British Policy and Parliament

Return to the contents page of the Acronym Institute's Submission to the SDR

Introduction

The Acronym Institute's Submission to the Strategic Defence Review, 8 July 1998

The first task for the Defence Review is to analyse and assess future threats to British security. Assessments should centre on threats to the British Isles and population, but would also need to concern itself with threats to British interests abroad, including countries with which we have undertaken reciprocal defence responsibilities or alliances, and threats to international peace and security. Direct military threats are a major question, but may not be the most serious security threats faced in the period under review. Global water shortages and the further degradation of the environment could pose direct and indirect threats to security. We must look clearly at where we are, but also look forward to where we fear to go, expect to go and wish to go during the next two decades. Defence and security policies should be developed to maximise the possibility for taking Britain where we wish to go, while providing some insurance and protection in case we get dragged in the opposite direction. While it is always important to consider the worst possibilities, planning for worst case scenarios can skew priorities and create the very conditions we seek to avoid.

The Labour Party identified the post-Cold War security challenges as including: "the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; the growth of ethnic nationalism and political and religious extremism; international terrorism, crime and drug trafficking; and conflicts over natural resources." Taking this list as a starting point, for which there is broad consensus among analysts, it will be necessary to consider:

the changing global equation and Britain's relations with historical, regional and emerging powers;
the potential dynamic and development of international relations over the next two decades;
the role Britain desires to assume internationally, and the political, military and financial implications. The choice is not merely between maintaining, reducing or increasing Britain's role, but about priorities, which might necessitate a transfer of resources either among different sectors of the defence budget or from the defence budget to other foreign policy headings;
the military and non-military tools and resources Britain will need over the next 18 years to deal effectively with these challenges;
the personnel and training required to equip Britain to take a pro-active role in resolving security challenges before they can become major security threats;
policy choices which may heighten or precipitate potential threats, as well as approaches intended to reduce or remove the threats.

In its assessment of the U.S. Quadrennial Defense Review, published in May 1997, the National Defense Panel of the United States noted that "Effective use of diplomacy, involvement of international organizations, foreign assistance programs of various types, as well as economic and trade policy, can make important contributions to achieving our security goals." Since the Defence Review is likely to receive submissions on all these questions (and in the interests of brevity), I shall concentrate on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and Britain's role in international arms control. My area of expertise is in international diplomacy, including the United Nations, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which was indefinitely extended in 1995.

Return to top of page