military | ukwatch.net

Outrageous Demands for More Money

Ellie Keen — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:58:46 +0000

Last week (17th June) the Tories’ launched a major attack on Labour over the supposedly “inadequate” funding of military equipment. Frederick Forsyth, the chairman of a Tory propaganda vehicle, accused Gordon Brown of personal responsibility for “50 or 60” deaths caused by “crap equipment”. However, the truth is that, apart from the USA, Britain spends more on military equipment than any other country in the world. The armed forces in most other countries do not report inadequacies in their equipment. So, any equipment problems our forces are experiencing are not due to a shortage of money, but due to the way that money is being spent.

Vast sums of money are wasted due to incompetence, Lets take helicopters as an example. Dan Byles is another member of Forsyth’s propaganda organisation. In an article posted on the “Conservative Home” website on 3rd September 2007 ( http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2007/09/dan-byles-the-g.html) he wrote: “Defence spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen, even as the number of soldiers dying in the sand has been rising… in Afghanistan… Brown’s budget squeeze has left us with insufficient battlefield helicopters to do the job properly.” Actually one reason for the shortage of helicopters is “a gold-standard procurement cock-up”. That’s according to Edward Leigh, the Tory chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee. Leigh was speaking earlier this month about the findings of a National Audit Office report.

Eight Chinook helicopters were ordered in 1995. They were delivered in 2001 but have since been confined to special air-conditioned hangars. This is due to a mistake in the original order and problems trying to fix it, The Tories were in power when the helicopters were ordered.

The helicopters have so far cost in excess of £422m, and this looks lightly to increase even further. Byles says he was“a staff officer in the MOD during the Iraq invasion”, so perhaps he should’ve known that. Its also worth mentioning that under Labour military spending has risen in absolute terms, it just hasn’t risen as fast as GDP. The Tories have repeatedly said they want public spending to rise slower than GDP.

Even worse than the incompetence is the fraud and corruption on UK military contracts. Transparency International’s index rates the arms industry as the second most corrupt industry in the world. The relationship between the arms industry and the Ministry of Defence is so close that, according to a report from the Campaign Against The Arms Industry, “the existence of any real distinction has been questioned”. Key staff frequently move back and forth, in what is called “revolving door corruption”. The MOD has even taken an active part in channelling secret payments to foreigners in return for arms export contracts.

Politicians too seems to have an unhealthy relationship with the arms industry. Mark Thatcher was famously paid a secret £12 million “commission” by British Aerospace after his mother helped the company secure the Al-Yamamah deal. Who knows how many other British politicians have family members who’ve benefited from such secret largess? Then there is the fact that former Defence ministers inevitably end up with lucrative sinecures in the arms industry.

There is also scope for corruption through bribes to political parties. The Tories have used front organisations like the Scottish Industry Forum and the Midlands Industrial Council to hide the true source of donations. There’s no reason why Labour shouldn’t do the same thing. It is undeniable that government ministers from both parties have protected arms companies accused of fraud.

In March 1988 Dale Campbell-Savours, a Labour member of the Public Accounts Committee, accused Marconi of using “misleading Engineering Change Requests” to change the specification of the 1985 Firm Price BATES contract and overcharge for these changes. Labour minister Lord Gilbert, Tory minister Sir Tim Sainsbury, and Tory minister James Arbuthnot all lied to cover up the fact that there had been an enormous increase in the price due to changes (see http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/382700.html). Arbuthnot is the current Chairman of the Commons Defence Committee.

BATES gained added significance in January 2004 when the former head of British Aerospace admitted that the company had regularly used changes to the specification to increase the price of contracts. When pressed for assurances this was not still happening, Kevin Tebbit, the top MOD civil servant, tried to blame it all on Cost Plus contracts. This was despite Chief of Defence Procurement Peter Levene admitting in 1988 that BATES was NOT a Cost Plus contract and that Campbell-Savours’ charges might be true. BATES was a Firm Price contract, which is the toughest form of contract the MOD can award. If it could have happened on BATES, it could happen on any MOD Equipment contract (see http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399295.html).

It is impossible to get an impartial criminal investigation into fraud and corruption on MOD equipment contracts. This is because the MOD has its own police force and other forces refuse to get involved. It would also be difficult to obtain an impartial prosecution. Blair lent on the supposedly independent Attorney General to block the prosecution of BAE Systems over the alleged Saudi Bribery scandal. In 1988 Labour MP Dale Campbell-Savours said that the Director of Public Prosecutions was refusing to prosecute any company for fraud on MOD contracts if it had overseas contracts too. Even if a company was prosecuted, the MOD would be in charge of the case and could sabotage it.

Until it is possible to get impartial criminal investigations and prosecutions there should be no increase in the money spent on military equipment.

March to Stop the St Athan's Military Academy

Ellie Keen — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:28:01 +0000

The Government is spending 14 billion building a huge, privatised UK Military Academy to train the latest recruits to the ‘war on terror’ and foreign militaries and mercenaries, funded by our taxes, the profits will pour into the coffers of companies like Raytheon. It looks set to become Britain’s ‘School of the Americas’ – a centre for counterinsurgency training and future imperialist adventures abroad. A mass-demonstration is planned for this month called by the Stop the St Athan’s Military Academy Campaign & supported by local peace groups, anarchists, socialists, trade unions, UK Stop the War Coalition and CND Cymru and anti-war campaigners from across the length and breadth of Britain!

Imagine a world in which the armed forces are trained by arms dealers. And we subsidise their profits. That world will become reality unless we stop the proposed school of death at St Athan.

The creation of a military super-academy at St Athan, between Cardiff and Swansea, was announced as a done deal in January 2007. Despite the fact this represented the biggest PFI in history, involving £14 billion of taxpayers’ money, there had been no debate in either Westminster or the Welsh Assembly (Senedd). A promise of 5500 local jobs was trumpeted loudly by an uncritical news media and presented as a great victory for Wales.

No wonder the politicians didn’t want any debate. The new super-academy, replacing many smaller centres, means that military training will now be in the hands of shameless profiteers.

The winning bidders for the project were the Metrix consortium. This consortium includes Qinetiq, the privatised research and development wing of the MoD. Qinetiq was recently the subject of intense criticism by the National Audit Office. Its privatisation was proposed by MoD managers – who then saw their shares rise 10,000% on the day of the sale! 33.8% of Qinetiq was also bought by the US-based Carlyle Group, a sinister lash-up of politicians and arms dealers with a vested interest in promoting war. Former members of its board include one George W. Bush.

Then there is the US arms manufacturer Raytheon. Raytheon make the missiles which deliver cluster bombs, the horrendous weapons which are estimated to have killed 100,000 people – 98% of them innocent civilians. The world can also thank Raytheon for the depleted uranium weapons which have led to thousands of horribly deformed babies and large increases in cancers in war zones and beyond.

Raytheon, Qinetiq and friends will not just be training UK armed forces at St Athan. They will train any soldiers, sailors and air force personnel that are willing to pay for the privilege. And like all PFIs, the St Athan academy will be subsidised by the taxpayer, and if necessary, bailed out with public money.

There has never been a detailed breakdown of the jobs the academy will bring. However, even Metrix admit that many of the military trainers will relocate from elsewhere. Every PFI has secured profits by cutting costs. St Athan will mean less MoD jobs overall, and the poorest pay and conditions for lowskilled workers.

In any case, imagine what else could be done with £14 billion! With hospitals and schools closing throughout Wales and the UK, with a desperate need to improve social facilities, create sustainable sources of energy etc, such public money could be invested in socially useful projects rather than the preparation for future wars of occupation like Iraq.

If this development goes ahead, 21 st century Wales will be become a militarised, security-obsessed nightmare. If you want to stop the war profiteers in their tracks, support the campaign and raise it in your union, student union, workplace and community.

The March to stop the St Athan’s Military Academy will take place on Saturday 26 April. Assemble 1.30 pm, Cathays Park (opp. City Hall & Museum), Cardiff City Centre. Demo at 2pm.

To join the mailing list, email no2militaryacademy@inbox.com , or write to:
Stop The St Athan Academy c/o Temple of Peace, Cardiff, CF10 3AP. For more details visit www.cynefinywerin.org.uk/index.php?docid=265

Brown Government Promotes Patriotism and Militarism

Ellie Keen — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:25:45 +0000

Faced with intractable problems, the Labour government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown has embarked on an attempt to promote British patriotism and militarism.

Domestically, the government confronts growing social inequality and an impending economic crisis that threatens to devastate living standards, while overseas Britain is still mired down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such military setbacks have in no way lessened the British bourgeoisie’s ambitions internationally. Competition for strategic resources has rather seen the government reiterate its support for military intervention overseas.

Such a policy requires the silencing or marginalisation of dissent. To this end, together with the armed forces and the media, the government has set about trying to manipulate and intimidate public opinion.

Immediately prior to the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the British Army launched a £2 million recruitment drive. The military is faced with a 10 percent drop in troop numbers because of a chronic inability to retain trained soldiers that has been brought on by the unwillingness to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. The army also retained the services of a public relations company some 18 months ago.

Chief recruiter Brigadier Andrew Jackson is responsible for the launch of the new “One of the best” recruitment campaign, supported by Rugby Union England international Jonny Wilkinson. This is the first interactive campaign for army recruitment, and the public are encouraged to express their support for British troops. Conscious of the widespread opposition to the Afghanistan and Iraq occupation, the army is playing on sympathy for soldiers over their poor wages and substandard housing and the chronic lack of protective equipment for combat to legitimise militarism.

The campaign was spearheaded by the media’s lauding Prince Harry as a hero for his brief spell of duty in Afghanistan. Earlier this week, it was announced that Princes Harry and William are to host a party to raise funds for soldiers wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq. The “Help for Heroes” appeal, backed by the right-wing Daily Mail, is to take place in London on May 7. The princes, serving army officers, are to be joined by former SAS soldier Andy McNab and head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt. Open to wealthy celebrities and individuals, the party is to be held at a secret location and will feature a military display and marching band.

The event was announced at the same time that the government set aside plans for a further withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq due in May. Last year, Brown had pledged that UK forces would be cut from 4,100 to 2,500 by next month. This has been delayed indefinitely as British forces in the south of the country prepare for a major offensive against insurgents.

The last weeks also saw a concerted campaign of official outrage and indignation over the supposed harassment of military personnel at RAF Wittering, near Peterborough. Service personnel had been instructed not to wear their uniforms in public because of alleged verbal abuse. The Conservative MP for Peterborough, Stewart Jackson, has since admitted that “The police don’t have records of any serious problems. My understanding is that it’s a small number of incidents of verbal abuse.” But this did not stop Brown from making a statement to the press that soldiers should be able to display their uniforms with pride and that civilians must respect and defer to uniformed service people in public for their “sacrifices” and their “public service.” The palace also issued a statement of concern.

The media campaign around RAF Wittering dovetails with the upcoming report Brown commissioned to be presented by Quentin Davies, a former Tory defence spokesperson who defected to New Labour, reviewing ways in which to improve the public’s attitude towards the armed forces. It is understood the report will encourage British military personnel to wear their military attire at all times in public. The aim is to condition public opinion to the sight of combat-ready troops on the streets.

In addition, the report is expected to recommend that local councils should organise homecoming parades for units returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers wounded in conflict should be awarded Purple Heart-style medals at public ceremonies wearing full military regalia and with a full military band, to recognise their sacrifice. Football clubs and other organisations should also give free entrance to the military when dressed for combat. Other suggestions emanating from within the establishment include an Armed Forces Day, backed by the former chief of defence staff, Lord Guthrie.

Another Brown-commissioned report on “Citizenship: Our Common Bond” has been unveiled by Lord Goldsmith. The former attorney general, who legally sanctioned Britain’s role in the US-led invasion of Iraq, focussed on inculcating patriotism amongst school children, with a proposal that they be required to pledge allegiance to the Queen.

The proposed pledge would involve declaring “true allegiance” to “Her Majesty,” continuing, “I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.”

Goldsmith’s report also proposes ending the right of Commonwealth citizens residing in the UK and Irish citizens not resident in Northern Ireland to vote in British general elections. Incentives are to be given to students and young people to do volunteer work on behalf of charities, which the government is increasingly pushing as a replacement for state provision.

Sleight of Hand in Iraq

Ellie Keen — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:02:27 +0000

Since the Iraq war began five years ago, a lot of the spin has been aimed at showing that Britain and “the international community” are winning. We are repeatedly told that UK troops are to be reduced to the point where we will leave southern Iraq altogether, a land of peace, freedom and democracy. Now Gordon Brown’s latest “troop reduction” turns out to be another bit of wishful thinking, or spin. But are British troops being kept in Iraq – in danger and at great expense – so that Brown doesn’t have to have an inquiry into the war?

This week it has become increasingly clear that Brown’s claim last autumn that numbers would be cut to 2,500 in “the spring” is unlikely to happen any time soon. At the risk of making everyone dizzy, it’s worth recapping the various promises of the last six months.

It was during a visit to Iraq in October used promises of troops cuts as a weapon in the propaganda war (against the Tories). In the middle of the Conservative party conference and with Brown considering an election, he “announced” a reduction from 5,500 to 4,500.

The announcement backfired badly when it emerged that it was a classic recycling exercise, with half the reduction already promised and 250 of those troops already home. This was the first of a series of banana skins that led to last autumn’s non-election.

Brown then made a more formal announcement in the Commons that troops would be cut to around 4,000 by Christmas, followed by a cut to about 2,500 in the spring. Troop levels did indeed come down to a current figure of around 4,100.

But on Monday, the Telegraph revealed that senior military sources were against any further cut, partly on operational grounds and partly “because they fear that the mission would become ‘meaningless’ if numbers dropped further”.

On Tuesday, the Ministry of Defence was conceding that the cut might not happen in the near future. Today, with defence secretary Des Browne visiting Iraq rather quietly, the BBC is reporting that “BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said he had been told it was ‘highly unlikely‘ the figure would drop to anything like that amount [2,500].”

Budget day seems to be a good day to bury bad news as the cut to 2,500 becomes the latest in a long history of troop cuts that arrive slightly later than promised. Some of the promises have been off-the-record briefings to friendly journalists, some have been formal announcements. I’m sure they all seemed plausible enough at the time.

But it’s worth going back to that reported comment from a military source about the need to maintain a meaningful level of troops in Iraq. Since the remaining troops have been reduced to an “overwatch” function, they haven’t been doing very much apart from “force protection”, although sadly they remain at risk. For some time, people like me have suspected that the reasons for keeping them in harm’s way are political – partly to appease the US, partly as a reason to reject opposition calls for an inquiry into the origins and conduct of the war.

I’ve been very critical of the inquiries we’ve had so far and it’s a valid concern that another inquiry could cost quite a lot of money and still pull its punches, as establishment inquiries inevitably do. But with the costs of the non-war now reaching £1.6 annually, we’ve perhaps got the most expensive non-inquiry ever.

Pick up your gun and shut up

JamieSW — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:55:50 +0000

I’ve been resisting the urge to write anything about the current flap concerning Armed Forces members being “abused” in Peterborough. The story appears to be a thin concoction based on a single incident some 15 months ago. Nor, as it happens, do I see much point in hurling verbal abuse at squaddies, anyway. Unfortunately, the sheer inanity and reflexive nationalist windbaggery that the story has called forth (exemplified by the pre-fascist racist bear pit that is the BBC’s Have Your Say) is just too maddening. I shall try to be brief.

Argument number one from the blusterers is that the troops deserve our support regardless of whether we agree with the war(s). Our anger, they say, would be better directed at the Government who sent them. This position is similar to that which the Liberal Democrats adopted during the invasion of Iraq -their “opposition” lasted only as long as it hadn’t happened. The moment it did they fell meekly into line and supported “our boys”.

I have little idea what the exhortation to support our troops really means, particularly when it is said that we can support them without supporting the war. If this is so then clearly it cannot mean wishing them success. Rather, it must mean wishing that they don’t get hurt. Well, fair enough, I don’t want to see British troops get hurt. But then I don’t want any troops to get hurt. I do recognise that it’s inevitable, however, so if combatants on one side or another have to get hurt, as complicated as matters may be, I’d rather it was the aggressors. The logic of this is clear. If I see a man attacked in the street, I do not want to see either him or his assailant hurt unnecessarily but, since I recognise both the victim’s right to self defence and the attacker’s aggression, I’d rather see the latter hurt than the former. The same is true for our troops in Iraq. I don’t want to see any of them killed but if they continue to aggress against the Iraqis, then I’d rather British troops were hurt. Anything else is simple racism. Yet those who call on us to support our boys, while saying that we don’t have to support the war, were they to apply their principle evenly, would be calling on us to support the mugger even if we don’t agree with mugging. “Just doing my job” is no defence if your job stinks.

As a side point, it’s also worth stating something else that really should be obvious: there is nothing intrinsically honourable about serving in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces are an organisation maintained to pursue certain goals, frequently through violence. How honourable it is to be a soldier depends upon how honourable the goal is and the methods one uses – if you’re defending a people against aggression with minimum force, be proud. If you do it with excessive force, be less proud. But if you’re inflicting aggression against a defenceless people, hang your head. I might feel proud of getting involved in a pub fight if the cause of my violence was to defend a man from a racist attack but I would feel ashamed if I was involved in the same fight in order to commit such an attack. Nor is being a soldier honourable becaue they are often in genuine danger and carry out their orders knowing that there is a serious risk they might be killed. Otherwise, being a terrorist would be honourable for the same reason and suicide bombers would be confered even greater respect. There is nothing intrinically honourable or dishonourable, respectable or ignoble, about placing oneself at risk. Again, the cause in which one does it is key. Nor is bravery an issue: I’m not brave enough to be an armed robber, doesn’t mean I can’t condemn them.

Nor do I accept the defence that soldiers are only obeying orders and have no choice. Of course they have a choice, they can refuse to obey orders, which I believe they should. Yes, consequences flow from that choice but I’d rather go to the stockade than kill innocent people. I’d also hope that I’d be brave enough still to take that stance if I faced a firing squad instead. To argue in the 21st century that “theirs is not to reason why” is actually an insult to them -it suggests that either they are incapable of moral judgements or that they should ignore their own consciences. I believe the first is false and the second indefensible, not least because those who take this line are unlikely to apply it universally. Would those who believe that our troops should follow orders without question have condemned Iraqi troops who defied Saddam? Or German troops who refused to take orders from the 3rd Reich? Of course not. Certainly, it is true that many of our forces, from the poorer and less educated parts of society, may have joined the army because they needed a job and are very likely heavily indoctrinated once they’re in. But this can only be a mitigation. If they are fully aware of what they are doing, disagree with it, yet do it anyway, they are cowards. If they are propagandised then they are to be pitied in the same way that some who are convicted of a criminal offence are judged to be less than competent and so not entirely responsible for their actions. Uncritical devotion to authority is not honourable, it’s pathological.

Then there is the argument that we should support our troops out of gratitude, for defending us now or for having defended us in the past. Both arguments are misguided. It is no more logical to support the army uncritically because of good it does in some areas than it would be to support any other organisation for similar reasons. I’m grateful for nurses: doesn’t mean I have to support them when they start offing pensioners.

The argument that we should show respect because of the British Army’s defence of Britain during WWII is similarly vacuous. What it actually amounts to is capitulating to a group of people today because a group of people under the same name 60 years ago did us a very big favour. In fact, it is entirely the same principle that a few people still use for disliking Germans today -because of what ‘they’ did 60 years ago. In fact, with a few exceptions, Germans today did nothing 60 years ago – it was another bunch of people who happened to live on the same piece of land.

Nor is true, in any case, that the army is defending us now. In fact, it is much more plausible to make the case that they are actively endangering us. Several studies have shown that, by “riding pillion” on US policy, the British Government and its Armed Forces are actually putting all of us at far greater risk. Having been reduced to a mercenary force for US strategic interests, it should hardly be surprising that the actions of the British Army have made us a target for terrorists.

In any case, it’s a pretty repugnant argument that our gratitude to troops for services rendered to us excuses atrocities committed against others. It’s a selfish assertion that our welfare outweighs that of someone else. I might be grateful to my next door neighbour for the loan of his lawnmower but I don’t have to defend him when he’s found guilty of beating his wife.

Another argument in the windbags’ arsenal is that one shouldn’t criticise the troops because we don’t know what it’s like on the front line. Again, it’s a specious argument. Otherwise, it would be wrong for me to criticise the “enemy” troops as well. I certainly don’t recall criticism of Iraqi troops being off the table during the Gulf War because we didn’t know what everyday life in the Republican Guard was like. The argument makes about as much sense as saying that we shouldn’t criticise a murderer because we don’t know the circumstances in which he did it. If one disagrees with the objective then the circumstances of its pursuance are simply not relevant.

Our troops may fight bravely sometimes (when they’re not slaughtering people from miles away at sea or up in the air) and, amongst the imperialist carnage, there are doubtless genuine acts of bravery and heroism. Nor do I believe that every squaddie out there goes to the Middle East with the intention of doing ill. In the end, though, this does not matter. What matters is that they are thinking, feeling human beings who are responsible for their actions. If they agree with the war(s), they are culpable, if they oppose them yet fight anyway, they’re cowardly. If they ‘re conditioned, they are pitiable. True bravery is not to fight against people who are not your enemy -it is to make a stand for what you believe is right, even knowing that you may suffer greatly for doing so. Sometimes that can mean picking up a gun. Too often, it means never picking it up to begin with.

Booting out the military

JamieSW — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:06:59 +0000

The University College London Students’ Union (UCLU) has voted to sever all ties with the military, including banning military recruitment stalls and breaking links with the Officer Training Corps ‘which recruits up to half its number from universities up and down the country’.

The motion (.doc) stated:

“This union believes that because the British military under the Labour Government is currently engaged in an aggressive war overseas, for the union to use its resources to encourage students to join the military or participate in military recruitment activities at this time would give political and material support to the war.”

According to Indymedia,

“The Annual General Meeting had the largest attendance in UCL’s recent history with more than 325 people in attendance at the start of the meeting, making it the first UCL Union General Meeting to make the Union’s 1% quorum since 2003.”

Data compiled by the ‘Study War No More’ campaign, run by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade and the Fellowship of Reconcilliation, shows that the UCL is working on a total of 117 projects for the military worth a minimum of £5,284,072.

Tim Street has more on military involvement in British universities.

The union also voted overwhelmingly to twin UCL with the unions of the Al-Quds and Al-Azhar Universities in the West Bank and Gaza and to ‘establish an educational exchange programme between UCL students and students from the Palestinian universities’. The original motion can be viewed here (.pdf), and the two ammendments here (.doc) and here (.doc).

Editors Kneel Before Harry and MoD

Ellie Keen — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:58:51 +0000

The establishment is fond of blaming the media for the public’s cynicism about politics, and particularly its opposition to war. Blair waged a concerted campaign to bully the media in the name of “balance” and “impartiality”.

The collusion of senior media editors in the blackout on Prince Harry in Helmand reveals how specious this argument is. Rather than challenging the government’s war in Afghanistan, the media’s proprietors and controllers conspired to give the MoD the biggest possible propaganda coup, a huge boost to the notion that Britain is fighting a glamorous, just and valiant war.

As a result, more young men will join the army to fight: “They have just used Harry as propaganda to promote and glorify a war which, in the end, is going to be found to be a terrible mistake,” said Anthony Philippson, whose soldier son James died in Afghanistan.

As a result, thousands more Afghanis will die, blown to pieces by bombs from the same “air” drawn down by the Prince on his “Kill TV”.

Eighteen months ago the MoD faced a potential revolt in the army. General Sir Richard Dannatt told the Mail that Britain faced losing the war in Afghanistan if it didn’t pull out of Iraq. The MoD lashed out Blair’s favourite scapegoat for the problems – the media – and launched a campaign to regain the media initiative.

First the MoD banned ITN from embedding reporters with troops. Then it allowed the 15 military personnel captured by Iran to sell their stories to the press. And it banned soldiers from blogging and speaking in public. By the end of last year the MoD had succeeded in re-imposing strict censorship on the media in Afghanistan.

Now senior editors have handed the military establishment a real gem. As the incomparable Peter Wilby has put it, the Prince Harry story “was a PR stunt, from beginning to end”. By lapping it up, editors “dealt another blow to genuinely independent journalism and to the long-term credibility of the media”.

It is a supreme irony that, as the Harry story flooded through the media last week, the government gagged the former SAS soldier Ben Griffin, preventing him from speaking out about UK involvement in illegal renditions, and preventing the media from reporting his words. Game, set and match – the editors lap up the Harry propaganda while a valuable source of truth is silenced.

For some well-known journalists, this stuck in the craw. Jon Snow of Channel 4 news was incensed at the media’s collusion on Harry. As a result, however, Snow became the target of a concerted campaign of “flak” in the Mail, Telegraph, Telegraph again, Evening Standard, and the Times.

If you haven’t done so already, please write to Channel 4 News – email news@channel4.com – to back Jon Snow’s independent and professional journalism.

Gagging Ben Griffin

Ellie Keen — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:34:24 +0000

"As of 1940hrs 29/02/08 I have been placed under an injunction preventing me from speaking publicly and publishing material gained as a result of my service in UKSF (SAS).

I will be continuing to collect evidence and opinion on British Involvement in extraordinary rendition, torture, secret detentions, extra judicial detention, use of evidence gained through torture, breaches of the Geneva Conventions, breaches of International Law and failure to abide by our obligations as per UN Convention Against Torture. I am carrying on regardless."

Ben Griffin, Former UK Special forces trooper

Ben Griffin, the ex-SAS trooper who this week revealed the extensive British collaboration with US rendition and torture, was served with an injunction immediately after speaking at the London World Against War rally last Monday. The government is trying to gag Ben to prevent any more revelations about British involvement in the US policy of kidnapping people and sending them to secret centres for interrogation and torture. (From Stop the War Coalition)

See him speaking below:

Atrocity Exhibition

Ellie Keen — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:52:31 +0000

Writing about torture in the Guardian, Philip Zimbardo emphasises systemic issues in explaining how “ordinary people could be led to behave in ways that qualify as evil.” His context is images, many previously unseen, of “documented depravity and dehumanisation” by US soldiers of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib.

He is absolutely right to emphasise systemic issues, and it is important for the British public in that context to understand two points about the UK’s detention policy in Iraq. The first is the massive similarities between the insights these images give into human rights violations in US detention facilities and the publicly available evidence as to violations of Iraqis’ most fundamental of human rights in UK detention facilities. The second is to understand the source and nature of the systemic failings within the UK’s policy.

The Abu Ghraib images depict [disturbing content] male Iraqis forced into sexual positions with one another, into simulated oral sex, being threatened by soldiers’ punches or of US soldiers alongside what are either badly abused or dead Iraqis. Most UK citizens seem to believe that we would never do such things. Nothing could be further from the truth. The photographs from the Camp Breadbasket court martial show male Iraqis forced by UK soldiers to simulate anal and oral sex with one another.

In the incident that led to the death of Baha Mousa, UK soldiers flushed dirty toilet water over male Iraqis. Later, at the military facility, they photographed each other punching hooded detainees, some of whom were threatened with execution. One was offered release in exchange for sex with his sister.

The litany of sexual and religious humiliation is endless. There appears to be no material difference between the two forces, US and UK, when it came to degrading treatment. Worse still, there are now witness statements prepared for UK High Court proceedings by myself and my colleague Martyn Day, which suggest that, in May 2004, UK soldiers in Abu Naji facility may have executed up to 20 Iraqis, tortured another nine, and subjected some of the 20 dead to unspeakable atrocities before final dispatch.

The systemic failings that underpin these violations go to the top of government, the civil service and the military. We had a written policy allowing stressing and hooding, and our interrogators were trained to do so. Scores of Iraqis now complain of torture, abuse, and killings in UK detention facilities.

When the Head of Army Legal, Nicholas Mercer, blew the whistle on hooding, stressing and the use of noise in March 2003 – and, in May, complained of a “number” of Iraqi deaths in custody with “various units in theatre” – he was rebuked, ridiculed and overruled. The civil servants at Permanent Joint HQ knew but did nothing, telling themselves, for example, that the ban on the five techniques from Northern Ireland in 1972 (hooding, stressing, sleep deprivation, food and water deprivation and noise) only applied to the UK and Northern Ireland. Nobody seemed to have recognised that what was happening breached every possible humanitarian and human rights provision, including the European Convention on Human Rights (which was held by the House of Lords in June 2007 to apply).

The next time you see these images, just remember what UK forces did in our name. We must face up to this national disgrace.

How to Withdraw From Iraq

Ellie Keen — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:31:24 +0000

With Iraq in a state of bloody chaos, many, from both sides of the political divide, are calling for an immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces. No matter what the consequences of withdrawal, they argue, the Coalition presence is only making the security situation worse and is helping to fuel the insurgency.

Not everyone agrees. Some argue that the Coalition forces should ‘stay the course’ and that withdrawal would precipitate a civil war, leaving the fate of the country to be decided by violence. It could result in Iraq becoming a failed state and a haven for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. They fear it would damage the US’s and Britain’s ‘national interests’ and international credibility by handing a victory to the terrorists.

But Iraq is already in a civil war. Day by day, jihadist paramilitaries are gaining experience in urban combat against arguably the best equipped and trained military in the world, the US Army and Marine Corps. Meanwhile, the interests and credibility of the US, Britain and other Coalition partners are only damaged further by this prolonged and disastrous occupation.

The choice, however, is not simply between ‘stay the course’ or ‘cut and run’. Nor should withdrawal itself be seen as either ‘surrender’ or ‘the answer to all of Iraq’s problems’. It is dangerous that the current debate is being thus polarized.

The simple fact is that Coalition troops need to be withdrawn from Iraq because most of the insurgency is actually a resistance to foreign occupation. The majority of Iraqis now want withdrawal. But because a significant part of the violence is occurring between Iraq’s diverse factions and communities, withdrawal on its own could have deadly consequences. It could be as disastrous as the invasion itself. The countries responsible for the invasion cannot simply pull out and leave the Iraqi people to their fate. While they may not be a part of the solution, they have a grave responsibility to support the Iraqi Government in finding a way to ensure the long-term security of the country.

Reports commissioned – and ignored:

The Iraq Study Group was a bipartisan Congressional panel facilitated by the United States Institute of Peace and tasked with assessing the situation in Iraq and recommending policies to the US Government. The Group’s final report – published in December 2006 – focused on the phased withdrawal of troops and diplomatic engagement with Iraq’s neighbours. Despite promising to take the report seriously, President Bush largely ignored the Group’s findings and took the opposite course of committing to the ‘surge’. View the report: http://tinyurl.com/ts4vs

The UK Iraq Commission was an independent, cross-party group, tasked with producing a blueprint for future British involvement in Iraq. The final report – published in July 2007 – argued that only Iraqis can improve the situation in Iraq, but that they needed British support to do so. Despite being televised, the Commission did not generate as much interest as the US Iraq Study Group had, and the final report was largely overshadowed by Gordon Brown’s arrival as the new Prime Minister. View the report: http://tinyurl.com/3anf4a

Following George W Bush’s rejection of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group report and the lack of impact of its British equivalent, many in the political, media, academic and activist communities seem to have accepted that nothing can be done, that there is little point in suggesting ways forward for Iraq because they will simply be ignored. But there is a moral imperative not only to keep pointing out the failure of current policies but also to suggest alternative ways forward.

The change of Prime Minister in Britain and growing unease within the US political system present the opportunity for a break with the past. This is why new policies that go beyond withdrawal are so important at this juncture.

They might include the following proposals aimed at resolving some of the causes of the conflict:

Withdrawal of combat troops

There should be a rapid withdrawal of all foreign combat troops from Iraq. This should be linked to political and financial support for a new UN or regional stabilization force, but should not be dependent on such a force. While it is likely that such a force will still face resistance, the absence of US and British troops will help to calm many elements of the insurgency, leading to far more manageable levels of violence. The withdrawal should be carried out in discussion with the Iraqi Government and the governments of other countries with troops in Iraq, but should not be delayed because of this. The withdrawal must be coupled with engagement with regional powers, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Iraq’s other neighbours, including Syria. These countries have a vested interest in ensuring stability in Iraq, with no desire for a failed state on their borders. However potentially unsavoury to the US, these countries will play a role in the future of Iraq, and must be engaged with now.

Assistance to the Iraqi military and security services

In place of combat troops, the Coalition governments should continue to provide training, intelligence and financial support to the Iraqi military and security services for a limited period of time, agreed in advance with the Iraqi Government (say, 12 months for training and intelligence and 48 months for finance). The level of commitment should steadily decrease over this agreed timeframe, and will need to be carefully monitored by the Iraqi Parliament. Any foreign military personnel remaining in Iraq should serve only as instructors and advisers, with a minimum number of support troops providing interim force protection and all being withdrawn at the end of the 12-month training period. Longer-term arrangements might also be made for a UN-supported force guaranteeing Iraq’s international borders and the security of any democratically elected government, but with troops stationed outside of Iraq.

Support for the rebuilding of Iraq

Real security for ordinary Iraqis will not just mean freedom from the fear of violence, but must also be based on satisfying some fairly basic needs – electricity, medical care, education, jobs – which require a functioning state apparatus. The US, British and other Coalition governments should therefore begin a programme of massive and sustained aid and technical support for the reconstruction and development of Iraq. This should be unconditional and must not be in the form of loans. Fair compensation, administered by local committees and civil society organizations, should also be paid to civilians who have lost family members, property or livelihoods as a result of Coalition military activity, and specific support needs to be offered to those people who have been displaced by the conflict.

Non-interference in the development of Iraq’s oil reserves

With the third highest reserves in the world (behind only Saudi Arabia and Iran), oil currently accounts for more than 90 per cent of Iraq’s government revenues, and is the main driver of the economy. However, the current draft hydrocarbon law focuses on unnecessary Production Sharing Agreements that essentially privatize Iraq’s oil industry by stealth. One of the most important developments would therefore be a revised system for the fair exploitation of Iraq’s oil reserves. By allowing foreign oil companies to benefit disproportionately, with the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in potential revenue for the Iraqi Government, the current course plays into the hands of the insurgents who can easily argue that the invasion was actually about controlling Iraqi oil. There is no reason why Iraq should not maintain democratic control over its own oil industry and use existing government budgets to invest in developing its considerable oil reserves. Increased revenues from developing these reserves would help to sustain the reconstruction of Iraq over the long term.

Support for inclusive reconciliation initiatives

Long-term stability is dependent on all factions in the country being able to have a say in the Iraqi political process. Genuine reconciliation will need all sides to have a place at the negotiating table, including those insurgent groups who have targeted civilians or military personnel in terrorist attacks. They must all be brought into the political process wherever possible; exclusion will only cause people to turn to violence as the only course apparently available to them. Such reconciliation initiatives would be greatly aided by an apology from key Coalition governments for the mistakes that have been made during the invasion and occupation, and a public assurance that they will no longer interfere in internal Iraqi affairs. A new fund should also be established to support local, community-based conflict prevention and resolution initiatives as one of the most effective methods for ensuring peace in Iraq’s diverse regions.

What do the Iraqi people want?

For the first time, more Iraqis now back an immediate withdrawal of foreign troops (47%) as opposed to troops remaining until security is restored (34%).

85% of Iraqis have little or no confidence in the US and UK occupation forces.

79% oppose the presence of those forces in Iraq.

72% feel that their presence is actually making the security situation worse.

Source: BBC / ABC News / NHK, September 2007

Of course there will not be agreement with all, or perhaps any, of the above proposals. There are, after all, no easy answers and no guarantees of success in Iraq. But that does not absolve us of our responsibility to develop and propose positive ways out of the current fiasco.

What’s important is that we continue publicly to debate our involvement in Iraq and support those developing effective policies for the withdrawal of troops. Governments must be made to understand that there are ways of withdrawing troops from Iraq that will not necessarily result in disaster. It is up to all of us to make sure this happens.

Chris Abbott is the Programme Co-ordinator and Researcher at Oxford Research Group and lead author of Beyond Terror: The Truth About the Real Threats to Our World (Rider, 2007). www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk

Study War No More: Military Involvement in UK Universities

JamieSW — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:17:56 +0000

Imperial College London sounds like the kind of place where you’d expect to find attitudes sympathetic to the military. London was, after all, once the capital of an empire of such size and scale – encompassing about a quarter of the world – that it required immense military might to enforce its rule. Looking at the level of military research that is being conducted by academics at Imperial and many other UK universities today, you could be excused for thinking that the empire never really went away – at least in the minds of those who seek to defend it.

In December last year, letters were sent to students, academics, staff and alumni at 26 UK universities drawing their attention to a recently published report entitled ‘Study War No More – Military Involvement in UK universities.’ The report, written by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FoR) details the hundreds of military projects that UK universities conduct on behalf of arms companies and public bodies such as the Ministry of Defence. As one of the 26 UK universities covered by the report, letters were sent to representatives of Imperial highlighting how, between 2001 and 2006, the college conducted a minimum of 95 military projects – the 7th largest number in the UK – which netted the university at least £24 million.

The following response to this letter was received from Stephen Brown, Imperial College’s Union President:

“I am delighted that Imperial College has performed so well in yet another league table although given that we only finished 7th there is clearly still a lot of room for improvement. Several of our students are very proud of the excellent work that the College does with our industrial partners and the government to make sure that our armed forces have every possible technological advantage in what is unfortunately a dangerous world. The recent concerns raised in Parliament about the under funding of the UK Armed Forces reinforces the need for this important work to continue to make our service personnel less vulnerable as they bravely go about their jobs protecting UK subjects from those who would do us harm.”

Mr Brown needn’t worry about Imperial’s position in the league table, for the college is working hard to improve its ranking all the time. For example, in 2006, the Ministry of Defence and the US Department of Defence joined forces with Imperial to form the International Technology Alliance (ITA). According to Imperial’s website, the ITA will “undertake a research programme exploring advanced technology for secure wireless and sensor networks to support future coalition operations, over a potential 10 year period, with a value of up to $135.8 million”[1]. Other members of the consortium include Boeing and Honeywell – two of the largest arms companies in the world. Imperial’s department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering received a government grant of £1.4 million for its work on this project and there may well be more to come.

It is important to consider the actual practices of Imperial’s ‘industrial partners’ in order to appreciate the likely applications of the military projects conducted at Imperial. As noted above, Imperial works with some of the largest arms companies in the world. As well as Boeing and Honeywell, Imperial is involved in numerous projects with BAE Systems, Rolls Royce, QinetiQ and General Dynamics. As Stephen Brown points out, these companies produce equipment for the UK military, which will have been used in, amongst other places, Iraq and Afghanistan. Notably absent from Mr Brown’s account however, is a reference to the foreign markets that these companies supply through arms exports. For example, BAE Systems, the company that was British Aerospace before it became too ‘global’ for ‘British’, is the world’s fourth largest arms producer. It makes fighter aircraft, warships, tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery systems, missiles, munitions and much more.

These arms are sold indiscriminately around the world and the company thrives on insecurity. Its 2005 Annual Report candidly states that “New threats and conflict arenas are placing unprecedented demands on military forces and presenting BAE Systems with new challenges and opportunities…”. The company claims to have military customers in “some 130 countries”, with its foremost markets being the repressive Saudi Arabian regime and the US, to which BAE Systems has steadily been moving its business. Other export deals to areas of conflict and widespread human rights abuse include sub-systems for Israeli F-16 fighter aircraft and Hawk light combat aircraft to Indonesia during its repression of East Timor.

One of the larger military projects involving Imperial and BAE Systems is FLAVIIR. This is a £6.2 million, public-private funded project, running between 2004 and 2009 and involving ten universities, predominantly in their Engineering departments. According to its website, FLAVIIR will “look at technologies for future unmanned air vehicles (UAV) funded jointly by BAE Systems and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.” A recent report in The Guardian outlined just how deadly the FLAVIIR research could one day be. It describes how the FLAVIIR research is intended to develop existing UAV technology used by UK and US forces. The RAF initially plans to use the unmanned drones for reconnaissance before arming them with Hellfire missiles for ground attacks. The CIA already used similar drones last year to “target a Pakistani village where it was thought Ayman al-Zawahiri, the deputy leader of al-Qaida, was in hiding. Instead, more than 20 villagers, including five women and five children, were killed.” Unshaken by such tragedies, “British ministers and military chiefs think the drone will be the frontline attack plane in years to come.”

The military sector – both governmental and industrial – has been able to push its way into Imperial and other UK universities through funding a variety of projects, mainly involving research. By sub-contracting research to universities, which have world-class, publicly-funded staff and facilities, the military sector can keep overheads down and, in the case of military companies, profits up. The ease with which military organisations can influence university departments, through purchasing research and services and providing sponsorship, is indicative of the general trend towards commercialisation in higher education. Moreover, the hundreds of projects conducted at UK universities between 2001 and 2006 for the military sector indicate that the military has, in particular, built up strong levels of influence over science, engineering and technology departments.

Public money, mainly from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council’s collaborative research grants scheme, heavily subsidises many of these military projects, in particular those conducted by military companies, which contribute relatively small amounts of money. The public financing of military research makes these projects more attractive to universities, especially those suffering from funding shortfalls. Academics thus accept and actively seek out military money because they are under pressure to attract research funding to their department. Furthermore, because the university funding system has been used by the government to introduce policies which promote research with economic benefits to industry, science, engineering and technology departments’ funding options have narrowed. Academics may also be more willing to accept military funding if they do not perceive the work to be military. This may be because they don’t associate the research they are being paid to conduct with a direct military application. This is despite the fact that it is often possible to identify work which has been paid for by the military that either have very high military revenues or spend millions of pounds on military production and/ or procurement.

In spite of the Freedom of Information Act, accessing data regarding the funding of universities by the military sector (for example from university and research council websites in addition to FoI requests) is time consuming and only presents a partial picture of the actual economic relationships. Two reasons for this- apart from the fact that institutions are often not compelled to provide such information- are the need for commercial confidentiality between competing organisations (including universities) and the cloak of secrecy surrounding the military sector. Without full transparency in the future, including clear and easily accessible information concerning how public money is used to support projects conducted by the military sector, it will not be possible to accurately assess the extent of military involvement in UK universities or monitor developments and trends.

The first step towards challenging the dependence of UK universities on funding from military organisations is to ensure that information regarding this relationship is publicly available so that it may be freely discussed. Transparency can only be achieved through the use of the media, public debates, meetings and campaign groups to press for change within universities and government. Ultimately, the decision-making structures of universities and government must change if the military sector’s research agenda is to stop being pushed onto university departments and there is to be a reduction in the amount of military projects conducted at UK universities. Thankfully, there are encouraging signs that students and staff will not stand for their universities’ being turned over to the military. Campaigners have already taken part in meetings at several UK universities, including Warwick, Nottingham, UCL, LSE, Sheffield and Southampton and there are plans for many more events at other universities in the future. One would hope that Imperial College and its Union President will continue to take part in this debate, for it is clear that students and staff want to discuss current levels of university participation in military projects given the urgent challenges of climate change, resource conflict, nuclear proliferation and economic inequalities that the UK and the world are currently facing.

1. http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummar…

Britain’s Defence: All at Sea

Tim Holmes — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:07:32 +0000

A stark contrast between reality and perception in the discussion of the United Kingdom’s defence policy is becoming increasingly visible. Britain has one of the world’s largest defence budgets, and it has been rising on an annual basis. True, it is miniscule compared with the United States, which under the George W Bush administration is now spending about the same on the military as every other country in the world combined. But London spends more on defence than any other European country, and its budget is considerably larger even than France or Germany.

Yet a chorus of complaint about the country’s defence policy has been rising, especially from within senior or former senior members of the defence establishment, and it focuses precisely on the notion that the country is spending too little rather than too much on its armed forces. How to explain this apparent paradox?

The cost of ambition

The most recent flurry of criticism started with a coordinated attack in parliament on 23 November 2007 by five of Britain’s former chiefs of the defence staff; this was followed by an article in the Times piece celebrating the importance of nuclear-powered attack submarines (see Michael Evans, “Underwater and undercover…“, Times, 27 November 2007); several former senior officers then wrote to the broadsheet newspapers to amplify the case for increases in expenditure.

All these contributions bemoaned the state of Britain’s military forces: many pointed to poor equipment, housing and medical facilities and some concentrated on the severe overstretch experienced by the army in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were even claims that the Royal Navy could no longer mount an operation like that against Iraq in 2003 (see Sean Rayment, “Britain would struggle to fight war – report“, Telegraph, 3 December 2007). The overall consensus was that Britain needed to increase its spending on the military and needed to do so soon.

This vigorous criticism, against the background of rising expenditures, calls for explanation. And there is indeed a case to be made for the concern, initially based on two factors – one proximate, and one longer-term.

First, there is undoubtedly a deep bitterness in senior military circles, especially the army, about the tasks set the armed forces by the government of Tony Blair, who resigned in June 2007 after ten years as prime minister (see “Tony Blair’s long war“, 18 January 2007). There is a particular anger at being given an impossible job to do in southern Iraq while simultaneously committing substantial forces in Afghanistan.

Many military planners believe it would have taken much larger forces to make Basra secure than Britain could have deployed. But even if those larger forces had by some means been made available, there were doubts that the task could ever have been done by outside forces that were so easily seen as occupiers. A report by the House of Commons’s defence select committee released on 3 December 2007 confirms that the army has failed to secure Basra, which is now in the grip of competing militias; instead, it has had to retreat to the airport outside the city. This has left a legacy of real anger over the sacrifice of young lives and does much to explain the general antipathy directed at the government from military circles in recent weeks.

Second, however, this internal anger is accompanied by awareness of a much deeper problem: exorbitant overspending on major defence programmes, coupled with an insistence on planning for a global role that is well beyond the reach of the UK (see “Britain’s 21st-century defence“, 15 February 2007).

Here are just three prominent example. The Eurofighter Typhoon, an interceptor conceived during the cold war, is barely now entering service a decade late. Its costs have gone up from £7 billion to at least £19 billion, and it is widely regarded as a supersonic “white elephant” that should have been cancelled in the early 1990s. (The former Conservative defence minister, Alan Clark, once described it as “essentially flawed and out of date”, and – commenting on its role in job-creation – he said “we must find a less extravagant way of paying people to make buckets with holes in them”).

The Royal Navy’s new Astute-class submarines and Daring-class destroyers are both running late and over budget. The national audit office estimates that the Daring programme has shown a £354 million cost increase in the year ending March 2007; the total cost is rising towards £6.4 billion, nearly a billion pounds for each of the six ships planned.

The Royal Air Force is affected as well, quite apart from the Eurofighter. The Nimrod MR2 fleet (including the one that crashed in September 2006 in Afghanistan, causing the death of fourteen servicemen) was due to be replaced by the much more advanced Nimrod MRA4, yet there have been huge cost escalations and delays. The decision to replace the old planes was withdrawn in 1992 and a contract let to BAe Systems for a £2.2 billion programme in 1996; under it, the first planes were due in 2003. By 2005 there were still no planes in sight and costs had risen to £3.8 billion. It is now just possible that the MR4A will enter service in 2009.

The central problem

Beyond even this scale of overspending lie two more recent procurement decisions that both go to the heart of current dilemmas and explain why the treasury is reluctant to further increase the defence budget.

The first is the replacement of the Trident nuclear-missile fleet with new submarines and warheads (see “Britain’s nuclear-weapons fix“, 28 June 2006). While the costs of the submarines are largely in the future, there has already been a major increase in funding for the atomic-weapons establishment (AWE) at Aldermaston. This includes an expansion described (in an internal company newsletter) as one of the largest construction projects ever undertaken in Britain, on a similar scale to the new £4.2 billion terminal five at Heathrow airport.

The second is the decision to build two huge new aircraft-carriers and equip them with the formidably expensive F-35 multi-role aircraft purchased from the United States. The two Queen Elizabeth-class carriers will, at 65,000 tons, be the largest warships ever deployed by the Royal Navy. As well as the cost of the carriers, and without taking into account the likely cost over-runs, at least £7.5 billion will be spent on the planes (see “British sea power: a 21st-century question“, 12 July 2006).

The combination of the carriers and the Trident replacement will make a huge dent in Britain’s overall defence-procurement programme over the next ten years and is already having an impact (see David Hencke, “Cabinet split over $15bn proposed defence cuts“ Guardian, 4 December 2007). The view from the treasury is that the ministry of defence cannot go for these two overarching projects while maintaining other programmes.

At present, proposed cuts include reducing the Daring-class destroyer order from eight to six, cutting the Astute-class submarine programme from eight to as few as four, cancelling part of the remaining Eurofighter order, and delaying new armoured vehicles for the army.

The central problem is that Britain cannot afford to build a global expeditionary-warfare capability based on the two new super-carriers, and also maintain nuclear forces, while keeping up with all the new programmes (see “Gordon Brown’s white elephants“, 26 July 2007). Something has to give, and the senior military do not like it at all – especially when they are so angry with the government for getting them into the Iraq mess.

The time to reassess

Yet there is a further dimension of Britain’s defence plans, programmes and resources that goes beyond this current dispute. A number of analysts are calling for a much more fundamental study of national security than is usually addressed by traditional defence reviews. If the major 21st-century threats to global security are going to be problems like climate change, resource conflict and economic marginalisation, should Britain still be thinking in terms of an old-style defence posture concerned narrowly with the defence of the state? Should it not be putting far more effort into the kinds of policies that will prevent those issues becoming critical?

Unfortunately, there is very little prospect of a radical reassessment of Britain’s defence posture this side of the next general election (due in 2010 at latest, though it could be called or precipitated before then). But in two years’ time, whichever party is in power, these issues will have to be addressed. By then, it is just possible that the new thinking now being undertaken on “sustainable security“ may have come of age, sufficiently at least to encourage a proper analysis of where Britain’s real security interests lie.

Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England, and author of Global Security and the War on Terror: Elite Power and the Illusion of Control (Routledge, July 2007).