Navigation

Primary Navigation

Secondary Navigation

Talking Politics

Back to Talking Politics home

Search

What's Britain's place in the new world order?

Wed Jul 01 11:44AM

The respected IPPR think tank has published a report on Britain's defence status in a volatile geo-political climate.

By Alex Stevenson

Focusing on Trident's future merely scratches the surface of the commission on national security's final report. It promises something much grander: a fundamental revision of the world order, and Britain's place in it.

At the heart of the assumptions in this report, hashed out across two painstaking years, is a pragmatism offering a radical reassessment of our defence priorities for the 21st century.

Its vision is of a nation threatened as much as by climate change as it is by armies. Nuclear proliferation and the perils of international terrorism loom as large as 20th century atomic armageddon. Swine flu and cybercrime offer threats as intangible as the guns of the last 100 years were brutally real.

There are ways and means of addressing these shifts, of course. The government's updated national security strategy, announced last week, is testament to that.
Yet the report wants to go much, much further. It is fundamentally dissatisfied with the status quo. And it has the crucial insight to realise that finite resources mean tough choices have to be made.

Part of its frustration with the existing set-up is the lack of organisation in matching Britain's responses to security risks to the reality. That's why a national security council is sought, a way of rationalising all government efforts under the umbrella of a single body.
Another element is its hostility towards maintaining the outdated cold war model of defence focusing solely on conventional armed forces. "We're no longer living in the context of the old cold war," commission co-chairman Paddy Ashdown urged.

Britain needs much more than the capability to fight the sorts of wars it has fought for centuries. Aircraft carriers, for example, fall heavily under the microscope. As Charles Guthrie, a former chief of the defence staff, put it: "How good are aircraft carriers at chasing Somali pirates in shallow waters in the Gulf of Aden?"

This, therefore, is the context within which the Trident question must be aired.

"We are not saying we should scrap Trident," IPPR deputy chair Ian Kearns explained. "We do say we should look at it again and... consider all options for a minimum possible deterrent."

As co-chair George Robertson put it: "It's a question of spending more effectively. This is a time for urgent action and hard choices."

There is no need for any action to be taken to renew Britain's nuclear deterrent until 2014; but that is the timeframe the commission is currently operating on.
If it gets its way and succeeds in influencing the manifestoes for parties fighting the next national election, the most pressing need will be the next strategic defence review.

Here is a key goal, however: it is a strategic security review which the report demands is necessary. Only this holistic approach will give the government the utility it needs to effectively make a real difference.

David Omand, a former permanent secretary in the Home Office, knows more than most the importance of this. He's worried by the ability of government to make the right decisions. "The Cabinet secretary has to have somebody by his side who can devote the time to bringing together all these different interests," he said.

The commission is strong on the bureaucratic solutions needed to combat the rise of the security challenge in coming years. On the wider context within which Britain is operating, however, it has the benefit of Lord Ashdown's experience to articulate an imposing prospect for the next few decades.

"I suspect we are seeing the beginning of the end of nearly 600 years of western power, western values and western institutions," he said, suggesting Iraq and Afghanistan could be the last military interventions mustered solely by western states.

"We are going to have different priorities in a multipolar world, and so is the United States. If we're going to do things in the world, we're going to have to reach out."

With severe constraint on defence spending expected, the IPPR report is brutally realistic about the expanded needs of security issues.

"To paraphrase Clausewitz," Lord Ashdown finished, "'this is no longer an issue which can be left to the generals'."

Comments11 - 20 of 224

We - the british people - won't get a choice on our place in the imaginary 'new world order' - corrupt and greedy politicians will posture and spend as they like and we - the people - are powerless..... unless you'd like to start a revolution...

From secondgardener on Wed Jul 01 12:59PM
Report abuse
We - the british people - won't get a choice on our place in the imaginary 'new world order' - corrupt and greedy politicians will posture and spend as they like and we - the people - are powerless..... unless you'd like to start a revolution...

From secondgardener on Wed Jul 01 01:01PM
Report abuse
Alas, what the Catholic Church has feared for centuries has come, "New World Order" in latin, NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM. And guess who the keyplayers are? The Freemasons!!! Yes!! A classified report by the vatican detailed the intricate plan of Freemasons to set up a New World Order in order to control the globalized world. And how did they do it??? They founded WHO - world health organization, Unicef, IMF, World Bank, Nato. all these world organizations are run by freemasons. The elites in every country are freemasons, the bankers, the generals, the prime ministers, the presidents. and anyone who come their way are assassinated..no surprise some presidents or prime ministers were assassinated or deposed by any means. this is not a conspiracy theory. the vatican knew it all along. but rather kept it silent because some of her charities' funding may have come from freemasons vault. till here fellas..you got questions email me -- the philosopher --

From bigblue_pinoy7 on Wed Jul 01 01:01PM
Report abuse
Our enemies, namely the Islam world are not abroad in Afganistan, they are over here in the Uk in ever increasing numbers taking over from the inside. We need our soldiers back to defend our borders not fight abroad. At this rate of third world immigration we will be no power at all, we will be a 7th century backward Islam state.

From zippyc2003 on Wed Jul 01 01:03PM
Report abuse
In the context of any ability to influence a world hell-bent on self_destruction Britain probably has very little influence since nations generally act in isolotion, their leaders concerned only in retaining power by inflating any issue that can be presented as a pursuit of the 'National' interest. It should not be lost sight of however, that Britain's loss of power and influence stems to a great degree from the time when our country, against seemingly impossible odds and at great personal sacrifice to itself and to its people, held at bay, single-handedly, one of the most malignent forces ever to inflict itself on humanity and whatever the degree of memory-supression that same humanity chooses to embrace, history will remember and record the fact.

From albertn on Wed Jul 01 01:05PM
Report abuse
A new world order? It might be best if we try to get our own house into order first.

From lowk8me on Wed Jul 01 01:07PM
Report abuse
In my opinion the European Union need to combine a large mutual defence force of all its members to compete with the USA, Soviet Union and others in the world. The costs would be shared all round and good technology and equipment would be available for each countries military. Arms and Ammunition could be standardised at massive savings, and a mutual defence plan would benefit each E

From les.ingram on Wed Jul 01 01:10PM
Report abuse
Britian's place in the New World Order (my cap's) is what it will make of it, like anywhere else. It is well established historically, and as an industrialised 'advanced' society has many advantages. One of the material questions is whether it will be part of the problem(s) or part of the Solution(s) (sorry to be a bit 60's...).
::
IMO, the struggles of humanity will be about resources and the balance (or inbalance) between Human Beings (and to some extent all creatures), in crude terms, the have's and have not's. IF the Human Race wakes up from it's ignorances and the dominance of biology over the intellect (do you think that the Human Being is driven by his intelligence?), then it may, just may have a chance to survive, even beyond the obliteration of planet and solar system, which is scheduled on the Universal Clock to happen in 250,000,000 years or so (bit of a guess on the number, but although it's big, it's not infinite).
::
But then, Humans do not have much (if any) of a track record in addressing fundemental issues impacting on the welfare of the Species and it's longevity does it? Quite the reverse it seems to me.
::
Now as to the 'New World Order' (conspiracy theory time...)? Yes, I am sure there are forces at work along those lines. No surprise there. Just look at history for examples. It's obviously a Human characteristic. None of them have any chance of succeeding, anymore than Hitler could eliminate the Jews,as there is a truth that few Humans accept:
::
We are not in control of our destiny. We can influence it, no more. If when our Sun reaches the end of it's life (as a Sun), and obliterates most (if not all) of the Solar System, we are able to stop it, then maybe we could be in a position to control our destiny. Maybe.
::
Britain's place will result from whether it becomes an 'Little Island Nation', or continues to grow as a Global force is yet to be seen. I am fairly confident based on history that it will err on the more positive and constructive side. If so, it's place in the new world order will be part of solutions rather than problems. If not, then I fear the future is not so bright...

From chris_bean on Wed Jul 01 01:21PM
Report abuse
Britains place in the "New World Order" - one world government, one world banking system, one world army, one world education, etc, etc will to simply be just another member country of the "United States of Europe", with no real say in the matter, as the powers that be, will be pulling all of the strings and will finally have complete control over the future of mankind. Nothing to do with conspiracies - simply fact that the mainstream media is not allowed to make public knowledge.

From spncom on Wed Jul 01 01:24PM
Report abuse
I did "get out on the streets and protest" the last time. So did approx. 2 million others. Fat lot of good it did.

From marionandpete on Wed Jul 01 01:25PM
Report abuse