Russian Ambition

Following its successful Arctic stunt to plant its flag on the seabed 14,000 feet beneath the north pole this week, Russia has again ramped up the Cold War rhetoric with the country's senior admiral calling for the establishment of a permanent naval base in the Mediterranean for the first time since the Soviet era. The Washington Post quotes Admiral Vladimir Masorin as saying "The Mediterranean Sea is very important strategically for the Black Sea fleet" and calling on the Russian Navy to restore its permanent presence there.

An Unquiet World

Almost before any of us have had a chance to digest Tuesday's report from the Globalisation and Global Poverty Policy Group, the Conservative Party's National and International Security Policy Group has today published its own final report, An Unquiet World. Unlike the ground-breaking first report from the Social Justice Policy Group, it is not always obvious why we had to wait eighteen months. For instance, take the first four conclusions:

• The UK has not made enough of its natural advantages in developing a close relationship with India.
• Our civil liberties at home and our human rights record abroad matter and must be upheld in a consistent manner.
• The broader Middle East is a region in turmoil. ... Iraq has made some aspects worse.
• The risk and danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction have been increased by the situation in the broader Middle East.

... Or its verdict on the key relationships and institutions:

• The continuing importance of the transatlantic Alliance.
• The vital need for functioning US European relations.
• UK security involves close partnership in Europe.
• Functioning international law and invigorated international institutions protect and promote our interests. ... The UK should put effort into UN reform generally and Security Council enlargement in particular.

None of this sounds particularly fresh or insightful. Even once it reaches the sections on security, its criticisms of Government and European policy are nothing new:

• The identity of the British people needs to be rebuilt to include minority communities on the basis of shared values and active equal citizenship.
• The UK is without arrangements in place for guaranteed energy supply or a strategic reserve available for emergencies.
• Policies being pursued by European governments towards Russia and the countries on the EU’s borders in the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe do not serve the political and security interest of member states as well as they could and should.
• It is urgent for EU leaders to agree with Turkey a way forward on the accession negotiations.
• Our armed forces which serve the nation with great professionalism round the world are overstretched and there is no reserve available for emergency. ... Their mission no longer corresponds to the real security requirements of the nation.

The real interest, therefore, doesn't come until we reach its recommendations. It suggests that an incoming Conservative government should:

• Conduct a Defence review not with the aim of inflicting further cuts, but of ensuring that our armed forces have been asked to do the right job, are properly equipped and trained and are employed on the right terms and conditions.
• Establish a dedicated force with a permanent command headquarters for homeland defence and security, to provide assistance as and when requested to the civil authorities in the event of a major terrorist incident or other national emergency.
• Maximise the influence of its considerable range of soft power assets (such as the British Council, the BBC World Service, and British university system). British diplomacy, an asset neglected by the Labour Government, should be revitalised.
• Create a National Security Council in the Cabinet Office. The FCO should be brought back from the sidelines. The FCO and DfID should develop a dedicated civil expeditionary capability.
• Adapt the method of budgeting for spending on the external aspects of national security by relevant departments (FCO, MOD, DfID) to support a national security approach and alter spending patterns to fund more adequately reform and nation building programmes relevant to the establishment of open societies.

Perhaps it should come as little surprise that "Much of the existing policy base is valid and should be built on." However, particularly coming so soon after the Prime Minister adopted Conservative calls for a unified border force (even though Brown's version turns out not be to quite as radical a reform as initially appeared), we could have hoped for a greater emphasis on those elements that would demonstrate to the public that there is in fact a difference between the major political parties — and that the Conservatives are the Party that can best meet the nation's domestic and international security challenges. ... Let's hope the next policy groups establish a little more "clear blue water" in their reports.

The Three Deals

Three deals were on the table today:

1. European Union leaders were haggling over their new constitution treaty;
2. Britain and America were discussing a new defence trade cooperation treaty; and
3. The World Trade Organisation's four most powerful members were continuing the Doha Development Agenda negotiations, aiming to help poorer countries develop their economies through new trade flows.

The last has collapsed two days early, in part because the EU, ever protective of its farm spending, was unwilling to make any real cuts in its tariffs and subsidies, though both Brussels and Washington were apparently "pleased with each other for showing flexibility." The second has been completed successfully and should enhance the trans-Atlantic partnership. The first, clearly of far greater importance to Europe's navel-gazing leaders, drags on.

Says a lot about the West's real priorities, doesn't it?

America's To Blame!

In words reminiscent of a petulant schoolboy complaining, "But he started it!" President Vladimir Putin says that Russia will once again aim its missiles at targets in Europe if U.S. plans to build a missile defense shield near Russia's borders go ahead. Putin acknowledged Russia's response risks restarting an arms race but he said Moscow would not be responsible for the consequences because Washington had started it.

I can but point to what I have already said in A Country Without A Hero, The New Cold War, and Star Wars.

Source: Reuters—Putin warns he will point missiles at Europe

Star Wars

A week ago, I reported on the financial crisis facing Europe's bid to compete with America's Global Positioning System, the Galileo project. As expected, in its bid to make the continent the world's mightiest commercial and military empire, the European Commission now looks set to fund the ailing satellite navigation system.

Ever one step ahead in this battle for control of the skies, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has today announced in Moscow that America will not allow Russia to prevent it from extending its missile defence shield into Eastern Europe. However, Washington still needs Russia's support if it is going to maintain international pressure on Iran over its nuclear programme.

So, we have Europe and America determined to prevent Iran from developing its nuclear programme, but slowly heading for conflict over Europe's potential military independence. Meanwhile, their mutual rival Russia is supplying the Islamic Republic with nuclear fuel and has today agreed to build a nuclear research centre in Burma—another pariah state.

Clearly seeing an opportunity to reassert its claim to be a superpower, Russia is now threatening to pull out of its 1987 treaty with the United States banning intermediate range nuclear forces and to end its commitments to force reductions under the Treaty on Conventional Weapons. So, when Mr Putin criticises the US for its "almost uncontained hyper use of military force" around the world and accuses it of making the world a more dangerous place, observers are surely right to talk of a new Cold War era dawning.

The question is, given this global struggle for superpower status between Europe, America, Russia, and emerging powers in the Middle East and Asia, what should Britain's role be in the new wargame? I invite your suggestions in the comments.

Battle for the Heavens

Europe's ambitious satellite-navigation system project Galileo may be grounded owing to deadlock in the consortium of private builders commissioned to construct the 30 satellites. In a sense this is both good and bad news.

The Good News

This may prove a godsend to those of us who have concerns about European anti-Americanism and who have reservations about the expansion of the European superstate. For, the Galileo project was supposed to "underpin the common European defence policy," would boost Europe's military capability independent of both NATO and the US, and risked creating the conditions whereby conflict with America would be almost inevitable. Moreover, Britain's involvement in the project as a member of the EU could jeopardise our relationship with the States and our access to technological information and advances that America might want to keep from its military competitors.

The Bad News

Next week, the EU Transport Commissioner is due to announce whether the EC is to abandon the project or, perhaps more likely, partially finance or take complete control of it. This last option would cost the European tax-payer (yes, that's you and me) an extra €2 billion (£1.35 billion) — that's in addition to the €1.5 billion (>£1 billion) that the European Commission has already allocated in its current budget period — and with each delay the project incurs additional costs, such as the unplanned signal testing satellite that the European Space Agency was forced to order earlier this year in order to maintain the rights to Galileo's frequency allocations.

Originally projected to be fully operational by next year, Galileo now risks being under construction until at least 2014. In the meantime, it is feared that China, who originally invested in Galileo, may be developing its own satnav network, as is Russia, who is expected to have 18 spacecraft in orbit by the end of this year. So, Europe may find itself paying for yet another great white elephant that nobody else wants to invest in.

Even if the EC does decide to finance the project, at least we will all have a few more years yet to think through Galileo's implications. In the pursuit of regional peace and stability, I suppose that is a price worth paying.

Beyond Trident

Just this morning, while out canvassing ahead of May's local elections (is there any other way to spend a sunny Saturday morning?!), I was discussing the pros and cons of Britain maintaining its own nuclear defence with a very traditional Conservative voter who felt that we have been reduced to a "small minnow" in the global pond. Interesting, then, to come home to the news that Labour MP Jim Devine has announced that he will resign as a ministerial aide in protest over Wednesday's Commons vote on replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system.

However, as I wrote in The Times last November, the global threat that filled the ideological vacuum left after Communism's collapse - namely, Islamism - is one that the world's leaders are still only now beginning to realise we face. Moreover, today's threat is even more poisonous than was Communism as it taps into the deeper roots of God and religion.

It is precisely because the security threat this presents every nation in the world is so very different to anything that we have faced before and, further, because we no more know what threats we may face two decades from now than we could have predicted two decades ago those we now confront that extending the life of Trident is crucial for both our country's future defence and the contribution that we can yet make to security throughout the world.