Evaluation of the National Security Strategy

06 May 08

Following approval from the National Security Committee and members of the Cabinet, Prime Minister Gordon Brown proudly presented the National Security Strategy to the House of Commons on Wednesday 19 March. So what’s the verdict? Is this a genuine plan of action or another well-intentioned list that’ll do little more than gather dust in the corridors of Whitehall? Brian Sims evaluates the main points of order.

The ‘global interconnectedness’ to which we are all now very much privy indisputably renders it much harder for the Government to first predict and, thereafter, intervene in many social and economic situations. We’ve all seen how cartoons reproduced in Danish newspapers have created civil unrest in London, how drugs cultivated in the fields of Afghanistan can lead to violence on the streets of Glasgow and how continued political instability in the Middle East yields petrol price hikes throughout the UK.

Amid all this chaos, Government departments have commendably begun to develop a more joined-up way of approaching the interconnected world. That said, minus any strategic framework for those departments and related agencies to operate within, Whitehall has continued to suffer from a duplication of resources, the classic ‘mixed messages’ spouted by blustering politicians and infighting between managerial factions.

There’s a pressing need to cut through all of this complexity and respond positively – and swiftly – to security threats at home and abroad. Threats posed by terrorism, of course, but also disease pandemics, natural disasters, international crime and cyber attacks. These and other threats and risks are incessantly driven by a diverse and interconnected set of underlying factors including climate change, competition for energy, poverty and poor governance, demographic changes and, of course, globalisation.

On the terrorism front, the Government tells us that at any given moment the police and intelligence agencies and security personnel are having to contend with around 30 terrorist plots, 200 groups or networks (including ‘sleeper cells’) and anything up to 2,000 individuals judged by the Security Service to be posing a direct threat to our safety and well-being – and, by extension, our societal fabric.

Many of these networks share an ambition to cause mass casualties without warning. The IRA they are not. There are no prior telephone calls. We’ve also seen that today’s activists are happy to give their lives for the cause. A handful of them even harbour aspirations in the direction of CBRN. New threats like these demand new approaches to security. That alone underpins the overarching need for a well-constructed and actionable National Security Strategy.

What should the Strategy do?

OK. Assuming – as do Government ‘Think Tank’ Demos and Sir David Omand, former security and intelligence co-ordinator at the Cabinet Office – that we’re agreed on the requirement for a suitable National Security Strategy, what should it aim to accomplish?

First, it must articulate – in the plainest possible terminology – a ‘vision’ of the current and future security environment facing the UK, and ably communicate our values in the 21st Century. The document should also develop a framework for collaboration across Government on national security policy, at the same time identifying key policy areas where departments and related agencies may be more effective at working in unison.

Then there’s the requirement for prioritising national security policies and initiatives, allocating sufficient resources to ensure that defined objectives are met and bringing together the plethora of departmental White Papers published on national and international security. In short, a security ‘melting pot’ is seen by many commentators as being the only sustainable and practical way forward.

Amid much political fanfare, Prime Minister Gordon Brown duly presented – and commended – to the House the first National Security Strategy of the United Kingdom on Wednesday 19 March. Sub-titled ‘Security in an Interdependent World’, the 62-page document builds on the initial cross-Government counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST) and cross-Government counter-proliferation framework of 2006. It also follows the new strategic plan set out earlier this year for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The National Security Strategy has already been labelled by critics (including Conservative leader David Cameron and Nick Clegg, head of the Liberal Democrats) as more of a list than any kind of detailed plan. Without a serious implementation focus, they claim, there’s a real risk of it becoming merely the focus for another Westminster ‘Talking Shop’. A Cabinet Office document that will do little more than gather dust on the Home Secretary’s shelves.

Strong opinions are being voiced that the National Security Strategy is but an assessment of what ‘evils’ exist rather than any comprehensive, reasoned overview of how those threats will actually be tackled. Countering these views, Lord West – the newly-appointed security minister – is adamant that drawing up a list of threats isn’t a pointless exercise at all. Far from it, in fact. Some areas of concern are already strictly controlled by the Government, he feels, while in others “much work is needed”. Hence the need for a list.

The devil’s in the detail

What’s the real story here? Well, as ever the devil with such a document lies in the detail. First, let’s examine the proposed counter-terrorism response.

The cross-Government Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism has responsibility for implementing CONTEST which, as many of you will know, is based on four ‘workstreams’ – Pursue (stopping terrorist attacks), Protect (strengthening our protection against attack), Prepare (mitigating attack impact) and Prevent (stopping people from becoming terrorists in the first place, or preventing them from supporting demonstrably violent extremism).

The Government states that resources dedicated to counter-terrorism and intelligence have more than doubled since 2001, with an estimated £2.5 billion now being poured into the security pot. There are planned increases up to £3.5 billion by 2011, including a further £240 million for counter-terrorist policing. All of the future priorities are listed, but there isn’t much in the way of information about how they’re going to be addressed in the real world.

What about planning for civil emergencies and building resilience, then? The Government feels that a wider knowledge of the risks involved with our national security will enable communities to prepare better for them. On that basis, this summer the Government will – for the first time – publish a national level ‘Register of Risk’. That Register will include assessments of the likelihood and potential impact of a number of risks (including possible numbers of fatalities). This is underpinned by the framework provided in the Civil Contingencies Act of 2004, and will be subject to continual review. A definite step in the right direction, it must be said.

Strong and conventional forces

Holding everything together is the Prime Minister’s stated desire to “maintain strong, balanced, flexible and deployable Armed Forces”. The National Security Strategy stresses that the Government remains “totally committed to maintaining strong conventional forces capable of deterring and responding to a range of threats”.

Apparently, the defence budget has enjoyed its longest period of sustained growth since the 1980s, and will “see further real growth to 2010-2011”. The omens aren’t good, though. Experts suggest that the Army is presently 5,000 or more personnel short of what it needs to be, yet the Government is set on “continuing to favour capability over quantity”.

“The Government states that resources dedicated to counter-terrorism and intelligence have more than doubled since 2001, with an estimated £2.5 billion now being poured into the security pot. There are planned increases of up to £3.5 billion by the year 2011.”

The Royal Navy may well be seeing new Type 45 destroyers launched at the cool cost of £1 billion a time, but the reality is that, post-1987, the Navy’s capability has been dramatically and drastically reduced. 54% of its frigates and destroyers are gone (down from 54 in 1987 to 25 today, and possibly to 20 in the near future). 66% of submarines have been ‘lost’, too (representing a decrease from 38 nuclear-powered and conventional boats to only 13 attack boats and Trident subs).

To raise recruitment and improve retention levels, the Government has said it will match its £2 million public information campaign with the first-ever cross-departmental strategy for supporting Armed Forces personnel. Increased commitment bonuses of up to £15,000 are in the pipeline for longer-serving personnel. Cynics might construe this as a none-too-subtle form of bribery. Is it not a parlous situation if individuals have to be paid to stay on in the Forces? Maybe our servicemen and women should be remunerated with what they are most certainly worth in the first place, or is that suggestion a tad too naïve and idealistic?

The time has come for promises to materialise. In the current political climate, surely nothing less than a full strategic defence review is warranted?

Government officials have just confirmed that the National Security Strategy proposals will have to be paid for out of existing budgets. In the same breath, we’re told that the Ministry of Defence is facing “acute cost pressures” (mainly because of the rise in equipment monies, where £1 billion has been spent in the past 12 months). How is that going to work?

One can only hope that defence secretary Des Browne can do what no-one else is capable of and square two circles.

Security Service on the rise

We’re also told that Security Service personnel numbers will rise above 4,000, with the Prime Minister confirming that resources for the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre are to shoot up by 10%, in turn “giving it a new focus on the longer-term challenge of investigating the path to violent extremism”.

In his speech to Parliament, Gordon Brown continued: “To meet future security needs we have set aside funds for modernising our interception capability. At GCHQ, we are developing new technical capabilities to root out terrorism.” The Centre for the Protection of Critical National Infrastructure was also mentioned in terms of its ability to “provide a higher level of protection against Internet or cyber-based threats”.

The Government’s desire to harness a much wider range of experience and expertise from outside Westminster – and plan adequately for the future – means that business leaders, academics, community organisations and experts from the security and the military will be invited to join an all-new National Security Forum (designed to advise the National Security Committee). There’s also going to be “an enhanced scrutiny of” – and an increased public role for – the Intelligence and Security Committee overseeing MI5 and MI6, the theory being that this move should beget more extensive Parliamentary debate on security matters, public hearings on the new National Security Strategy and “greater transparency” over appointments to the Committee.

Joined-up intelligence sources

Gordon Brown is also following Tony Blair on to the world stage, it seems, by pledging to support fragile and failing States and making a 1,000-strong UK civilian standby ‘Task Force’ available that could be sent to trouble spots at a moment’s notice. This will include police, emergency services professionals, Judges and professional trainers (among others). All very laudable indeed.

The Government is right to desire a detailed understanding of what is now an increasingly complex security environment in which many elements are interwoven. Ultimately, the need is not only to comprehend the interactions and interdependence of the various information systems, but also the individuals and infrastructures upon which they rely.

Undoubtedly, this necessarily demands a serious level of trust across the various security communities and major industry players. It’s a challenge that must be met head-on.

The increased speed and accuracy demanded of the intelligence infrastructure set against the backdrop of an increasingly pernicious and sophisticated cyber threat means that information systems of today and tomorrow must be watertight. What’s more, they have to remain so. Systems that cannot be altered to defeat threats as they appear will become redundant faster than you can say: “Trojan Horse”. Collaboration is what’s needed here rather than the development of any messy turf war over market share.

The Prime Minister also stated in his Commons delivery that, since 9/11, 300 individuals have been prevented from entering the country on suspicion that they’re a threat to security (or suspected of fostering extremism). Gordon Brown said: “Backing up our unified Border Agency, compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals and our proposals in the Counter-Terrorism Bill that, in unique circumstances, we can extend detention to ensure the full investigation of terror threats, the Government will match stronger action against those we suspect of stirring up tensions with collaborative work alongside our European partners to strengthen EU rules on deporting criminals.” This is very good news.

What’s the considered verdict?

According to the Prime Minister, the National Security Strategy shows a Britain resolute in the face of an unstable and increasingly uncertain international security landscape and that, in recent times, valuable lessons have been learned not only by us but also other countries.

That’s all well and good, but the moment for concerted action is now long overdue. The Government simply must focus on effective implementation and be quick about it. Otherwise, this latest missive will indeed become another well-meaning Cabinet Office report that merely gathers dust.

If truth be told, on this occasion there really isn’t anything Earth-shattering in the Government’s proposals. It’s an interesting and reasonably useful effort that plots a course but, in parts, smacks of being a clever PR exercise polished by cleverly chosen statistics.

Westminster reality must now replace the populist rhetoric and carefully-formed spin so prevalent of late in British politics.