Why we need an active defence policy

—In an increasingly insecure and unstable world it is vital that we reflect on our defence policy as a matter of course.

The challenges we face are varied and unpredictable. A few short years ago it seemed to some that threats from the traditional military might of old were perhaps a thing of the past. But, while David Cameron was busy slashing our armed forces, Vladimir Putin marched his troops westward into eastern Ukraine, resulting in a death toll which stands at 6,400.

Traditional security threats have not disappeared – of that we should be clear.

But what is more disconcerting is that they now exist alongside myriad new, non-traditional threats.

Islamic State militants in the Middle East have now taken hold in strategic cities in Libya, Syria and Iraq. In their path they leave not only death, but a destruction of heritage and culture that has shaped national identities and has helped to develop humankind.

There are increasing attacks on civilians by terrorists, cyber-attacks on states and companies, and a whole host of issues never before viewed as defence matters at the forefront of our political discourse: climate change, poverty, global migration, and economic instability.

We are standing at a crossroads and it is for that reason we must reconsider Britain’s place in the world, and implement a defence policy which cements our position as a leading global power and a fundamental force for good.

Looking ahead for the next five years there are a number of issues that we need to consider. Chief among them is the next strategic security and defence review which is set for this year.

The coalition government came under fire for its 2010 strategic defence and security review and the 2010 national security strategy, both governed by the overriding strategic objective of reducing the United Kingdom’s budget deficit, and not by the safety and security of its people.

We must use this year’s SDSR as an opportunity to deliver a cohesive policy platform for defence. It should focus on the challenging nature of new security threats, which will require other government departments, not just the Ministry of Defence, to view activities and events through a security prism.

It must also set out government plans for our armed forces. Cameron has been criticised for his review of the structure of the army, Army 2020, intended to cut back the number of full-time serving personnel and replace them with reserves. At the current sign-up rate we are in danger of failing to meet the 30,000 reserves target by 2018, leaving us with a gap in capabilities which could be fatal.

In order to deliver a more focused and internationalist approach to our defence policy, we must ensure that it is adequately resourced. The best way to do that is by committing to spending a minimum of two per cent of our GDP on defence.

Let’s be clear, Nato has not asked members to spend a minimum amount of money on defence for fun. It is an internationalist approach to keeping our community safe, one which we should adopt with alacrity.

The commitment is important not least because it would allow us to better equip our armed forces, but symbolically it delivers a powerful statement to both our allies and our enemies.

Our nuclear submarines are due to be replaced in 2028. Before that members of parliament will be asked to vote on whether or not we support the renewal of a minimum, credible independent nuclear capability delivered through a continuous at-sea deterrent. I will be voting in support of the replacement.

Labour has a settled policy on this issue, and we should not allow others to suggest that we do not. It is our party policy to support the renewal of our nuclear deterrent and I am pleased that all of the Labour leadership candidates (excluding Jeremy Corbyn) have restated their support for pressing ahead with renewal.

Our nuclear submarines are the last line of protection for our country. They prevent nuclear attacks on the basis that retaliation could be deadly for any aggressor. Its success as a weapon lies in the fact that it has never been used; its fundamental purpose is deterrence, and we are undoubtedly safer because of it.

But we must not only prioritise what occurs in our own nation, we must look outwards and seek to make the world a safer place by forging international ties and utilising global diplomacy.

The answer to defeating Islamic State does not lie in military might alone. We need a political strategy for that region which includes not only Nato, but also regional countries who are keen to see an end to destruction on their doorstep.

We need to integrate ourselves more, not less, in the international community.

That is why it is vital that we remain within the European Union. Our alliances with our European partners allow us to tackle problems such as climate change, poverty and global health crises in ways that we simply could not afford to do if we were going it alone.

And we need to understand that our defence prowess can be used in ways that are non-combative. We can, and should, use our defence expertise to support states as they build capacity to support their own citizens. Ungoverned spaces can become havens for terror and we should remember that we can be proactive in defence policy as well as reactive.

The world is changing, and we need to change with it.

Our defence policy must be shaped by the global environment in which it operates.

Traditional threats will always exist, and for those we must be prepared. But there are new dangers on the horizon and Britain must be able to adapt and respond accordingly in order to make our world a safer place.

———————————-

John Woodcock MP is chair of Progress

———————————-

Photo: ResoluteSupportMedia