The Future Security of Britain - Essay Example

The Future Security of Britain Introduction It makes logical sense that Britain would tie itself closely to the US and align itself with US policy.There is the history and the similar legal systems. They speak the same language, which can not be said of the EU. They have a rich tradition and many cultural ties. It is natural that they would form a strong transatlantic alliance. But Britain also needs strong regional partnership for trade and security. Where does Britain's economic and security future lie Will they become a fully integrated member of the EU or will they continue to be the US's interface in a transatlantic alliance There is little doubt that Britain is a supporter of an expanded European Union and an advocate of free trade. This will benefit them in the European and global economy. However, their security will rest on the confidence they have in their relationship with the US. In return, the EU will continue to benefit from Britain's special, though politically expensive, relationship with the US. The politically risky situation in Iraq, NATO's continued commitment to Afghanistan, and the changing threat of global terrorism have made it imperative that Britain, the EU, and the US act in concert against acts of terrorist aggression and reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This will require retooling the armed forces and developing new sophisticated technologies. The US must be willing to commit the resources and take the lead, whilst Britain must be prepared to share the burden and play a pivotal role. The EU needs to continue to expand its existing security forces and be prepared to meet the changing threats of the 21st century. Terms The European Union (EU) is defined as the current 15 member nations. Trade organisations are recognised by their common acronyms as well as State organisations. A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is any weapon capable of inflicting massive human casualties with or without sustaining property damage. These can include, but not limited to, nuclear, biological, environmental, and electronic means. Terrorism is the threat of indiscriminate fear and destruction against a civilian population or unengaged forces. The Scenario The British Empire has seen a decline in domination in the recent decades. Once the ruler of the seas, the colonial empire has diminished. With the changing landscape of British holdings has come a new era of trade and economics. The recently formed European Union has a Gross Domestic Product that rivals the United States. Free trade agreements have offered the opportunity for a stabilised economic future. The threats to Britain's security have undergone dramatic change. Britain finds itself in a position of requiring military security with minimal political risk. Britain's challenge is to engage the US in productive security arrangements without damaging regional political relationships. Iraq and the war on terror have placed a strain on these commitments. Britain has reached a crossroads where they must decide where it will place the future of its economics, politics, and military security. Discussion Economics Britain has for several decades promoted international trade through GATT, the WTO, and support for the Doha round of the WTO. When those talks have stalled, Britain has tended to side with the US against resistance by some of Britain's largest trading partners, most notably China and India. When Doha talks were suspended in July 2006, The US and the EU blamed each other for the collapse.1 However, Blair commented on his talks with Bush and insisted, "We both agreed we needed to make one final effort to re-energise the negotiation and I hope we can do so within the next few weeks".2 Britain has made a substantial commitment to the future and expansion of the European Union. On the subject of Enlargement, Blair has been very clear and states, "It would be a Europe confident enough to see enlargement not as a threat [...], but an extraordinary, historic opportunity to build a greater and more powerful union".3 Britain pushed for the membership of Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Cyprus. They are currently supporting the accession of Turkey and Croatia. It is clear that for the purposes of trade and regional stability, Britain has hailed itself as a leading advocate of the EU. Political Security The commitment to the EU has been instrumental in their ability to act in concert to minimise regional tensions. Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina were recent test cases for co-operative military action. The EU, acting with the UN and NATO, were able to bring considerable force to bear and bring these conflicts to a close. These former warring factions have now started talks for Stabilisation and Association agreements.4 Britain will need to continue to work closely with the EU to reduce ethnic and regional tensions. Still, even within the region, Britain must rely on US involvement and leadership. In the Kosovo conflict, Britain revealed its lack of adequate military technology. None of the European Air Forces could effectively engage without the support of the United States.5 This pattern will continue as the US generates ever greater military technology and intelligence gathering systems. This will leave Britain as a subordinate power to the US and unable to provide security for the EU region without their aid. In fact, according to Wither, "Successive generations of British policymakers [...] have accepted the role of junior partner in order to sustain a relationship regarded as critical to national security".6 Geoffrey Hoon understands the vital role that the US plays in the security of Britain's future. In 2004 he said, "Without the military power of the United States to back the international community's commitments, the Taleban regime would still be in power in Kabul and Milosevic would still be terrorising Kosovo".7 The current strain that the war in Iraq has put on the policy of the EU will likely continue until an administration change in Washington. This is why Blair backs Bush to the point of nearly unreasonable. He understands the role of the US and Britain's relationship to that role. This role, though subservient to the US, will indeed be of great import. Britain will be the binding force behind the EU's regional and global security. They will be the one EU nation that can maintain and groom the special relationship that they have had with the US. Tony Blair sees Britain's role as critical and states, "It is to use the strengths of our history to build our future not as a super power but as a pivotal power, as a power that is at the crux of the alliances and international politics which shape the world and its future".8 Britain can not turn to the EU for security and can not turn back history and go into isolation. This is all contingent on the continued success and acceptance of The United State's foreign policy. Wither warns that, "US unilateralism is perceived as a potential threat to Britain's special security partnership and could have wider, unpredictable international repercussions".9 A close affiliation with the Bush administration could also become a political liability in the face of mounting opposition. It will become impossible to satisfy the EU and transatlantic interests. This could result in eventual isolation and distancing from the US.10 This problem has also been evident in other Middle Eastern affairs. In 2004, Britain was inclined to follow the US lead and oppose a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Israel. However, following intense negotiations with their EU partners, Britain conceded to France and voted with the EU bloc in favour of the resolution.11 This trend will however come to a tipping point where Britain will have to make a decision. Britain may get some future relief from the strain of US relations and Bush administration policies. The recent mid-term elections have shown that the American public is out of favour with the politically unpopular war in Iraq and Bush's approval rating is at an all time low.12 This trend could signal a change in administrations in the next election and could take some political pressure off Blair. A new administration would likely be more philosophically and strategically in line with the rest of the EU. Iraq may be a final example of the waning usefulness of a large invasion force. Military Defence The face of Britain's military is experiencing a process of change. History has seen the waning of the Royal Navy and the post Cold War period has necessitated new weapons and tactics. The military must now be ready to react to quickly changing threats and locales.13 As Hoon said, "We should prepare for more frequent operations, conducted at shorter notice and at distance".14 The 1998 Strategic Defence Review foretold that, "There is a growing body of opinion, particularly in the US, that we are approaching a 'Revolution in Military Affairs' in which we will see a step change in military capabilities resulting from the synergistic combination of long-range precision weapons with networks of advanced sensors and data processors".15 These highly technical aspects of the future of warfare will require significant US investment and involvement. This new technology implies intelligence gathering that extends itself to the battlefield. It is known as "network-centric capability" and consists of integrated technologies that detect targets and deliver precision weapons "to produce military effect at a qualitatively higher tempo, and often using smaller force structures than in the past".16 Yet, these technologies are costly and the expense will demand the leadership of the US. The new face of terrorism has brought about the need for strategic change. Though there are fewer threats of large invading armies breaching Britain's borders, terrorist attacks are likely to continue. This scenario is markedly different from the IRA activities or the CAT in Spain. Modern terrorism is a highly trained, mission specific, endeavour that is able to cross borders and infiltrate the local population. A 2006 White Paper reported, "the major threats to our security in the decade ahead will come from terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international organised crime and conflict ".17 According to A Secure Europe, "Dealing with terrorism may require a mixture of intelligence, police, judicial, military and other means".18 Dealing with these new threats will require foreign policies based on the need for co-operative intelligence as well as a shared vision of what is good for the world. The production of weapons of mass destruction, whether in the hands of terrorist organisations or rogue nations, needs to be confronted. These forces will drive the United States to accept a more traditional role and adopt a balance of power model.19 Though the US may spend as much as 80 percent of the world's military research money, a large portion will need to be shared to be effective.20 The US has historically shared both military and commercial research to benefit friendly nations.21 The EU has shown some recent inclination to involve itself in global security matters. However, with the exception of Bosnia the missions have been small scale. More complicated situations such as Somalia will require better equipped units and greater resources. French Army Gen. Henri Bentegat said that to get involved in Somalia would require "the greatest prudence and gravity".22 It may be several years before the EU is able to contribute substantially to British or global security. Conclusion Going forward there is little doubt that the British will be forced to follow America's lead. The US has technological superiority and has greater resources for military research and development. This will be a necessity into the future as weapons get more advanced. Electronic intelligence will also be the dominion of the US and the British, as well as the EU, will be dependent upon it to continue the fight against terrorism. The British may play a pivotal role as the broker of military roles between the US and the EU, but the US will remain in a leadership position. The Doha round of trade agreements will level the economic playing field and should bring all sides into accord. With a change of administrations in Washington there may be a possibility to bring Iraq to a conclusion. This could pave the way for an eventual goal of settling the Israeli-Palestinian problem and set the stage for a Middle Eastern solution that is acceptable to all parties. Bibliography Blair, T. (1999). Blair On Britain's new global role. Speech given at the Lord Mayor of London's Banquet, November 22, 1999. The Acronym Institute. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd42/42blair.htm EU enlargement - the debate (n.d.). Foreign Commonwealth Office. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Frontpagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1139992102802 European Union. (2003). European security strategy. In A Secure Europe in a Better World (pp. 1-14). Brussels: Author. Europe blames US for WTO failure. (2006, July 25). BBC News. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5209010.stm Foreign and Commonwealth Office. (2006). The UK's international priorities. In Active Diplomacy for a Changing World (pp. 1-60). London: Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Harris, R. (2001). Blair's "ethical" policy. The National Interest, 25-36. Hoon, G. (2003). Tomorrow's world - tomorrow's threats. Speech at a Royal Institute for International, March 10, 2003. Hoon, G. (2004). Transatlantic relations. Speech at Security Conference 2004 in Munich, February 7, 2004. House of Commons Defence Committee. (2003). Report with formal minutes. In A New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review (Vol. 1). London: House of Commons. Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). Getting hegemony right. The National Interest, 17-24. McCormick, D. (1998). The Downsized warrior: America's Army in transition. New York: New York University Press. Rynhold, J. (2005, November 7). British policy towards the Middle East. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/perspectives11.html Secretary of State for Defence. (1998). Modern forces for the modern world. In Strategic Defence Review. London: House of Commons. Taylor, L. (2007, January 25). Bush's Iraq surge: A good strategy The Cornell Daily Sun, p. 1. Tigner, B. (2007, January 22). Committee chief seeks to boost EU security missions . DefenseNews. Retrieved January 26, 2007, from http://www.defensenews.com/story.phpF=2488877&C=europe Vina, G. (2006, August 1). Blair says Britain, US want to save Doha. The Age. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/blair-says-britain-us-want-to-save-doha/2006/07/31/1154198074026.html Wither, J. K. (2003). British bulldog or Bush's poodle Anglo-American relations and the Iraq war. Parameters, 67-82. Read More