National Security Strategy

[little fella]

So is it a good idea or a waste of good money on just a whim idea. Are we in danger? If we are who's fault is it?

 

The Prime Minister yesterday announced the publication of the first National Security Strategy for the United Kingdom.

 

The strategy highlights the nature of the new security challenges, how they have changed, and how we are responding. In his statement to Parliament the Prime Minister said:

 

"While our obligation to ensure the safety of the British people and to protect the national interest is fixed and unwavering, the nature of the threats and the risks we face has changed beyond recognition and confounds all the old assumptions about national defence and international security.

 

"As the national security strategy makes clear, new threats demand new approaches. A radically updated and much more coordinated response is now required.

 

"We need to mobilise all the resources available to us: the power of our military, police and security services; the persuasive force and reach of diplomacy; the authority of strengthened global institutions which, with our full support, can deploy both 'hard' and 'soft' power; and because arms and authority will never be enough, the power of ideas, of shared values and hopes that can win over hearts and minds."

 

The strategy sets out how we have learned the lessons of recent years, including experiences of terrorism and civil emergencies, but also overseas. Rwanda, the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, Burma and Kenya all show the need for the international community to be united and act decisively, but also to plan for the longer term, including supporting failing states and stabilising areas recovering from conflict, and tackling violent extremism.

 

The Prime Minister also announced:

 

* a review of our Reserves, to see how they can play a greater role in stabilisation and reconstruction in post-conflict zones;

 

* ?600m of cross-government funding for conflict prevention, resolution and stabilisation around the world over the next three years, including an immediate commitment to fund 750 Burundian troops as part of the African Union peacekeeping force in Somalia, and more help to train, equip and deploy troops for the joint UN-AU peacekeeping operation in Darfur;

 

* in Afghanistan, an integrated civilian-military HQ, building on the December plans for a more integrated approach across security, governance, and development;

 

* in Iraq, progress on the Basra Development Commission, led by Michael Wareing, promoting economic regeneration.

 

The Strategy argues that globalisation and an increasingly interdependent world bring massive opportunities, and the UK, as an outward-facing nation with global links and a focus on skills, is well placed to exploit them. But we must also recognise and address the vulnerabilities associated with globalisation: travel, modern communications, the internet, and increased trade can present opportunities for terrorism and transnational crime, or increase the risk of pandemics.

 

We need to harness globalisation to meet the challenges it generates. We need broader alliances and a reformed international architecture to tackle common challenges. The strategy sets out our intention to:

 

* reform and strengthen NATO, EU, and the UN, for example working to make the UN Security Council more representative to give greater legitimacy to decisive international action, including looking at interim solutions if necessary;

 

* offer a "new bargain" to non-nuclear powers, inviting interested countries to a London conference this year to discuss a new system to help non-nuclear states safely acquire the new sources of energy they need, including through a global enrichment bond;

 

* build bilateral and multilateral cooperation on terrorism, for example with a new agreement signed with the UAE on freezing terrorist assets.

 

As well as recognising that the challenges are increasingly global and demand global solutions, the Strategy recognises that the roots of problems are often local, as are the effects, and sets out:

 

* a new Civil Protection network, replacing the old idea of civil defence, building and strengthening local capacity to respond to a range of circumstances from floods to terrorism;

 

* a new National Risk Register, publishing information previously held privately within Government, so the public can see at first hand the risks we face, and plan accordingly;

 

* an update on the Prevent work to help local communities resist violent extremism, to be published shortly.

 

The Strategy sets out how we will build a more hard-headed, long-term, integrated approach:

 

* It reinforces the cross-government counter-terrorist effort, including expanding the inter-departmental Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, and work to strengthen protection at our borders and for crowded places.

 

* It confirms the shift in Foreign Office focus from Europe to key regions, for example the Middle East, with Embassies which used to do mainly consular work now doing political engagement and security support, for example in Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh.

 

* It reinforces the long-term focus on underlying drivers of insecurity: tackling the violent extremism which drives terrorism; conflict mediation; post-conflict stabilisation; and the effects on security of the long-term challenges of climate change and global poverty.

 

* It recognises that Government can't meet all these new challenges by itself, and commits to stronger partnerships with local authorities and communities and announces a new National Security Forum composed of business, academics, community organisations and military and security experts to advise Government.

 

* It commits to greater transparency and accountability in this increasingly important and visible area of policy, with an enhanced scrutiny and public role for the Intelligence and Security Committee, including the first public hearings.

[asperity]

Words are easy

[Paul Kennedy]

"a new National Risk Register, publishing information previously held privately within Government, so the public can see at first hand the risks we face, and plan accordingly;"

 

Could prove to be quite a helpful guide for the nutters.

 

[ 20.03.2008, 20:08: Message edited by: Paul Kennedy ]

[asperity]

It's all part of the government strategy to keep us all scared rigid, all the easier to pick our pockets.

[observer]

That may be the truth of their use of it Asp; but their is a threat risk out there; whether you believe they're likely to occur is a matter of opinion.

[Jackored7]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

[observer]

Pity we can't access it - rather wasted!

[Jackored7]

Originally posted by observer:

Pity we can't access it - rather wasted!

Why, aren't you allowed on you tube?

Is that a royal "we" or can nobody open the url?

 

[ 21.03.2008, 14:17: Message edited by: Jacko ]

[Captain Chaos]

It works.. Although you do have to click on it!!

[observer]

can't be bovvered!

[observer]

Talking of "pandemics"; seems our brilliant, none existent border protection system has allowed a Somali to enter Country, carrying an incurrable strain of TB.

[Mary]

TB can be air born if your come in contact with a coughing patient - so they are lying!

[observer]

Think he's in isolation in Glasgow, no doubt at great expense to the British taxpayer. Again, an arguement for screening these people at our Embassies abroad BEFORE granting them a visa to come here - sadly, common sense is out of the window with this Government.

[little fella]

I think that the more that you involve the half wits at Westminster in security issues the more danger there is to the country. There is a lot to be said for ' Need to know basis ' We should be able to trust our intelligence service and maybe only involve the Government at cobra meetings. We have quite a good level of ?Management? and a system to act on information it is just spoilt by ministers who know nothing , care even less and driven by performing to a budget.

There are a lot more dangers than terrorism, and far better ways of crippling a country than dropping bombs on it. The flu is just one, you only need a light aircraft to fly over the most populated town, but there are far better viruses out there, we could not cope with the dead never mind the living.

[observer]

The damage extends into the civil & police services, as the politicians have deliberately promoted political correctness above capability. The top bloke at the Met; goaded by his political superiors, has hyped the muslim terrorist threat out of all proportion to the reality; they are amateurs compared to the IRA, and we managed 30 years of them. As for methods, your right; the easiest, cheapest and most devastating attack won't be from nukes, dirty bombs or chemicals - it will be from infected persons entering this country by accident or design.

[Paul Kennedy]

Acually seems the best way to bring a country to its knees would be by attacking its electronic technolology.....or its banking system......killing people is just so 20th century.

 

Actually the nutters/terrorists/mass murderers....call them what you will, don't have to do anything at all, just leave it to those who run our financial institutions, they are able to cause far more chaos. A white 40 something male who was in charge of a medium sized Newcastle based bank has cost us at least ?100 billion with his act of economic terrorism...... :redmad:

[observer]

True Paul; but I think the current threat is more 10th Century?! Mind you, have to laugh at the di(la)lema of the West in respect of the Chinese occupation of Tibet; feeble protests, because we're desperate for trade with them, and the Yanks owe them a load of money! So it seems they've got us by the short and curlies - no need for threats!

[Paul Kennedy]

And once the Olympics are over, the Chinese will have a serious crackdown in Tibet

[asperity]

This "Strategy" is just a load of generalised waffle designed, as usual for this lot, to throw a smokescreen over the reality of our situation and make us think they are actually doing something. The reality is that they are signing the competence for any decision making over to the EU. We are fast becoming a small province of the superstate of Europe which makes the petty squabbling over Scottish independence really rather amusing for it's irrelevance in the real world. The sad thing is that the media are in on the joke, spending hours of airtime and millions of column inches discussing the lives of minor celebreties while carefully hiding the realities of what is happening to our country. As I said before words are easy and politicians are adept at spouting them.