Liam Fox: A strategy for keeping the lights on

Liam Fox, Shadow Defence Secretary, has given a 'big picture' speech this morning on energy security and the way Britain's defence capacity must underpin that security ('Over_A_Barrel'_speech.pdf).  Key sections of the speech are quoted below:

Labour's financial starvation of Britain's armed forces: "This year we will spend only 2.2% of our GDP on defence – the lowest proportion of our national wealth contributed to security since 1930."  Related link: The whole British army will be able to fit in the new Wembley stadium.

The three underpinnings of long-term energy security: "We are all competing for the same natural resources to feed the economic system. The potential for terrorists or even nation states to interrupt this supply to cause widespread – rather than just local – disruption increases enormously... In the years ahead energy security, economic security and national security will be inextricably linked. If we want to ensure that we can keep the lights on in Britain then we need to develop a comprehensive energy strategy. It is simply a matter of risk management. Such a strategy will need to have three components: diversity in the type of fuels we use; diversity in the geographical sources of those fuels and the security structures that will guarantee the safe transport of these fuels."

The importance of energy diversity: "The fabled ‘dash for gas’ has come to a halt. In 2006, we will become net importers of gas for the first time since 1997. By 2010, we are likely to have become net importers of oil... The case made by David Cameron for greater investment in renewable energy can be seen in its wider context. Greater availability of renewables is not simply an environmentally desirable end, but by diminishing dependence on external supply, increases economic and thereby national security."

Pre-empting terrorist attacks on energy sources and supply routes: "The real problem is not so much scarcity of resources as concentration of easy-to-reach supplies in politically-difficult areas, along with the additional problem of transporting these supplies through areas that are equally difficult politically. The focus is not merely on the country with the hole in the ground, but also the transit countries through which the gas flows, and the sea lanes through which the oil must be transported. Instability and interruption of supply in any one transit country along these latter-day “silk routes” is as damaging as it would be at source... Osama bin Laden has not described infrastructure such as oil refineries as the “hinges” of the world economy for nothing."

Russian bullying on gas: "The concentration of gas supplies in the territories of the former Soviet Union is an issue related not merely to the business world, but to geopolitics and international relations in general... We will need to keep an eye on the Russian domestic energy market, out of which some worrying signals are emerging. Back in April, Gazprom’s chief executive Alexi Miller warned the EU against any attempt to interfere with its possible purchase of Centrica. “Attempts to limit Gazprom’s activities,” he said “in the European market and to politicise questions of gas supply, which are in fact entirely within the economic sphere, will not produce good results”.  He did not specify what these ‘not good results’ might be – political, military or economic is unclear. But President Putin’s address to the National Assembly cannot be ignored. It contained substantial passages detailing his plans to enhance Russia’s military capabilities. And Russia’s military security and energy security are as interlinked as anyone else’s."  Related link: Chris Patten urges stronger line against Tsar Putin.

Should NATO members guarantee each others' energy security?: "It is worth noting that the Polish government has recently called for an ‘energy pact’ similar to the mutual defence clause underpinning NATO, whereby all EU countries pledge to come to each other’s aid in the event of an energy crisis. It is an idea that deserves serious exploration. Hungary is 80% dependent on Russia for its oil and gas. How would we respond in the event that a dispute between the two countries resulted in Russia turning off the tap? ...It is therefore important that NATO develops associations with nations and regions that can contribute to countering the key threats to our energy security. Therefore, NATO members and interested parties should be encouraged to form such associations, especially with the Pacific region. New structures will be required to counter new threats to our mutual interests. The structure and function of NATO itself needs to be assessed.  It is big picture politics and I want the Conservative Party to be at its cutting edge."

Liam Fox concludes his speech with these remarks:

"When Churchill switched the navy from running on coal to running on oil, it meant we no longer depended on the Welsh pits but on the Persian oil fields. At that point, energy security became national security. Churchill said that ‘safety and certainty in oil lie in variety and variety alone’. It was true then and true now.  We need to ensure that a variety of energy sources are available for our economy, be they coal or gas or nuclear or renewables. We need to ensure that they are drawn from different geographical regions to minimise the risk of disrupted production.  But our whole approach must be underpinned by a security margin of resilience which only updated global military structures can provide.  The gauntlet has been thrown down to us. The question is whether we can, or will, rise to the challenge."

Comments

[Mark Fulford]

I want defence spending to be it’s lowest ever percentage of GDP…

Our tax plan is to share the proceeds of growth, i.e. spending becomes a smaller proportion of GDP. Is military might somehow an exception to this rule?

There’s no need for Britain to behave like a military superpower. I’d like our government to feel that it hasn’t got the resources to go stomping all over the world.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Let's hope the army aren't overfilling their kettles.

[Jon Gale]

Is military might somehow an exception to this rule?

Of course it is:

"...The defence budget is one of the very few elements of public expenditure that can truly be described as essential. This point was well-made by a robust Labour Defence Minister, Denis (Now Lord) Healey, many years ago: 'Once we have cut expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders.' -- Margaret Thatcher,

[William]

We are sending troops to Afghnistan to fly around in Wessex helicopters which fly slow enough to be shot down by RPG's.

We have Hercules shot down in Iraq by small arms creating widows and orphans because the MOD cannot be bothered to pay for foam-filled fuel tanks.

If we cannot pay for the kit we need, all troops should be sent home.

A savvy little campaigner is threatening Government Ministers with actions for Corporate Manslaughter, which is belatedly getting action on some of these things.

It's only peanuts relatively, the cost of fixing things like foam in fuel tanks. It's just that the MOD is another dysfunctional department as per Home Office, and unless the Minister feels personally threatened by a CM action, nothing gets done.

[matt wright]

As regards energy review I am dissapointed not to see mention of coal. We have huge reserves and new technology to use it in clean ways including sequestrating the C02. The issue of security of supply is slightly more important than just the environment. Nuclear is risky and needs to be more carefully progressed ensuring more safety. Coal is here now and can be used cheaply in comparison.

Matt

[Ed]

Fox has got a point. Problems with Iran and the overweening GazProm are proof that we are vulnerable on this front. I've always thought that, being an island, we might do rather well to look into using tides and wave power to generate electricity, but a Scottish firm who'd deigned something to do just that were told by the civil service to take their design to Portugal. Clever, that.

[Ed]

PS Fox does say "Be they coal or gas or nuclear or renewables", Matt. I agree about using coal, but how much would it cost to get the mines up and running again? A possible miscalculation by Mrs. T, that.

[Ed]

I'll try to stop ending all my comments with "that". Whoops.

[Richard North]

And what is Dr Fox going to do about European Defence Integration, which threatens to erode HMG's capability for independent action?

[Mark Fulford]

'Once we have cut expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders.'

Are you suggesting that we are anywhere near approaching that point?

[Rob Largan]

"I want defence spending to be it’s lowest ever percentage of GDP…

Our tax plan is to share the proceeds of growth, i.e. spending becomes a smaller proportion of GDP. Is military might somehow an exception to this rule?

There’s no need for Britain to behave like a military superpower. I’d like our government to feel that it hasn’t got the resources to go stomping all over the world."

We need to make a choice then, either we cut defence spending and retreat withing our own borders, relying forever on the protection of the United States, lacking real sovereignty or independence. Or we spend the money required to have a fully operational highly effective military machine alowing us to maintain independence and have an active role in the worl today. The primary role of government must always be the protection and enhancement of individual freedom, to do this we need to spend more on defence.

[James]

Mark, personally I think your on a slippery slope once you start questioning whether we need to spend that much on defence, or whether it isn't actually a good thing that our government doesn't have the might to go "stamping all over the world". You only have to look at Canada as an example of how this philosophy applied over half a century has meant a cumulative weakening of the Canadian armed forces, to the point where when they volunteer to Nato to get involved in operations in Afghanistan in '01-'02 - needless to say a fairly low intensity role compared to what the Americans were doing - they did not have the manpower to stay for more than 6 months.

The UK is obviousley nowhere near this level - yet - and you could say oh well, the Yanks should shoulder the burden, but how many of you are prepared to argue that peacekeeping in places like Afghanistan, Iraq or Bosnia isn't a worthy cause, or doesn't require a well manned, well equiped military - for the safety and effectiveness of the troops on the ground?

[reasonable]

"I want defence spending to be it’s lowest ever percentage of GDP… There’s no need for Britain to behave like a military superpower."

But there IS a need to "keep the lights on", isn't there? Mark, you've completely missed the point of Fox's speech, which is more secure energy through diversity of sources. It has nothing to do with "behaving like a military superpower".

PS It's nice to be 'reasonable' again, after someone else usurped my name for a while.

[Richard North]

Having actually read the speech - shock - it seems to me that Fox is arguing inter alia the need for greater seapower to protect our energy supply lines and for working more closely within a NATO framework.

In the former context, our naval equipment plans are currently predecated on building up an expeditionary force to support the ERRF, with the emphasis on fulfilling Petersberg Tasks. This is not a force which will be capable of projecting seapower or one with any significant independent global reach.

As to the Army, the greatest expense is on FRES (£16 bn), again designed to work as a component of the ERRF, tasked with expeditionary warfare, while the RAF is primarily equipped (with the Eurofighter) for a static, air superiority role.

It is all very well, therefore, for Fox to argue, as he does, that politicians "need to provide a much clearer framework within which national security interests can be served... out of which a credible defence policy ... can flow" but, as it stands, the framework set by the current administration for future conduct of operations is that of an integral part of the ERRF rather than NATO.

From that stems procurement decisions with a multi-billion price-tag and a reach life of twenty years or more, committing us to the strategy thus defined. Unless Fox is prepared to gainsay the current structures and commit to a fundamental restructuring of our forces, should the Conservatives gain power, what he is actually saying is so much hot air - he will not be able to deliver.

[Mark Fulford]

I didn’t miss the point Fox was making and I agree that we need secure and diverse energy supplies. However, he was wrong to criticise the percentage of GDP we spend on defence. In a growing economy it’s a poor measure. In terms of hard cash, Britain’s military spend is £30.1Bn a year. We're a tiny nation yet we’re second in the world league of defence spending. That’s more than plenty.

[Richard North]

that amount of spending is not "plenty" if we do not have a clear idea of what we are spending it on. Given the costs of hardware and their support, we can spend a great deal and achieve very little, or less and achieve more. Thus, of equal importance is the issue of how (and on what) we spend our money - on which Fox is extremely vague.

[malcolm]

If you support the maintaining of the current pathetically low defence expenditure Mark I do also hope that you will also support the immediate recall of our troops from the vast majority of their overseas operations including both Iraq and Afghanistan.You simply cannot have it both ways, our troops are being asked to take on more and more commitments without either the numbers or the equipment to do their jobs effectively.
At a time of rising unemployment it is noticable that most infantry regiments are now significantly understrengh and all have difficulties in recruitment.A larger and larger percentage of our Army are now made up of foreigners,a position I assume you're happy with.

[William Norton]

I'm coming dangerously close to agreeing with Richard North on this one. I'm not sure how much really new material there is in this speech - the Govmt already envisages the use of medium-scale expeditionary forces to stabilise threats to UK global interests as part of a coalition. If energy supply isn't a UK global interest, I'd like to know what is.

Is Fox rowing back on Blair's European collective security approaches - i.e. proposing to go it alone?

Mark Fulford: I don't suppose you're planning to throw yourself in the sea any time soon, but I bet you still spend money on a life belt for when you go out in your boat. Defence spending is a bit like that.

[Mark Fulford]

I think you're all misunderstanding me so let me clarify:

I want secure, diverse energy supplies. But our defence budget is already the world's 2nd largest and, were it spent wisely, our £30bn should be plenty to defend our interests (to provide our lifebelt). Conservatives should not go on propagating this ridiculously warlike notion that we need to spend more.

Malcolm, if our spending is pathetic, how do you describe France's, Japan's, China's, Germany's, Italy's, Russia's, Saudi Arabia's, South Korea's, India's and Israel's? There is 1 country that spends more than us and 290 that spend less. How I wish that we had such an appetite for developing and researching new and alternative energy supplies.

We like to blame our folly in Iraq on delusions of intelligence, but perhaps we suffer delusions of grandeur too.

[David Belchamber]

"I want defence spending to be it’s lowest ever percentage of GDP…

Our tax plan is to share the proceeds of growth, i.e. spending becomes a smaller proportion of GDP. Is military might somehow an exception to this rule?

There’s no need for Britain to behave like a military superpower. I’d like our government to feel that it hasn’t got the resources to go stomping all over the world."

We would all like defence spending to remain low but that is to forget that our PM took this country to war, admittedly against a dictator, on what Robin Cook had described as "a false prospectus".
Quite how that action could be interpreted as "defence" puzzles me and I agree with Mark Fulford that we don't want this country acting like a military superpower.
The trouble is that the consequences of that war are now not only the PM's legacy, but the nation's as well.
That war has created a whole host of new enemies, mainly terrorist, for us and we now need our armed forces more than ever.
At least they are well organised, which is more than you can say for vitually any government department.
In fact, the country now faces so many possible emergencies (terrorist attacks, avian 'flu, strikes, civil unrest, weather catastrophes etc) that it might be a good idea to set up an umbrella organisation for overall homeland security - run by those used to high command and dealing with the unexpected (and definitely not politicians or civil servants) - to prepare contingeny plans to deal with them on a 24/7 basis.
At least, we have been spared the sight of the PM taking personal responsibility for all the spate of recent disasters!

[malcolm]

Mark,I would describe France,Germany,Italy and Japan as having very ineffectual defence spending.I seriously doubt that Russia,China and Israel spend less on defence than we do.
There are always arguments as to how effective our expenditure is and I do suspect that the MOD is probably as about as 'effective ' as the Home Office in this respect.
However what is beyond doubt is that our armed forces (particularly the Army) is being asked to take on roles beyond its current capabilities.If we are only prepared to maintain our current levels of expenditure we should also be prepared to adopt the role of a rather pathetic 2nd rate European country and ask/beg the Americans to defend us from potential external enemies.A bit like Germany if you like.

[Richard North]

Malcolm (at 17:08) "At least they (the armed forces) are well organised, which is more than you can say for vitually any government department."

This is an extraordinarily complacent (and possibly ill-informed) comment. It cannot have escaped your attention that the Army is being reorganised, with the abolition of traditional regiments and the creation of super-regiments.

These are precursor changes to the development of net-centric brigade structures, which are untested and rely on unproven (and some as yet unavailable) technology, developed on a theoretical model which still has not been fully defined.

As of now, therefore, it is now longer possible to say that the Army is well organised and, as we venture further into force restructuring, the fear is that the structures (and equipment) will be completely at odds with the tasks for which the Army is asked to fulfil.

It is here that one would very much like to hear Fox be rather more specific.

By the way, current ranking on spending:

United States 1
China – Mainland 2
Japan 3
France 4
United Kingdom 5
Russia 6
Germany 7

[Military Man]

Mr Fulford,

We are surrounded by enemies, and there is nothing a terrorist fears more than a main battle tank, nuclear weapon or Trident submarine. Unlike other nations who choose to spend a piffling amount on defence, we are proud to deter terror and invasion by our perfidious neighbours with the size of our defence budget alone.

We are uniquely vulnerable. The French are only a few miles away, the Russians are just a hop, a skip and a jump across mainland Europe (easily defeating the puny countries in the way), and infantry are brilliant at defending 2000 mile long oil pipes. Every time I see a German tourist, I can see that look in their eyes, you know the one that says "...down to 1930's levels, eh?" Hoardes of Belgians are waiting at the far end of the Channel tunnel.

We have to spend more than any other nation apart from our staunch allies the Americans, because we need to follow them whereever they go, right or wrong, into whatever conflict they start. They paid the price in World War II, and this is a way we can pay them back.

If we cut our defense expenditure, we'd have to say "no" next time the Americans asked to invade one of the countries on their list, and that would be hurtful, and make us very sad. How could we live with ourselves if we missed out on the opportunity to follow George "Job Done" Bush into Iran?

However, governments are very bad at this sort of thing. This is where the private sector can step in. It's proved very effective in Iraq, where there are over 20,000 private "security specialists." I'm sure Group 4 would do a much better job than the MOD.

So I say double the budget. We can afford it. Surely the safety of our nation is more important than any other consideration. Money spent on intelligence, careful police work, diplomacy and trade agreements is a waste - a few more Tornados are so much more effective.

So I say back our boys, or back off, you left-leaning peacemonger.

[Richard North]

Sorry, my post above should read: David Belchamber @ 16:59.

[JP]

Well done Mr Fox. Substance at last. But when will the Leader come out with something of substance? Is Cameron running a party within a party?

[James]

Simply put, we're not the second highest D spenders in the world. In some charts - like Richard's - I find France comes higher than us, as does Japan, a nation with a much larger population and more neighbourly security concerns than us. Given the range of our commitments around the world, it makes sense that we should be number four. Does anyone think France is doing more around the world militarily than us?

[David Belchamber]

Richard North @ 17.37
Sorry, I wasn't quite clear; when I said "the armed forces are well organised", I didn't mean the hash the politicians were making of established regiments et al; I meant that a British service unit is well organised. We can (generally)rely on the troops themselves to act professionally and well.

[William]

Richard North, I am told that our combined naval operations in the Gulf with German and French navies are going well. Cooperation between nations is always a cost effective way to work - even with countries which happen to be in the EU, from which I believe we would do well to withdraw.

I would rather ally with Germans than fight them again. But they can keep the Euro, the ECJ and all the barmy laws which are reducing our society into a lawbreakers' paradise and a victims' nightmare.

If we came out of the EU we could afford to equip our troops properly. Do you realise VAT fraud is admitted to lose 100 billion euros a year? Have the best helicopters and weapons going. Have a secure country with properly equipped security forces. Have all the investment we need in energy supplies. Just get out of the EU, but fight alongside them as well.

[Richard North]

David - noted... perhaps there is a lesson here. If troops are not well-organised, they die. Can we apply this to politicians?

[Mark Fulford]

There are various ways of measuring defence spending. I chose to use the MOD’s own figures and those of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

I’m perfectly happy for you to prove those numbers wrong but please, if you disagree with them, quote your sources.

Some of the rankings look like they are on “purchasing power parity”, a system takes into account the cost of manpower in each country. China can buy more men with the money but, unless we’re planning on placing a guard every 10’ along a pipeline (great post Military Man), manpower is not what we need.

William, please please please no EU on this thread.

[William]

Topic raised by Richard North. Regret to inform that there is relevance to the subject of cost of defence, even though you prefer to pretend otherwise.

You may note that I am favour of military cooperation as long as we come out of the EU. If we stay inside the EU, military cooperation will inevitably become part of our loss of soveriegnty story.

Mark likes things he can count and measure. Others prefer to put value and meaning into the numbers. I hope you understand what I am saying. If not don't worry. I'll chat to R North.

[Mark Fulford]

Mark likes things he can count and measure.

Yes, I like money. I like keeping hold of it and not wasting it. I like freedom and security and believe that, despite its failings, the EU is a force for good that provides peace and stability. I like the fact that communist countries who once threatened us are now our allies. Having lived through the Cold War I prefer my children to face the threat of terrorism to nuclear holocaust.

William, by contrast, seems to like things he can invent; fears without substance; plots that can only be understood by reading between the lines à la Tailor of Panama.

[David Belchamber]

Richard @ 18.14 - a very tempting suggestion. As it is at the moment, we can't even get them to resign when they foul up.

[William]

Aha! So Mark admits to europhilia. What's that bit about not wasting money?

Cooperate in matters military with EU countries. Make allies across Europe. But keep out of the EU. Out of date. Too complicated. Undemocratic and an economic basket case.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>So I say double the budget. We can afford it.<<<<
I agree and in fact this would both enable the UK to go on international ventures including coalitions of the willing and also give more independence to conduct overseas missions when perhaps the USA was not willing to be part of it, not in any sense to be a specialised addon as the current government seems to see British Forces role - the War in Iraq was the right thing to do as was The War in Afghanistan but that doesn't always mean that everything the US proposes doing will be right.

The USA is still a foreign country and ideally the Deterrent (currently nuclear although the Hafnium Device is a future possibility and one usuable in place for conventional weapons for greater explosive power) should be independent of any foreign countries, trully independent and especially given that the US is becoming more reluctant to share missile technology and nuclear technology with any other country. The Warheads are made at the Atomic Weapons Establishment but the Trident Missiles are both made and maintained in the USA - in addition the number of Warheads produced by the AWE and the maximum capability that can be on standby at any one time is now ludicrously low - ideally the UK should have sufficent firepower to be able to destroy all human life on the earth.

[JP]

Europhilia, Necrophilia, Aston Villia, what's the difference. We're doomed anyway.

[Yet Another Anon]

So far as energy policy goes though - development of renewable sources not dependant on imports from abroad has to be a priority and nuclear power has to be boosted to provide 50% of the UK's power, obviously non-renewable energy sources including nuclear will ultimately run out on earth (People often talk about using Helium for air transport - even though some of those suggesting this say only for freight but this ignores the fact that Helium on earth is running out) and the alternative for such is outside the earth but given that so far there has been no such use of mineral extraction and fuel sourcing outside earth obviously this is only speculation at this time and cannot be relied upon so assumptions for energy policy have to be that sources of non-renewable fuels will run out.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>You may note that I am favour of military cooperation as long as we come out of the EU. If we stay inside the EU, military cooperation will inevitably become part of our loss of soveriegnty story.<<<<
There is military co-operation, an organisation called NATO and of course coalitions of the willing with the USA and a number of other countries including some European ones - The Netherlands, Japan, Poland, Czech Republic if I recall correctly, Italy, Australia, Japan, India, Spain started off supporting and then the Spanish government attempted to blame ETA for a terrorist act carried out by Al Qaeda and so were replaced by a government that didn't, many other countries across the world including even some Arab ones.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>Just get out of the EU, but fight alongside them as well.<<<<
That would depend which side they were on, just as who are allies or enemies varies from time to time and war to war.

[Richard]

One way the army could save money is to purchase more American weaponry instead of being forced to involve itself with European projects for political reasons.

[matt wright]

Ed, re energy and coal - we would not need to re-open mines in the old fashioned sense. The technology exists to turn coal to gas underground tap it off and run efficient turbines and then sequestrate the C02 back in the ground. This technology has been tested on numerous occasions. Conservatives should be for this for lots of good reasons. We have massive reserves of coal and it a secure local supply being a top one.
As regards defence spending. This is not just about maintaining our security but supporting R&D. If we must intervene to support innovation (all developed countries do) then the best way is actually to support high profile challenging technology projects and spin-off the outcomes to industry.

Matt

[Annabel Herriott]

As a mere woman, Id just like mark to tell me what we do with no national defence, when Mr. Bin Laden sends along a chap to blow up an oil platform - say Brent Charlie, if thats still on stream. What do we use to cook the Sunday joint please??

[Richard North]

Matt: "As regards defence spending. This is not just about maintaining our security but supporting R&D. If we must intervene to support innovation (all developed countries do) then the best way is actually to support high profile challenging technology projects and spin-off the outcomes to industry."

Ah, but which industry?

[JP]

Annabel, should such a situation arise can I recommend the Ray Mears Survival Handbook. It could be invaluable. I bet Iain Dale's got a copy or ten on his website.

[Serf]

I like the fact that communist countries who once threatened us are now our allies.

It was actually only Russia that was a threat to us, and the jury is still out on that one. As for the others, I won't deny that EU membership (actually probably more the promise of it) has had an impact. But their freedom is thanks to Ronald Reagan and his trusty British Sidekick.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"But their freedom is thanks to Ronald Reagan and his trusty British Sidekick."

And an inherently flawed economic mantra.