Is it really a NATIONAL Security Strategy? August 2008.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown brought forth another new National Security Strategy on 19th March 2008. Baroness Ashton of Upholland presented a statement about it in the Lords on July 22nd 2008.
Official Journal of the EU, C 321/6 dated 31.12.2003.
Its main aim, it says, is to safeguard the nation, its citizens, our prosperity and our way of life, against a constantly changing security environment. Also mentioned was the proposals to address and manage increasingly diverse but interconnected set of security challenges and some of the underlying factors including Climate change, competition for energy, poverty and Globalisation.
A number of “Committee’s” will be set out to do various tasks, one of which will be specifically to give the public information about risks to the UK from natural disasters, accidents and malicious threats over the next five years so that those who wish to can prepare for the Consequences. Hummmmm!
What a wonderful idea, and how strange for this Government to actually come up with something positive, all by itself. Why is it talking about some thing over the next five years when there is to be a general election in between?
However, In July 2007, the Prime Minister asked his right honourable friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr Ingram) to undertake a detailed study into the role of the Ministry of Defence in counterterrorism and resilience. Mr Ingram has now submitted his report.
“His study provides a thorough analysis of the Ministry of Defence’s role and of the capabilities it brings to bear in support of the Government’s counterterrorism strategy—CONTEST—and domestic resilience. It reinforces a central theme of the national security strategy—that security threats and hazards are intertwined, with no simple distinctions between defence and wider security and between domestic and overseas considerations. It endorses the direction in which the Government are moving the security agenda, and it makes a number of recommendations as to how the Ministry of Defence could further refine its support in these important areas”.
Given the sensitive nature of the study, its classification prevents its publication. The Government will respond to it once they have had the opportunity to consider the recommendations. 22 July 2008: Column WS135
Chapter four (Page 27) introduces, Counter-terrorism
4.2 Since 2001, we have significantly enhanced our capability to deal with the terrorist threat to the United Kingdom and to our citizens and interests overseas. We have worked to integrate our approach across Government, to develop partnerships outside government, and to enhance cooperation overseas – with the United States, Europe, and the Commonwealth, with governments across the Islamic world, and with
multilateral organisations.
4.3 Chapter One summarised recent changes to bring greater integration to
our approach, through the establishment of the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, the
multi-departmental Research, Information, and Communications Unit, and the crossgovernment Office for Security and Counter- Terrorism, which has responsibility for implementing our cross-government counterterrorism strategy, CONTEST.
4.4 CONTEST is an integrated approach based on four main workstreams each with a clear objective:
– Pursue: stopping terrorist attacks
– Protect: strengthening our protection against attack
– Prepare: mitigating the impact of attacks
– Prevent: stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting violent extremism.
1 The wider scope of issues to be addressed within this strategy is not to be taken as affecting the legally understood meaning of national security.
2 Although national security matters generally are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government and Parliament, some areas of policy covered in this document are the responsibility of devolved administrations and legislatures. In these cases decisions will ultimately be for the devolved institutions concerned. In the European context, the Lisbon Treaty makes it clear that ultimate responsibility for our national security lies with the United Kingdom. (My comments here=if only our National security was ALLOWED to remain with our sovereign Country? What a mess already when NATIONAL SECURITY is no longer NATIONAL because of the devolution brought about in the hurry to have EU REGIONS in this Country, for SCOTLAND IS INDEED ONE REGION OF THE EUROPEN UNION.) See Article 188R Lisbon and then read the EU SOFA Directive Official Journal of the EU, C 321/6 dated 31.12.2003.
3 There are five threat levels: low, meaning an attack is unlikely; moderate, meaning an attack is possible, but not likely; substantial, meaning an attack is a strong possibility; severe, meaning an attack is highly likely; and critical, meaning an attack is expected imminently.
Ah yes, and then I remember the UK’s Protection of Critical Infrastructure and also the EU’s Protection of Critical Infrastructure, which will eventually be implemented with or without a Treaty. Some time ago, I sent an article I had written about this Subject. For those that are interested and have not seen it, I will send should anyone wish to have a copy.
It is also as well to remember the UK’s controversial Civil Contingencies Act 2004, for the three are intertwined.
*****************************
This is from the EU paper by David Spence, Political counsellor of the European Commission. “EU member states regarded the sensitive areas of foreign, security and defence policy as central to their notion of national sovereignty. (Ah, just a ‘notion’ eh? AP) They resisted the pooling of sovereignty that had long existed within the economic and other internal fields, or in foreign trade. They were particularly allergic to placing any control of the resources devoted to security, or of specific operational decisions, in collective European hands. And this national reticence was compounded by significant differences in foreign policy culture, experience and expectations within member states”.
“The EU Security Strategy (ESS), prepared by the High Representative for CFSP, Javier Solana, and adopted by the European Council in December 2003, was one of the first fruits of this realisation. The strategy document identified terrorism as a key threat to the European Union and a prime field for action. The ESS linked terrorism to other key threats, including state failure, regional conflicts, proliferation and organised crime, all themes further adumbrated in the “Headline Goal 2010, approved by the European Council under the Irish presidency at Dublin on 17/18 June 2004”.
“The Commission is also advocating the establishment of a new coordination mechanism for the exchange of information – a clearing house mechanism – where law enforcement, judicial authorities and intelligence services meet to enhance mutual trust and exchange operational intelligence enabling each to perform its duty properly. (Highlighting mine=AP)
Europol and Eurojust would need to be fully involved, together with national intelligence and law enforcement networks. Priorities would cover recruitment to terrorist organisations, identification of sleeping cells, their financial powerbases in civil society and their external connections. The exchange of information among and between national authorities and at EU level clearly needs improvement. The EU needs a comprehensive methodology for the exchange of information, but the proposed new coordination mechanism is meant neither to be a European CIA nor merely a second pillar instrument. Terrorism is both an internal and an external security matter. The mechanism proposed would exchange information mostly within a third pillar umbrella, but existing Community, Union, international and national networks would benefit from enhanced dialogue among themselves”
IV. Conclusions
European integration has been neither smooth nor steady. The inherent political difficulty of achieving new surrenders of competence to the centre and harmonisation of national practice means that moments of great crisis and popular emotion may offer the only chance to jump hurdles to progress. 9/11 may prove to have been one such moment. With the end of the cold war and the subsequent emergence of ‘rogue states’ and new and exacerbated forms of international terrorism, it is now widely recognized that security must be analysed and managed not only between states but also at the sub-national, regional and global levels.
****************************
Mr Gijs de Vries, The first European Union Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, was mentioned in David Spence’s Article and here is a paragraph from that learned Gentleman at the conference on Terrorism's Global Impact Herzliya, Israel, 12 September 2005. Incidentally, I do not think this speech is available any longer on Internet-however, I can send, although this below is on the last page of a rather long speech.
“It is time for me to conclude. The role of the European Union in combating terrorism has grown significantly. Some might say: surprisingly quickly, in view of the highly sensitive nature of the subject - after all, no other issue is more central to national sovereignty than the protection of national security. In the near future the EU's coordinating responsibilities will be extended further to the protection of critical national infrastructure and civil protection. Still, two caveats are in order. The EU is not a federal state; the main instruments in the fight against terrorism, including police forces, judicial authorities and security agencies, will remain under the control of national authorities. (I say “FOR NOW” or until, or IF the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified.) The role of the EU, therefore, is not to replace its member states, but to coordinate their actions and to facilitate their cross-border co-operation, including in the field of foreign affairs. Second, while as a result of increased European co-operation Europeans today on the whole are better protected than a few years ago, Europe remains vulnerable. The terrorist threat has changed; it has not diminished.
GERMANY.
I now look at Germany’s Security Strategy that came out this Year. May 2008 in which they declare that although it is one of the safest countries in the world. Like Britain, Germany also is concerned with ‘the Environment’ “Still, our security is threatened by terrorism, organized crime, energy and resource dependency, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and armament, regional conflicts, failed states, migration, pandemics and epidemics; the consequences of climate change could further exacerbate these security risks. AND, “All of this directly or indirectly influences Germany’s security. Germany will only be able to effectively confront the security risks of a globalized world in close alliance with other nations. Moreover, managing these challenges will require a comprehensive security strategy that includes domestic and economic policy, energy and environmental policy, fiscal, as well as research and education policy in addition to the classic areas of foreign, European, defence, human rights and development policies”
“The objective of our security policy also includes helping create systems of collective security in other regions that contribute to our security in Europe. We can only convince other states to forego nuclear weapons if they reside in a secure regional environment. In non-proliferation policy we rely on the nuclear deterrence of NATO and our other allies to protect us from attacks with weapons of mass destruction in addition to conventions, export controls and sanctions”.
In order to establish maritime security outside of Germany’s territorial waters on the open seas, clear legal provisions must be made allowing the German Navy to pursue terrorists or pirates into foreign territorial waters (with the consent of the individual
Countries involved).
2. Strengthen Civil and Military Instruments for Crisis Management and Prevention Abroad We must strengthen our capabilities to make an even more effective
contribution to crisis management and prevention.
Germany is actively committed to work in crisis management together with its allies and NGOs. We must have the capacity to act before a crisis occurs. If violent conflict cannot be averted, we must be prepared to combat it in its place of origin, especially if we can anticipate negative consequences for Germany’s security and that of its citizens.
****************************
FRANCE
French President Nicolas Sarkozy yesterday (17 June) presented a major overhaul of his country's defence doctrine, revealing a shift away from French "exceptionalism" in favour of a stronger European defence outlook.
I read that: -“ To the annoyance of several MEPs, the publication of the White Paper had been delayed until after last week's Irish referendum to avoid giving the 'neutral' Irish another reason to vote 'no' (EurActiv 10/06/08). Indeed, Dublin had voiced strong apprehension regarding the new set of rules contained in the Lisbon Treaty, aimed at facilitating closer defence cooperation among the 27 member states.
The French strategy follows this line, calling upon the EU to increase its planning and operational capability, both military and civilian. It also pushes for a restructuring of the European defence industry in terms of pooling national resources as individual European countries "can no longer master every technology and capability at national level".
The paper further stresses the importance of achieving the EU's headline goal of setting up a rapid intervention force with a capability of 60,000 soldiers, deployable for up to one year around the globe, as agreed by EU leaders at the Helsinki Summit in December 2003”.
Actually, he kind of “lets the cat out of the bag.”
*******************************************
And then there is, Polish Defense Policy in the Context of National Security Strategy though from June 2006. Not quite as updated as those above, however, this is what it says, “Abstract: Since the turn of this century, stability on the European continent has to a large degree depended on political-military cooperation among European countries as well as the establishment of common goals to eliminate current threats and risks such as terrorism. As far as Poland is concerned, its priority is to be an active leader in improving common security policy within the boundaries of the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Polish security policy and strategy is shaped by its geographical location, which places Poland in NATO's main strategic area opposite the Russian Federation and Belarus. In other words, Poland sees itself as the eastern edge of NATO's area and as a front-line country. This motivates Poland to support NATO's further enlargement to the East because Warsaw understands that it is a primary key to stability in Europe and has a responsibility to support NATO activities in this region. This thesis analyzes the character of Polish Defense Policy after integration into NATO and the EU, and the impact this policy has had on its national interests. It focuses specifically on Poland's ongoing efforts to adjust its defense policy and strategy to meet contemporary demands through political-military cooperation and dialog with its allies.
****************************************
As far as Ireland is concerned, I have only come across an old paper signed by Bertie Ahearn in 2004 in the Irish Times when it reported that, “Last year, the EU drew up a European Security Strategy. "Crucially for Ireland, this strategy backs a strong and effective United Nations. Against this background, I especially welcome the growing UN policy of using regional organisations to assist it in carrying out its peacekeeping and conflict resolution functions."
And, "I want to make it clear today in any consideration of Irish troops acting overseas that this Government will not allow our policy of military neutrality to be eroded. The triple-lock will remain. Ireland will only participate in military activity overseas with Government, Dáil and UN mandate."
****************************************
Having given you a smattering of all those Countries, of course the EU are involved. The EU is relying on “A Secure Europe in an Uncertain World” from 12th December 2003. AND Civilian Crisis Management, where it says, “The Union has decided to develop the civilian aspects of crisis management in four priority areas defined by the Feira European Council in June 2000: police, strengthening of the rule of law, strengthening civilian administration and civil protection.
The specific capabilities in these four fields could be used in the context of EU-led autonomous missions, or in the context of operations conducted by lead agencies, such as the UN or the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe).
Police: The European Union aims to be capable of carrying out any police operation, from advisory, assistance and training tasks to substituting to local police forces. Member States have undertaken to provide up to 5000 police officers by 2003, of whom up to 1 400 can be deployed in under 30 days.
Strengthening the rule of law:-Efforts deployed on an international scale to reinforce and if necessary restore credible local police forces can only be successful if a properly functioning judicial and penitentiary system backs up the police forces. Member States have undertaken to provide nearly 300 officers in charge of crisis management operations in that area (prosecutors, judges, prison officers).
We then move on to a more up to date article –2008- EU Civilian Headline Goal. Where it states. “In June 1999, the Cologne European Council declared, "the Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so". Later that year, the European Council (Helsinki, December 1999) emphasized - with explicit reference to the developments in Kosovo earlier that year -
the importance of enhancing and better co-ordinating the EU's and Member States' nonmilitary crisis response tools as well. The European Council in Feira in June 2000 followed suit by identifying four priority areas for EU civilian crisis management: Police, Rule of Law, Civilian Administration and Civil Protection.
In December 2003, the European Council adopted the European Security Strategy; a
comprehensive strategic framework setting out global challenges and key threats for the EU. This allowed the EU to pursue in a focused way the development of crisis management capabilities needed under ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy) to face such challenges and threats.
In order to guide EU capability development in line with the ambition set out in the European Security Strategy, the European Council endorsed, in June 2004, a military Headline Goal with a 2010 horizon and an Action Plan for Civilian Aspects of ESDP. 4. The Action Plan reaffirmed the level of EU ambition in the field of Civilian Crisis Management. It defined "measures to be carried out in order to develop and operationalize civilian capabilities, including work on a consolidated Civilian Headline Goal". This work was begun in the second semester of 2004 and led to the endorsement by the European Council, in December 2004, of the Civilian Headline Goal 2008 (CHG 2008) 5. Thus, the European Council put both military and civilian capability development on separate parallel tracks, where the civilian process was to take place over a timeframe that was shorter (2008) than that of the military (2010).
The CHG 2008 contained a summary of the ESDP ambitions in the civilian realm, as well as the outline of a comprehensive process for the planning and development of the civilian capabilities necessary to fulfil these ambitions. The CHG 2008 process started in early 2005 and was overseen by the Political and Security Committee (PSC), supported by the Committee for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management (CIVCOM). It was conducted by the EU Council General Secretariat with the support of relevant experts (an overview of all CHG 2008 expert workshops is at Annex 1).
I do urge you to read this in full.
The debates on the UK’s Protection of Critical Infrastructure were frightening to say the least; whether they will last the course I have no idea. I am sure even if they have stalled for now, they will come in one day. I followed the debates on them word for word and I could not really believe that our own Politicians would agree to any of this. Yet, Critical Infrastructure in the EU’s Justice and Home Affairs Council 5-6 June has reached political agreement on a Commission proposal for a Directive on the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructure (ECI) and the assessment of the need to improve their protection. The entry into force of the Directive is envisaged before the end of 2008. The Lisbon Treaty does indeed make clear that the ultimate responsibility for our national security lies with the United Kingdom. What the Lisbon Treaty did not make clear was that this would or may come in under a binding EU Directive or EU Law, or the possibility through a ratified and active Lisbon bring forth a new EU Treaty that does not require debates in National Parliaments nor any agreement from those once sovereign independent States.
Never in the whole of the history of this Country has any foreigner been allowed to have a hand in our NATIONAL SECURITY. At the height of the last war when bombs were falling each and every night on the major City’s of this Country, thousands killed, babies and children among them, it would have been TREASON if any person had given such information away. That person may have been lynched before “due process” could have overtaken them. In fact if any British person had given any information away to “the then enemy” it would have been TREASON and a matter of hanging by the neck until dead.
For any who may be thinking I do not know what I am talking about, I lived near the Manchester Ship Canal at the start of the last war and about three quarters of a mile away from the holding tanks of Gas and Oil which were next to the Great Power Station which in turn was by the Barton (Swing) Bridge and the Aqueduct. The Manchester Ship Canal was a vital link in those days. We, including myself, were bombed out twice from our home and the second time we never moved back to Lancashire, remaining in Staffordshire. I know exactly how the bombs sound, I know what shrapnel looks like, I know what it looks like when the whole street where houses once stood are just piles of rubble, and I know how many people felt when 14 nurses were killed when the Salford Royal Hospital was bombed in 1941. So many friends died, and ALL for WHAT? There were signs all over the place reminding people that, “Careless talk costs lives”. Our own MP’s should remember that phrase for being careless with the people’s security can cost the lives of many people and can cost this Country its freedom. Oh, how easily they forget the price others before them have paid so that they may live in peace, working with each other yet still at liberty to govern for their own people, forever, though they appear to have chosen to let foreigners do that. Each year they stand and lay wreathes at the Cenotaph having betrayed the very people those they lay wreaths for that special day, lay down their lives for them all. WHY?
We have nations as friends; some counted Russia as friends especially the European Union and have not the EU given them financial “aid” at times? Yet here we have this ‘friend’ saying it would “Nuke” one of the EU Countries. Can’t this or ANY British Government even begin to realise that the time will come when the EU disintegrates as it surely will one day, that a British Government will have forgotten HOW to Govern completely, and that there will be no resources of our own left, for the EU is making sure of that, with each Country obeying ALL its commands. This should bring home that friends fall out from time to time, but when Leaders of Countries fall out, it can end in the deaths of a lot of people.
Who are WE in this Country to be upset about Russia sending ITS tanks into a “sovereign” Country? Haven’t our Leaders done exactly that in Iraq? Are not our forces losing their lives because of ‘THAT’ lie? When Leaders of Countries ignore the people as they have done recently, not just here in this Country but in other Countries tied into the EU, and our own MP’s have quite deliberately ignored our long standing Constitution and appear set in their determination to destroy it, the EU project will, without the people behind them, fail in the end. I just hope it will be without bloodshed. (According to R v Thistlewood 1820, to destroy the Constitution, is an Act of Treason)
I regard the giving away of anything that is connected with our National Security to be the act of a traitor. Others may also see it as that in time. It is putting all the people in this Country at risk. These once FREE people are now watched, every detail that can be gathered about them to be held on Data Bases and shared with any Organisation that wants it-yet our defences, manpower and resources to be shared also among foreign States. All other Countries in the EU and probably some outside the EU in no time at all would know this Countries strengths and its weaknesses. It is sheer foolishness, absolute folly and weakness in what should be strong and secure leadership. If these present Members of our Government do not want the responsibility that comes with governing this once great Country, they should stand down now before any more irreparable damage and treachery is done by them.
We can, should and must work with other Countries but never be ruled or governed by them forever, (there was no point in fighting a war, if the intention is to give away our National Security and its professional secrets that may belong to other Country’s that are involved with the United Kingdom-yes, such as the USA) which really is the intention of the EU. Lisbon made that clear, for it was to be the last Treaty for a long time-especially as it had the right to bring in what it liked-How could ANY Government that was loyal and true to the Sovereign and through the Sovereign-the people of this Country, even think of agreeing to that? Is the ‘end game’ World Government? That will never happen and the leaders should begin to understand that too. The people’s money is beginning to run out and if Global Warming is FACT, the world as we know it, will come to an end before World Government can happen.
We were never governed by the USA in the last war, but we know if they had not come to fight with us, along side of us and for us, we would have lost that war. We had a truly great leader through that war and the true hand of friendship when needed even though it took this Country many years to pay off that financial debt we owed them.
We can work with the European Union but the British people will never be governed permanently by them or ever give their loyalty to them. Anne Palmer
***********************************
UK National Security Strategy on=ours is the long-winded one.
http://interactive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/documents/security/national_security_strategy.pdf
A National Security Strategy for Germany.
And on the White House would you believe they too have a National Security Strategy where Dr. Condoleezza Rice Discusses President's National Security Strategy on
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021001-6.html
See also pdf file Countering International Terrorism: The United Kingdom’s
Strategy July 2006 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and departmental logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Any enquiries relating to the copyright in this document should be addressed to The Licensing Division, HMSO, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: licensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk. A 38-page report. Very good on
http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/contest-report
A 25-page response regarding countering International terrorism, by David Spence
http://www.iehei.org/bibliotheque/Spence-International%20Terrorism.pdf
France unveils new security strategy with EU focus http://www.euractiv.com/en/security/france-unveils-new-security-strategy-eu-focus/article-173463 The White Paper is in French, Or http://agonist.org/shdejong/20080625/france_adopts_a_multilateral_defence_strategy The White Paper is in French.
A secure Europe in a better world, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf
Polish Security Strategy on http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA451306
Ireland, Irish Times.
http://www.forumoneurope.ie/index.asp?COMMAND=PRINTER&docID=568&locID=210
EU Civilian Crisis Management
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=1346&lang=EN&mode=g
EU Civilian Headline Goal (2008) 45 pages on: -
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/Final_Report_on_the_Civilian_Headline_Goal_2008.pdf
More on http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=1378&lang=EN&mode=g
EU Programme for EU Protection of Critical Infrastructure (Green Paper)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0576en01.pdf
A brief Summary of the Civil Contingences Act 2004 is here
http://www.ukresilience.gov.uk/preparedness/ccact.aspx
30 page Gov Research paper on. Interesting comments by Lord Goldsmith QC on page 13-re 28 days detention.
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2008/rp08-052.pdf
Dr. Condoleezza Rice Discusses President's National Security Strategy
Waldorf Astoria Hotel, New York, New York. Not noted in the Article above, but worth reading.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021001-6.html
EU Security Council
http://www.globalpowereurope.eu/2007/07/we-need-european-security-council.html
To match the UN Security Council
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8698.doc.htm
SECURITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZES DEPLOYMENT OF EUROPEAN UNION FORCE TO SUPPORT
UNITED NATIONS MISSION DURING DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ELECTIONS
Resolution 1671 (2006) Adopted Unanimously
*****************************************************************************************
The EU needs its own Security Council
Posts
