Bob Ainsworth misses the key point: our security needs have changed

By Darrell Goodliffe

Bob Ainsworth wants a “debate” on defence following the launch of the Ministry of Defence Green Paper. There were some predictable responses; the The Times waded in saying that Britain may be “broken” but not so broke that it can’t afford to continue to splash large amounts of cash on defence.

In general, the left tends not to like talking about defence except in a negative way when it opposes wars (rightly, mostly) or various things like nuclear weapons (very rightly). However, in terms of developing a positive agenda there tends to be too little said, which is bad because it engages with wider ideological debates about Britain’s role in the world and the so-called “War on Terror”.

The first thing that should be said is that the defence budget should be cut. It has ballooned under Labour at a frankly ridiculous rate; in fact, the Ministry of Defence tells us:

“By 2010/11 the Budget will be some 11% higher in real terms than in 1997, and represents the longest period of sustained growth since the 1980s.”

This is, of course, due to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is also worth noting that these figures do not cover the money funneled from other areas into the defence budgets for these two conflicts.

However, the notion that traditional military solutions are appropriate in the “War on Terror” have rightly taken a credibility bashing following the horrific human costs of both operations, which have also strained international alliances to breaking point. Greater multilateralism makes more sense in the current climate. But it’s hard to achieve in practice when one or two powers (Britain and the US in the case of Iraq) become intent on pursuing their own course of action.

Missing from the Green Paper is a recognition that fighting this war by conventional military means has been deeply short-sighted, counter-productive and disgracefully destructive of human lives and entire nations. One of the very few means of defence against terrorist attacks is good quality intelligence, something that requires transnational cooperation; the good will of other governments as opposed to the animus generated by reckless invasion. Rather than change based on this recognition the Green Paper proposes change based on the desire to cut costs to achieve the same by spending less:

“This government believes the UK’s interests are best served by continuing to play an active global role, including through the use of armed force when required.”

This is the source of the Paper’s weakness, because it fails to question the premises that underpins policy – and it is actually the fundamental premises that are flawed.

For example, the suggestion that Britain should keep a nuclear deterrent should be seen in a new light: what if these weapons were turned against us, for example? Increasingly, the public is questioning whether maintaining these weapons is appropriate financially or logistically, let alone the many moral questions which arise. So, in light of that, the continued attachment of the government to these weapons is baffling.

Rationally, the Green Paper should have recognised that things like nuclear weapons and their possession is perhaps now a greater danger than a deterrent. Money spent on defence should be cut to the bare minimum and it should either be redirected to social needs or, where appropriate, towards intelligence gathering. Let’s have the debate Ainsworth wants and watch these proposals unravel under the weight of their own contradictions.