As Delivered:
Military Transparency and Cooperation
Baroness Ann Taylor
Minister for International Defence and Security
I am delighted to be here, representing the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence. This is my first time at such a dialogue. Previous contributors from the United Kingdom have told me that this is a very important event, a good opportunity to shape the narrative on the vital global security challenges facing us all, and a great opportunity to meet defence and security colleagues from across this region and beyond. They were certainly right in that advice. I would like to add my thanks to the IISS and our hosts for their arrangements this weekend.
I want to talk about the global security challenges that face us all today, and the importance of defence transparency and cooperation if we are to deal with these issues effectively. We all accept the fact of living in a global economy. Likewise, globalisation has the same significance in terms of these security challenges, with consequences for our collective responses. This is my basic premise.
It is often said that the Asia-Pacific region can be characterised as the ‘engine’ of a globalising world. It has been said this weekend. Therefore, a globalised world also shares its risks. Consider the depth and breadth of the current response to the international financial crisis; it affects us all. Although we may each take mitigating action, the impact of these actions is much greater if we have a coordinated response.
It is also apparent in tackling climate change. There is a serious risk that more states will face failure, and the potential for conflict will be exacerbated in those regions of the world that are worse affected. Clearly we should all strive to combat climate change, and to mitigate its effects. However, we must recognise that the international community will be under pressure to tackle the humanitarian and other impacts, when crisis occurs. Those of us in defence will have to be prepared to assist our governments in these daunting tasks, drawing on all of our skills and unique capabilities.
The same applies to those intent on terrorism or proliferation; in security and defence, there are no national barriers that will easily deter them. These are truly global threats that require multinational responses, ensuring a stable, vibrant region is essential for all of us. I hope that through dialogue and by learning from each other’s experience, we will all be better placed to deal with the multiple challenges that we face.
What is the United Kingdom’s perspective on these global security challenges? Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said recently, ‘No one could have foreseen the sheer scale of the global challenges that our growing interdependence brings: their scale, diversity, and the speed with which they emerged.’
Last year in the United Kingdom, we published our national security strategy: the first time that we had set out a comprehensive description of these new global challenges, and aspects of our response. It was groundbreaking for two reasons. Firstly, it looks at the broad range of threats and challenges, and brings home their crucial interconnections.
Secondly, it brings together the objectives and plans of all the departments, agencies, and forces charged with protecting the national security of the United Kingdom.
The strategy makes a significant contribution to transparency, by ensuring that our domestic audience and other nations understand how we plan to tackle the threat. We are also considering in more detail the interconnections of security challenges such as terrorism, proliferation, trans-national organised crime, and fragile or failing states. Understanding these relationships is critical, in order to tackle the threats that we face.
We must all get better at preventing these problems from emerging in the first place, rather than countering them afterwards. It is an evolving process, and we are updating the strategy as I speak. Although today we recognise that security is not just about our Armed Forces, they clearly have critical roles to play around the world. Some of these roles are conventional, and some are newer, such as capacity building.
For example, our Armed Forces play an important role as part of the international conflict prevention effort, helping countries to deal with the security challenges arising from instability in their own regions. This is why the United Kingdom trained some 12,000 African peacekeepers since 2004-2005. We do this to help that region. However, it is also in our national interests, because these challenges can have implications for the United Kingdom and our citizens around the world.
To do all this, and to grasp the interconnectivity of today’s threat, requires a comprehensive approach across government and other sectors. While Armed Forces and Ministries of Defence have central roles to play, they cannot deliver whole solutions by themselves.
Finally, we need to communicate more effectively what we are doing, and why we are doing it. Perhaps Mr Chairman I can at this point pay tribute to two of our personnel, who were sadly killed yesterday in operations in southern Afghanistan. We have had instances like this very frequently in the United Kingdom, and it does cause our public to ask questions about why we are there. We have to explain to a sometimes sceptical public why counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan are critical to stopping terrorism on our own streets. We have to explain why countering piracy, people trafficking, or stopping the drugs trade, is essential work for domestic security. We have to explain why it matters to people and families that our international institutions, and agreements, are effective for today’s challenges.
That is the United Kingdom’s perspective. What is Asia-Pacific’s perspective on these global challenges, and where does the United Kingdom fit in? As I and many others have said this weekend, there are now very few people who would seriously argue that global security challenges can be contained by state boundaries, or that a single state can deal with these alone. This places a much greater reliance on networked solutions at state level, community level, and corporate level. We need to ensure that all of our international institutions are more effective, and geared towards the challenges that we actually face. They must not exist merely to feed bureaucracies.
We are already working together effectively in many areas. However, I have to agree with Secretary Gate’s comments yesterday that we must all to more to ensure that we collectively enhance security, by adding multinational cooperation to our longstanding bilateral ties. We should remember that those of us who are in Afghanistan are there under UN resolutions. It is incumbent upon us to maximise the effect of all the agencies involved, by working with the international finance institutions, the NGOs, the private sector: working all together to resolve those security concerns. Many countries in the Asia-Pacific region are helping, either militarily, or by providing help with governance, reconstruction, capacity building, or humanitarian aid. It is greatly appreciated. More would be welcome.
There are indeed challenges where we look to the Asia-Pacific region for guidance, or to learn lessons. For example, the international community has drawn from the experience of those who successfully reduced piracy in the Malaka Strait, to help tackle the recent increase in pirate attacks.
For the Gulf of Aden, the United Kingdom is the headquarters for the EU operation. It is working in partnership with a number of Asia-Pacific countries with the international Contact Group on Piracy, off the coast of Somalia. We are encouraged by the unprecedented level of cooperation and coordination on this problem between all international forces in the region. However, while our forces are having a positive effect, the solutions will be ultimately found on land. The international community is working to support this, but it is clearly a multidimensional problem.
I shall now say a few words about two regimes in the region that care neither for the norms of international behaviour, nor for their own people. North Korea has featured in all of our discussions this weekend. The United Kingdom shares in the calls from the international community to respond to yet more provocative acts from North Korea with one voice. As a regime, it is acting against the interests of the international community, the region, and its own people.
With respect to Burma, the continued imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi by the Burmese regime is a continued reminder that we cannot take for the granted the institution of democracy. The people of Burma have suffered nearly half a century of conflict and isolation. Aung San Suu Kyi is not alone. People all around the world are standing with her and the Burmese people. We say to the Generals: now is the time for transition to democracy, starting with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi.
Mr Chairman, let me finish by touching on some of the institutional challenges facing us, and some of the lessons that I believe we can share regardless of region. Together, we are using international and regional institutions to mould the international response to the global recession, in a way that strengthens our security without weakening it. Many of us are engaged in combined efforts to make sure that we do not add to, but subtract from, the list of fragile or failed states.
For our part, we recently celebrated the sixtieth birthday of NATO. Few who were present at NATO’s creation would have foreseen how this alliance would outlast the Cold War conditions that brought it into being, and transition successfully through the redrawing of the map of Europe to the post-9/11 era, and the radically different security environment that came with it.
I have recently conducted talks with NATO’s newest members: Croatia and Albania. Both of these countries are in a region that was at war only a decade ago. The combined efforts of members are required as never before. However, we recognise too that NATO must continue to develop to meet modern challenges. It cannot be a static organisation. Similarly, I anticipate that security arrangements in this region will also evolve.
We have heard this weekend that the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation is the core around which new structures have developed. Meetings of the relevant defence ministers in the regional forum are an important development, in which my fellow panellists’ countries have played a key role.
For our part, the United Kingdom remains committed to the Five Power Defence Arrangements with Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, and New Zealand. It is a significant contributor to regional stability. Ultimately, we all need structures designed for the long term, which are coupled with the flexibility to deal with unexpected threats and events at short notice. This requires a mixture of formal and informal arrangements, which means investing over a long period to develop relationships by engaging in open and honest dialogue, and working together to find global solutions.
We have heard about this earlier today. This event is an important contributor to that process. We are constantly asking our Armed Forces to be flexible, adaptable, and responsive to the ever-evolving and sometimes rapidly changing threats that we all face. To remain relevant, our institutional arrangements must also be adaptable and responsive.
Earlier, I mentioned transparency in the United Kingdom. Of course, other countries also publish information on matters such as force levels and defence budgets. Greater military transparency by all nations must be our shared goal, as it reduces the risk to international security caused by uncertainty. This is especially true in the issue of arms control.
It is important that through transparency and dialogue, we build trust and confidence. Without this, we risk the possibilities of miscommunication, miscalculation, and misadventure. Mr Chairman, in conclusion I shall reiterate some of my basic messages. We have to understand that the globalisation of security threats is just as developed and real as the globalisation of the world economy. We need a whole variety of tools, soft and hard power, and a comprehensive approach. It requires us to coordinate our efforts internally, and to cooperate internationally. To achieve this, we have a responsibility to explain to our domestic audiences that it is in their direct and personal interest to maintain this effort. Our publics see the cost in terms of lives and resources. They need to understand and believe that this is a price worth paying.
With respect to the global financial situation, everyone recognises that dangers of protectionism, and isolation. In defence and security terms, these are not an option either. Security challenges do not recede just because the world is in recession; the security environment risks becoming more uncertain, more unpredictable, and more unstable. In an uncertain world, one thing remains certain. By cooperating in a transparent manner, the better we can understand and learn from each other. This will make us better able to confront the global security challenge that faces us now and in the years to come. Thank you.
