Simon Chapman: Fox puts energy security at heart of defence and foreign policy

Had Liam Fox remained in the leadership race last October, the next speech that he would have delivered would have been on British energy policy. This is now becoming the central theme of his tenure as Shadow Secretary of State for Defence. In the summer he gave a speech at Chatham House, since published by the Party in the pamphlet “Over a Barrel”, in which he set out the need for Britain to develop a comprehensive energy strategy, based on 3 components: diversity of fuel; diversity of geographical supply; security structures to guarantee their safe transport. The West’s reliance on some of the world’s most unstable regions for the mineral resources that its prosperity depends on it a clear strategic threat.

Liam is now using the party conference to expand upon his message. He told the Bow Group on Sunday night that the West’s very addiction to oil and gas is Funding the Threat to its long-term strategic security:

“I want to begin by focusing on a different consequence of our addiction to oil and the security implications that result from it.

We are all too familiar with the fact that recent years have seen substantial rises in the price of crude. What is seldom discussed is the cumulative wealth shift that this represents, how it is being spent and the foreign and security policy implications that flow from it.

Let me begin with a few numbers. In the past five years Europe alone has pumped $49bn into the economy of Iran and an astonishing $232bn into the former Soviet Union, mainly Russia for crude oil alone. This does not include the financial transfers resulting from gas or petroleum product sales. Of these two examples, at a national level, Germany has contributed $54bn to Russia while Italy handed $10.1bn to Iran. The global figures are, of course, much greater still.

In both Russia and Iran this windfall has been used to finance military buildup. In other words we in the West find ourselves in a security Catch-22. Our dependence on oil means that we cannot avoid paying whatever price is demanded of us. That in turn produces huge financial flows out of our economies into those oil producers, some of whom may be hostile to us. They in turn use this to finance a defence build up. In other words, our addiction to oil results in us funding the potential threat against us and our interests. There is, in addition, the consequence that there is little incentive for a state like Iran to reduce international tension as greater uncertainty will inflate the oil price and keep revenues high.

Our inability to wean ourselves off our oil habit may be providing us with more immediate threats to our security and wellbeing than the effects that climate change may bring.”

Fox laid out some of the figures: Iranian defence spending has increased from $5.9 billion in 2003 to £8.5 billion in 2006. Russian defence spending is set to double over the same period. Each of Russia’s 4 main fleets is set to receive 5 frigates over the next 15-20 years. Russia is negotiating with Syria to return its Black Sea  fleet to the Mediterranean.

In answers to questions, Fox said that he is establishing a non-partisan expert review group to assess the extent of the risk that is being presented. He is considering the idea of establishing a supra-national grouping of energy consumers, based on the NATO model, to identify common interests and develop joint strategy. At the same time, we need to ensure that we have a broad and diverse range of energy supplies available. Oil gas coal nuclear and renewables all need to be part of the equation. None should be allowed to dominate at the expense of the others.

Conference-goers who missed the Bow Group last night can hear Liam Fox again on this theme tonight at Politeia – 6.00 pm at the Marsham Court Hotel. A pdf of the speech is available here. This is one of the most substantial and important contributions to the fringe in this or any year.

Comments

[James M]

I will have to read this speech in full - but the premise of Liam Fox's speech - the need for energy security and new strategy to deal with this - is both very timely and correct.

I am strongly convinced that this will be one of the, if not the big issue, in the security realm in the decades to come. It is intrinsically linked to how we live our lives and naturally to our environmental policies.

This is certainly a review group whom's progress I will have to follow.

Well done Liam Fox.

[deborah]

The speech is short and to the point. Recommended reading.

[deborah]

Correction: actually, it's not that short - it's just compulsive reading.

[Yet Another Anon]

The more control a nation has over the natural resources, food and weaponry it needs the more secure it is - leave energy policy simply to market forces and they could well end up reliant on Iran or Russia for gas, naturally when there is any shortage in the nation supplying the energy their first reaction will be to secure larger proportions for their own use and bump up prices.

[Martin Cole]

Well stated Dr Fox.... BUT your partyleader also on Sunday had this most fatuous of all statements on the 'strategic' decisions on the national split of its energy supplies. After defence of the realm and administration of justice there seems little else more crucial to the well-being of the nation's citizens, yet Cameron stated:
+++++++++++++++++++++++
And then you let the industry, the providers come forward and provide. I don't know and you don't know what wind power can provide or wave power or solar power. We're not um economists or, or business men. You know we're, I'm a politician, you're a commentator. But we should set the framework and let the industry come up with the answers. Rather than pretend that we know the answers from Whitehall which we don't.

ANDREW MARR: Is, is there a single ..

DAVID CAMERON: It's a good example of how Conservatives believe in devolving responsibility and trusting people and Labour believe in, in state control from the top.
++++++++++++++++

The full almost unbelievable exchange on nuclear power as transcribed by the BBC and available on the Sunday AM web site was as follows:

And then you let the industry, the providers come forward and provide. I don't know and you don't know what wind power can provide or wave power or solar power. We're not um economists or, or business men. You know we're, I'm a politician, you're a commentator. But we should set the framework and let the industry come up with the answers. Rather than pretend that we know the answers from Whitehall which we don't.

ANDREW MARR: Is, is there a single ..

DAVID CAMERON: It's a good example of how Conservatives believe in devolving responsibility and trusting people and Labour believe in, in state control from the top.

ANDREW MARR: Tony Blair in his speech last week said that for instance on the issue of nuclear power stations ..

DAVID CAMERON: Yeah.

ANDREW MARR: .. you really couldn't sit on the fence. The decision had to be taken now or we will be dependent on eighty per cent imported oil and gas which will be an unacceptable and dangerous situation in twenty years time. And you can't just keep putting it off. You have to take the decision.

DAVID CAMERON: It was, it was classic Blair, classic Blair. He says "We must have nuclear power stations. We must have them now". He's actually, he's done nothing about it.

He hasn't changed the planning system to make it possible. He hasn't said what we should do with nuclear waste which still hasn't been solved. But he makes these grand eloquent statements. And then he attacks me ...

ANDREW MARR: All that said, what about you ...?

DAVID CAMERON: I'll tell you what my policy is. Very, very clear. Let's clear away the regulations and the restrictions that stop the green energy sources really having a go at the market, so wind power, wave power, solar power, geo-thermal. All of those technologies. Let's open up the market and give green energy a chance.

ANDREW MARR: But you don't ..

DAVID CAMERON: Hang on, hang on.

ANDREW MARR: .. really think it's going to become big do you?

DAVID CAMERON: Yes, oh huge.

ANDREW MARR: As a proportion?

DAVID CAMERON: I think it could become huge.

ANDREW MARR: How big?

DAVID CAMERON: But well, let, let - give green energy the chance and then have nuclear there as a last resort. So yes we're going to need to change the planning system. We're going to need to put those changes through so nuclear can be there.

But let's not reach for the nuclear button of a new range of nuclear power stations before we've even worked out what to do with the waste from the old ones until we've given green energy a chance. I think my policy, green energy first, nuclear as a last resort, is absolutely right. Whereas the prime minister's grand eloquent statements but actually do nothing about it is typical Blair. And it's, he goes round and round in circles.

ANDREW MARR: But it's, but, but if we're, if, if we were going to avoid being entirely dependent on imported oil and gas, virtually every single house in the country, every park, every playing field would have to be covered with wind turbines. You do need some kind of replacement.

DAVID CAMERON: Yeah. You see ..

ANDREW MARR: Nuclear is the obvious one. And simply saying we'll take a decision some other time isn't enough.

DAVID CAMERON: No I think, I think this is one of the great differences if you like between Labour and Conservative. Labour think the answer to problems is a minister sitting in Whitehall pointing at an outcome, pointing at a technology and saying "We must have nuclear". That's the wrong approach. What we should do is set the framework. Government should say this is what we need to do in terms of reducing carbon emissions. This is what we should do in terms of security of supply.

And then you let the industry, the providers come forward and provide. I don't know and you don't know what wind power can provide or wave power or solar power. We're not um economists or, or business men. You know we're, I'm a politician, you're a commentator. But we should set the framework and let the industry come up with the answers. Rather than pretend that we know the answers from Whitehall which we don't.

ANDREW MARR: Is, is there a single ..

DAVID CAMERON: It's a good example of how Conservatives believe in devolving responsibility and trusting people and Labour believe in, in state control from the top.
+++++++++++++++++++++

How can the governed choose nuclear power? They can merely sit back, watch climate change continue and wait for the lights to go out.

This is the leader of the official opposition? Oh dear. Oh dear!

[SimonNewman]

"Fox laid out some of the figures: Iranian defence spending has increased from $5.9 billion in 2003 to £8.5 billion in 2006. Russian defence spending is set to double over the same period. Each of Russia’s 4 main fleets is set to receive 5 frigates over the next 15-20 years. Russia is negotiating with Syria to return its Black Sea fleet to the Mediterranean."

And this is supposed to scare us?! Forgive me if I don't quake in fear of Iran's $8.5 billion military juggernaut - what's the UK's defence budget, again?

Treating state militaries as the primary future threat betrays a fundamental category error IMO. Survival of western civilisation in the 21st century will depend not on battles between states, but on the battle to maintain states _at all_ in the face of non-state forces like al-Qaeda that seek their dissolution via "4th generation war". This battle to maintain modern civilisation is made much harder by any inter-state warfare, as Iraq has demonstrated.