CentreRight

Overall, while the recent NATO Summit in Strasbourg wasn’t as groundbreaking as many had hoped, there was a lot to be optimistic about.

I welcome NATO’s two newest members—Croatia and Albania—into the alliance. Their membership shows what reform and hard work can achieve, but they must also realise that with membership comes responsibility. The membership of Croatia and Albania should send the message to the rest of the region that the natural home for the Balkans is inside the family of Europe and part of NATO.

There was a lot of talk at the Summit about further troop contributions for ISAF in Afghanistan—especially for the period leading up to and during the upcoming elections in August. Time will tell if these contributions, which read so well on paper, will ever become real capability on the ground. In addition, I hope our European allies will be able to contribute more combat troops to the dangerous south and east of the country—but recent history has thought us to be sceptical.

President Sarkozy’s decision to rejoin NATO’s Integrated Command Structure should be welcome on both sides of the Atlantic. France can bring real military capability to the alliance, but this decision should not be at the cost of deeper EU defence integration. It must be made clear that NATO has the right of first refusal and primacy for all matters pertaining to the security and defence of Europe. For the last 60 years NATO has been the cornerstone of our collective defense and it should stay this way.

Even after this summit I think many are still asking the question: “What is NATO for?”

It was the moment everyone had waited for.  From the time she became John McCain’s surprise running mate the Republican convention knew that the performance of Governor Sarah Palin would be pivotal.  And she nailed it.  She did not simply live up to expectations, she massively exceeded them.  She was poised, elegant and eloquent.  She set out her views clearly and unapologetically but with considerable warmth and charm.  It was impossible to be present and not to feel that something significant was happening in the world of American politics.  Whether it was discussing her family and background or the details of energy security policy she held the capacity crowd transfixed and above all, she seemed completely authentic.  There was nothing in her content or style that seemed awkward or uncomfortable, written by professional speechwriters for a generic vice presidential candidate.  She praised (indeed embodies) the values of smalltown America contrasting her position with what she characterised as Senator Obama’s condescension for those “ who cling to God and the gun”. She said there were politicians who used to change to promote their own careers and those, like John McCain, who used their careers to promote change.

The convention had finally come to life, following the earlier changes imposed by hurricane Gustav, with speeches by Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani.  Despite the economic difficulties and the success, at least with the media, of Senator Obama’s convention speech, there has been an increasing air of optimism among Republican delegates here in Minnesota.  And all this for a maverick Presidential candidate who had been almost entirely written off a year ago.

This year’s Shangri-La Dialogue, run by the International Institute for Strategic Studies took place in Singapore over the weekend. It is one of the largest and most prestigious security events of the calendar and was attended by Defence Ministers, Military Staff and Foreign Ministers from around the globe. The UK Government was represented by the Secretary of State for Defence. The meeting took place against the backdrop of rising energy costs and the natural disasters which have affected China and Burma and the International concern and tensions over North Korea, Burma and Taiwan.

The opening keynote speech was given by the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong.  He stated that Asia was now the strategic pivot of the world as well as its economic powerhouse. He criticised some developed countries for a growing “defensive posture” and made a robust defence of free trade. This reflected a widespread anxiety about some of the protectionist rhetoric coming from Europe and from US Democratic candidates. The speech was also notable for its strongly pro-China attitude and drew some gasps when it criticised “Tibetan activists who had set out to embarrass China” over the Olympics. It was clear that this speech reflected anxiety in the Asia Pacific about the outcome of the US Presidential election. The Prime Minister was accurately reflecting the views of many Governments present when he called on the next US Administration to reaffirm its commitment to free trade and globalisation, maintain constructive relations with China and continue the battle with transnational terrorism.

Since the fall of the Taliban the United Kingdom has been responsible for creating and implementing a coherent and effective poppy eradication plan for Afghanistan. To date, this Government has failed.

Even though the amount of poppy eradicated in Afghanistan during 2007 increased by 24 per cent from 2006, net opium poppy production across Afghanistan increased to 193,000 ha in 2007 equating to a 17 per cent increase from 2006. In Helmand province alone, net opium poppy production in 2007 reached a record high of 102,770 ha. This was an increase of 48 per cent from 2006. Clearly we are not moving in the right direction.

However, figures recently released by the Government show that when the United Kingdom is compared with the 34 provinces in Afghanistan the UK ranks an astonishing 11th place in the amount of opium poppy production in 2007.

Figures released by the U.S. State Department show that in 2007 the UK grew more opium poppy than Pakistan.

Not only are we failing to eradicate it, we are growing it at home when we could be buying it from farmers in Afghanistan before it ends up on the black market. The Government tells us that they have to grow poppy in the UK as part of a strategic reserve. I find this ironic considering that the UK is supposed to have the strategic and tactical control of one of the biggest poppy producing places in the world: Helmand Province!

Today in the House of Commons the Prime Minister said that:

“The European Union does not have an official role in foreign and security policy; it is an intergovernmental organisation, in part for dealing with defence and security policy.”

This statement is not only false but it contradicts the text of the treaty this Government is forcing onto the British people.

In the House of Commons we spent less than six hours debating the foreign, security, and defence policy aspects of the Lisbon Treaty. Not a lot of time to debate issues that will have an effect on the future of Britain’s foreign policy and the transatlantic alliance. Although the Lisbon Treaty makes sweeping changes in the area of European Union defence integration Des Browne was nowhere to be seen throughout the debate.

Today, in the House of Commons during oral defence questions, I raised the very important issue of Kosovo and the possible impact Russia’s new president, Mr. Medvedev, could have in the current situation there.

Mr. Medvedev visited Belgrade twice during his campaign to show solidarity with the Serbs over Kosovo. Russia’s newly appointed Ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, has warned that Russia could use military force if the Kosovo situation worsens.

I asked what assessment the Government has made of how the new Russian government might affect the security situation in Kosovo. The answer I received was a pre-rehearsed line mentioning “continuing assessments” by the Ministry of Defence and a “hope that everyone plays a constructive role” in the region.

When it comes to the Balkans, the Russians, and the future of European security I am looking for a little more than “continuing assessments” and “hope” from the Government.

One of the most important sessions focused on how NATO is currently operating with a general agreement that there are serious issues to be addressed at the forthcoming Bucharest Summit.

The discussion was opened by the German Defence Minister, Franz Josef Jung, who made an impassioned defence of the role of NATO and its importance for European security in the future. He said “NATO is the stable anchor of our security but it has new challenges” and went on to raise questions about the command structure and strategic air transport capacity of NATO.  He paid a warm tribute to the non-NATO members who were supporting NATO, especially the Australians in Afghanistan.  It was necessary, he said, to show success in Afghanistan to domestic electorates as the coverage by the media in Europe was largely negative.  28 million people had been liberated from the Taliban and they now have an elected President and to their own Constitution.  38% of those in higher education were now women and 4.7 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan. 

Like many others present Mr Yung feared that the three main elements of security, economy and good governance were not sufficiently being brought together.  This was a theme that was echoed time and again throughout the conference.  He also sounded a warning note that the security situation was becoming more risky in the North and that there was a need to speed up solutions to some of the basic structural problems.

This has become one of the most important events in the political security calendar.  It was at this conference last year that president Putin chose to make his stinging attack on the United States’ foreign policy. This year's conference was extremely well attended by senior representatives from NATO, Europe and Russia.  There were three Presidents, four Prime Ministers and three Deputy Prime Ministers as well as a host of Foreign and Defence Ministers.  Yet again that there were no representatives of the UK government present.  Not only is this a huge embarrassment but it increasingly gives the signal that our ministers are either not interested or simply not up to the task.  If the American Secretary of Defence and the Secretary General of NATO think the meeting is important enough to attend, it is a national disgrace that neither our part-time Defence Secretary nor any of his junior ministers are willing to give up three days to attend an important international gathering.  Presumably Des Browne thinks fighting the Scottish Nationalists is more important than fighting the Taliban!

The guest speaker at the opening conference dinner was the newly re-elected President of Serbia, Mr Boris Tadic.  As expected, he concentrated on the situation in Kosovo and the possibility of its unilateral declaration of independence.  He warned that the International Community was cutting corners and that the only route to legitimacy was through the Security Council of the UN. In a speech whose tone and content was echoed by the Russians throughout the conference he said “we must avoid precedents that could strike at the heart of European security” and “ if negotiations fail all three parties (Serbia and Kosovo and the EU) will pay a terrible price”. While there is no doubt that a great deal of this was intended for his domestic audience we must not underestimate the potential for the situation in Kosovo to boil over.  While the generally pro-West Mr Tadic is firmly in control it must not be forgotten that his ultra nationalist rival in the presidential election gained 47% of the vote.  The lack of attention given to this issue in the British media is quite astonishing and reflects the awful possibility that we may be sleepwalking into yet another Balkan crisis.

Last week in Ankara I met with the Turkish Defence and Energy Ministers and members of the Defence Committee in the Turkish Parliament. During my meetings there was one main recurring theme: European Union members do not appreciate Turkey’s contribution to European security enough, especially France and Austria.

Short-sighted capitals in Western Europe need to open their eyes and see Turkey for what it really is: A valued NATO partner, a secular state bridging Europe and the Islamic world, a developing economy and a major player in the energy market.

Turkey played a key role in NATO during the cold war by being one of two NATO members that bordered the Soviet Union. Following the Cold War their contribution to European security is just as valid. They have sent thousands of troops to Afghanistan and have commanded ISAF twice since 2002. They have also contributed to a number of NATO and EU military missions in the Balkans.

Turkey’s geo-strategic location also makes it important to Europe’s energy security. Turkey is the gateway to the resource-rich Caucasus and Caspian Basin and controls the Bosphorus, one of the most important and narrowest shipping straits in the world.

Today I spoke at the Conservative Party and the Centre for Policy Studies seminar on the role of the State in the post-bureaucratic age. The primary aim of this seminar was for the Conservative Party to set the foundation for bringing  Britian into a post bureaucratic age; an age where people are empowered from a bottom-up approach. This is in contrast to the top-down approach relentlessly pursued by Labour.

One of the main obstacles is the target culture. Targets are one of the most pernicious manifestations of a system obsessed with process, not outcomes.

Targets, especially those tied to finance, end up measuring only the measurable rather than what really matters and attaining the easily attainable irrespective of whether or not it has really made a difference.

The recent announcement that the Ministry of Defence lost a laptop containing sensitive information for more than 600,000 individuals adds up to a damning picture of MoD incompetence.

In many ways this is worse than the loss of the child benefits records because we know this information fell into criminal hands since it was stolen by a criminal. This could be used for identify theft or worse, for terrorist use.

Now we have learned that two more laptops containing similar information have been stolen but neither of these incidents were reported to Ministers.

Why not?