Downing Street Says » PM’s Defence Lecture

The PMOS quoted from the lecture that the Prime Minister gave today in Plymouth. He said that the Prime Minister wanted to set out the approach to defence issues and the redefining of that approach. It had been governed as much by values as by interests. It had been based on two major alliances, America on the one hand, and Europe on the other. It had combined hard and soft parts; in other words we have been in the forefront of the fight against terrorism, for example beating Milosovic, helping prevent Sierra Leone falling into the hands of gangsters, all of which have required military action.

But also we have been leaders in the fight against poverty in Africa, action to combat climate change, in debates over world trade, all of which have required diplomatic and financial commitment. The Prime Minister recognises the use of hard power has always been more controversial than the use of soft power. The PMOS went on to quote excerpts from the lecture;

"In this lecture, I shall argue that today’s security threat is qualitatively new and different; that the combination of hard and soft power is still the right course for our country, indeed more so than ever; but that if we want our Armed Forces to be confident of their place in that future, we, all of us, Government, military and public, need to know what is expected of us.

"There are two types of nations similar to ours today. Those who do war fighting and peacekeeping and those who have, effectively, except in the most exceptional circumstances, retreated to the peacekeeping alone."

"Britain does both. We should stay that way. But how do we gain the consent to do it?"

The PMOS added that the lecture goes on to address how we gain the consent to do it. The Prime Minister went through the history of our armed forces and our actions of defence around the world, through the Cold War, through the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and in detail what we’ve done in terms of defending, how we’ve changed the profile of the army and the navy. The Prime Minister then goes on to say that 11th September 2001 changed everything; he argues that this was not just because of the nature of the attack, but also because of the ideology behind it. "… 11th September wasn’t the incredible action of an isolated group, a one-off strike masterminded by Osama Bin Laden. It was the product rather of a world-wide movement, with an ideology based on a misreading of Islam, whose roots were deep, which had been growing for years and with the ability to mount a radically different type of warfare requiring a radically different type of response. What we face is not a criminal conspiracy or even a fanatical but fringe terrorist organisation. We face something more akin to revolutionary Communism in its early and most militant phase. It is global. It has a narrative about the world and Islam’s place within it that has a reach into most Muslim societies and countries."

"It has realised two things: the power of terrorism to cause chaos, hinder and displace political progress especially through suicide missions; and the reluctance of western opinion to countenance long campaigns, especially when the account it receives is via a modern media driven by the impact of pictures."

" The combination of all these different dimensions, as I said earlier, transforms the context within which the military, politics and public opinion interact. For their part, the military and especially their families will feel they are being asked to take on a task of a different magnitude and nature. Any grievances, any issues to do with military life, will be more raw, more sensitive, more prone to cause resentment.

"Public opinion will be divided, feel that the cost is too great, the campaign too long, and be unnerved by the absence of ‘victory’ in the normal way they would reckon it. They will be constantly bombarded by the propaganda of the enemy, often quite sympathetically treated by their own media, to the effect that it’s really all ‘our’, that is the West’s fault."

"That, in turn, impacts on the feelings of our armed forces. They want public opinion not just behind them but behind their mission. They want the "people back home" to understand their value, not just their courage."

"And the politicians? I believe the risk here is quite the opposite of what most people would think. The parody of people in my position is of leaders who, gung-ho, launch their nations into ill-advised adventures without a thought for the consequences. The reality is we are those charged with making decisions in this new and highly uncertain world; trying, as best we can, to make the right decision. That’s not to say we do so, but that is our motivation."

"The risk here – and in the US where the future danger is one of isolationism not adventurism – is that the politicians decide it’s all too difficult and default to an unstated, passive disengagement, that doing the right thing slips almost unconsciously into doing the easy thing."

"Many countries are already in this position. But the consequences for Britain are hugely significant. Before we know it and without anyone ever really deciding it, in a strategic way, the "hard" part of British foreign policy could be put to one side; the Armed Forces relegated to an essentially peacekeeping role and Britain’s reach, effect and influence qualitatively reduced."

"The irony is: the one group of people who I am sure do not want this to happen, are the men and women of our Armed Forces. They would be horrified by such a thought. The important thing for public opinion and therefore for politicians is at least to comprehend the choice."

The PMOS goes on to say that the Prime Minister says it is important that we become leaders in the fight against climate change, against global poverty, peace and reconciliation but equally he argues against taking just the soft option:

"The world is interdependent. That means we work in alliance with others. But it also means problems interconnect. Poverty in Africa can’t be solved simply by the presence of aid. It needs the absence of conflict. Failed states threaten us as well as their own people. Terrorism destroys progress. Terrorism can’t be defeated by military means alone. But it can’t be defeated without it." …"So, for me, the setting aside of ‘hard’ power leads inexorably to the weakening of ‘soft’ power."

Asked if the Prime Minister was frustrated by the failure of some other countries to take part in operations, and if the Prime Minister was going to say anything about improving the armed forces living conditions as ‘they mind more when they’re at war’, the PMOS said the Prime Minister would address the issue of accommodation and there was a large section on this in the complete lecture. In terms of other countries, other countries chose their own profile and their own role in the world. What the Prime Minister is addressing is the issue of what Britain’s role should be, and traditionally we have had a military profile in the world as well as a diplomatic profile. What essentially the message of the lecture is is that we should maintain the twin track approach, we should have the hard role as well as the soft role. The Prime Minister isn’t in any way downplaying the soft role and it is important is that we maintain the military role as well.

Asked if the speech would be seen as one long whinge from a man who is leaving the Government and the country with a legacy that has left a complete mess in Iraq, a region dominated by Iran and isn’t it a bit much to be blaming the media for that, the PMOS said the reporter had created a simplistic caricature of what was a thoughtful lecture. He hoped once the reporter had read the lecture in full he would not caricature it in that way. The PMOS said first and foremost we had to deal with the canard that somehow or other the Middle East was a haven of stability, it wasn’t. That is precisely why the UN passed at least 12 resolutions calling on Saddam to get rid of his WMD capability. That is why we had a conflict between Iraq and Iran which cost a million lives.

That is why we had a situation in which Iraq invaded Kuwait. Let’s not have this implicit canard that somehow the Middle East was a haven of stability. Secondly, nobody had worked harder than the Prime Minister to revitalise the Middle East peace process, however the central argument of this speech was that you could not make peace unless you were also prepared to defend your values. If Afghanistan had been left in the state that it was under the Taliban then it would have become one large training ground for terrorism. Nobody is pretending Afghanistan is yet perfect, but you have a situation in which not only the people of Afghanistan are now able to vote for a Government, the women of Afghanistan are able to play a proper role in society, but also it is not a training ground for terrorism in the way that is was under the Taliban.

Asked if in recent days, following speculation about the navy being shredded in its current functions and reports about the lack of equipment, if the Prime Minister is arguing today for an enormous increase in resources for the armed forces, the PMOS reminded reporters that the Chief of Defence Staff said at the time of the last Spending Review that it was the largest sustained increase in defence spending during his time in the armed forces. The extra resources had gone into defence spending. What was important however was that we understood and took time to understand the complex different situation that we now faced and the very real issues that we had to address as a country to change our profile to address that. The role of the Prime Minister was to outline the issues that faced the country at home and abroad and that is what the Prime Minister was doing.

Asked then should we give the armed forces lots more money regardless of the complaints about how it was being used to fund the armed forces, the PMOS said in terms of the allocation that was a matter which was decided and announced at the time of the Spending Review. In terms of overall spending, this had been increased and sustained in its nature which the armed forces themselves had recognised

Asked if the Prime Minister had spoken to Gordon Brown about the speech, the PMOS said there had been a whole series of conversations with colleagues and the defence staff amongst others.

Asked if it was fair to say that part of the Prime Minister’s speech had been characterised by the plea to the public to stay with him because they were unnerved by the way campaigns had changed over the years and there were not victories as there had been previously, the PMOS replied that there was no doubt that in the modern era, given 24 hour news, given the nature of modern terrorism, the nature of campaigns had changed, but the way in which the coverage of those campaigns actually impacted on the campaigns themselves had also changed.

That is well understood by those who were trying to defeat it. There was no doubt that they tried to exploit and tried to manipulate public opinion in this country and elsewhere as part of their campaign. What we had to do was recognise that and take that into account whenever we were trying to respond to the campaign against us. Therefore what we had to have was a sophisticated understanding of the way in which others tried to use propaganda and public opinion as they had. We had to be sophisticated in our response.

Asked, if there was no practical answer to the problem at hand, namely Iran which resulted in the Anglo-American intervention and weakening of Afghanistan and Iraq, would the Prime Minister give some practical solution to the problem, the PMOS said, for example, the Daily Telegraph wrote a story one day that said we were about to pull out, then the next day wrote the reaction to people saying we were about to pull out. The situation, the reality, is as we have always said, that any decision about troops would be based on the conditions on the ground in Basra and elsewhere. The problem of Iran was not a new one, their support for terrorism was not new, and because there was a problem called Iran, it did not mean you did not deal with a problem called Afghanistan and Iraq because if you did not deal with those that in turn, as with 11th September, would result in other major problems.

Asked if, as America had said, you can’t leave and leave the door open for Iran to come through, the door must be shut first, the PMOS responded by saying that our profile in Basra would be based on the conditions on the ground and the ability and desire of the Iraqi government to deal with those conditions. Secondly in terms of Iran, it was the Prime Minister who had been one of the those, without doubt, who had identified the nature of the problem that Iran posed and he had been in the lead in terms of making representations in the region but also used the UN to take a very firm line on Iran’s nuclear ambition.

2 Comments »

I believe any road charging taxes are crazy .The u.K has a mechanism to extract a tax on usage of cars more effectively and possible less contraversial. A special VAT on Petrol would persuade users to cut usage and be fare on people who choose to use their cars. Business and Transport could reclaim this tax if legitimate and as Cival service Mechanism to collect VAT is in place it would not cost \xA360 Billion as has beenexpressed. Vat could be used more widely towards luxury goods thus creating a reduction in direct income tax. You should be allowed to earn a salary nil of tax but if you spend then VAT will be applied. Cost savings in the civil srvice would be amazing.
Robert McKill
Comment by Robert McKill — 20 Feb 2007 on 11:16 pm | Link
???????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????2024?????????????????????????????2???????.???1???????????????????????????????????????????????1????????????????????:???????????????????????????????????????????…???????????????????????N?????????????????????????????1???????????????????????????!
??(???)????????????????
?? ???? ??? ??? ???? https://www.taka78.com/list-m-127-p-1.html
Comment by ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? — 23 Dec 2023 on 7:36 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Friday, January 12, 2007

PM’s Defence Lecture

2 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries