savoir-faire oubliés tout en faisant appel à des techniques contemporaines : bois courbés pour la coque, gréement entièrement en chanvre cordé sur place, et une double motorisation obligatoire diesel et électrique. La reconstruction de l’Hermione aura nécessité la fabrication de 25 kilomètres de cordage, 1 000 poulies, 2 200 m2 de voilure, un mât de 54 mètres de haut, 32 canons, une ancre de 4 mètres, pour une masse totale de 1 200 tonnes.
L’aventure va maintenant se poursuivre de l’autre côté de l’Atlantique, dans un pays très attaché à son histoire et où La Fayette est étroitement lié à la guerre d’Indépendance. En tout, une douzaine d’escales sont prévues aux États-Unis. Après Yorktown (5-7 juin), une escale chargée de symboles puisque les patriotes américains et leurs alliés français y ont remporté la bataille décisive contre l’armée anglaise le 19 octobre 1781, la frégate française sera à Mount Vernon (9 juin), Alexandria (10-12 juin), Annapolis (16-17 juin), Baltimore (19-21 juin), Philadelphie (25-28 juin), New York (1-4 juillet), où sous l’œil de la statue de la Liberté, l’Hermione participera à la grande parade du 4 juillet, jour de l’Indépendance américaine, Greenport (6-7 juillet), Newport (8-9 juillet), Boston (11-12 juillet) et Castine (14-15 juillet). L’Hermione rejoindra ensuite Lunenburg au Canada (18 juillet), puis l’archipel français de Saint-Pierre et Miquelon (23 juillet) avant de retraverser l’Atlantique pour arriver à Brest le 10 août. Après une semaine d’escale dans le port breton, le voilier doit retrouver son port d’attache de Rochefort autour du 29 août.
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.