Work Of The Joint Committee On The National Security Strategy In 2012

The Work Of The Joint Committee On The National Security Strategy In 2013-14 (HC 169, HL 1257) covers the work of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which was established with a broad role; to consider the National Security Strategy. In practice, the Committee has considered not only the National Security Strategy (NSS) document 'A Strong Britain In An Age Of Uncertainty: The National Security Strategy' published by the Government in 2010 (see below), but also the wider strategy that underlies government decision making on matters affecting national security. The report gives an account of activities over the past year, highlighting in particular the evidence session with the Prime Minister in January 2014; draws attention to areas of continuing concern; and outlines objectives for the remainder of the Parliament.

Government response to HL 115/HC 984, session 2012-13 (ISBN 9780108550379)

The Committee reviews its work over the past year and calls on the Government to address five key areas of concern: i) The NSC appears to have focused on operational matters and short-term imperatives, rather than long-term strategy; ii) the Committee is not convinced that the NSC is making the contribution it should and questions how much extra value is derived from having the NSC as opposed to preceding systems; iii) major strategic policy changes appear to have been made by individual Government Departments without discussion at the NSC - most notably, the big policy decisions made by the MoD last year in Future Reserves and Army 2020; iv) the NSC appears to have neglected, or only recently discussed, some very central questions: the strategic and security impact of the Eurozone crisis; the planned referendums on Scottish independence and EU membership; and the significance of the US pivot to Asia-Pacific; iv) the Committee has not yet seen evidence of the Government pressing ahead with planning for the next NSS or giving serious consideration to engaging outside experts, politicians across the political parties and the public in its development. The Committee says that in the next stage of its work it will focus on the big strategic questions which the next NSS must address, and to take evidence from outside Government. It plans to hold a series of evidence sessions on: the UK's relationship with NATO; national security and the EU; the nature of our alliance with the United States; energy security; and food security

In this report the Defence Committee argues that the capabilities of HM Forces should be determined not by budgetary constraints but by a fully-developed strategy which defines the position in the world that the UK wants to adopt. The report urges the government to produce a comprehensive national security strategy in the first place and let that document, along with the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), direct the next Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR). The allocation of resources will be based on national spending priorities set to meet the nation's security needs. There is a danger of defence becoming a matter of discretionary spending. Decisions about the expeditionary capability that the UK retains must be based on proper strategic decision making about the UK's place in the world and not simply flow from the "horse-trading" that surrounds the CSR process. The report points to a lack of understanding amongst the public of why we have Armed Forces. General sympathy and support for the Armed Forces must not obscure a hard-headed understanding of what they are for. The process of producing the next Defence and Security Review is the opportunity to engage the public in understanding the future of the Armed Forces. The Committee has very real concerns about the focus that will be given to the number of asymmetric security threats to the UK, such as from terrorism or cyber attack. The Government must think more strategically about the resilience of the country's critical infrastructure and recovery following an attack.

This reports finds that the Coalition Government has developed in public a more mature and measured relationship with the US, although there has been no fundamental change in the nature of the tie. The Committee declares the relationship to be in good health. In particular, the Committee said that it was not aware of any evidence that the House of Commons vote in August 2013 against potential military action in Syria had damaged the UK's relationship with the US. Rather, the Committee concluded that the episode illustrated general features of the UK-US relationship, namely that developments in the UK could influence US policy; and that the underlying tie was resilient. Today's publication follows up a report produced by the previous Foreign Affairs Committee at the end of the last Parliament, which recommended that the UK Government should adopt a more hard-headed and less deferential approach to the US. The Coalition Government seemed to have taken up this recommendation. The Committee criticises the UK Government's poor provision of information about the UK-US Joint Strategy Board, which was created during President Obama's State Visit to the UK in May 2011. Among strategic issues that it considered, the Committee agreed with the Government that the proposed EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) could have significant positive strategic impact for the UK and the transatlantic relationship.

This volume outlines two decades of reforms at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO), British Council and BBC World Service – the so-called Public Diplomacy Partners. Between 1995 and 2015, the FCO and its partner organisations in promoting British influence abroad have introduced major changes to how, where and with whom diplomacy is conducted. This unique study links major organisational reforms to the changing political, technological and intellectual contexts of the day. Through detailed case studies over a 20-year period, this study demonstrates how and why British diplomacy evolved from a secretive institution to one understanding its purpose as a global thought leader through concepts such as public diplomacy, digital diplomacy and soft power. It is rich with unpublished documents and case studies, and is the most detailed study of the FCO and British Council in the contemporary period. From Cool Britannia to the recent GREAT campaign via the 2012 Olympics and diplomats on Twitter, this book charts the theory and practice behind a 21st century revolution in British diplomacy. This work will be of much interest to policymakers and advisors, students and researchers, and foreign policy and communication specialists. “From the heady past of Cool Britannia to the present days of the Great Campaign by way of the Royal Wedding, London Olympics and multiple other gambits in Britain's evolving attempt to connect to foreign publics, this book is the essential account of the inner workings of a vital aspect of contemporary British foreign policy: public diplomacy. James Pamment is an astute, succinct and engaging Dante, bringing his readers on journey through the policy processes behind the scenes. We see the public diplomacy equivalents of paradise, purgatory and the inferno, though Pamment leaves us to decide which is which.” Nicholas J. Cull, author of ‘The Decline and Fall of the United States Information Agency: American Public Diplomacy, 1989-2001’. “A gift to practitioners who want to do the job better: required reading for anyone going into a senior job at the British Council, the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office and enlightened thinkers at 10 Downing Street, HM Treasury and Ministries of Foreign Affairs worldwide. Authoritative, scholarly and accurate, Pamment strikes a great balance between the salient details and the overarching picture. He also does a major service to those of us who lived it; our toils make more sense for what he has done - placing them in a historical and conceptual context.” John Worne, Director of Strategy & External Relations, British Council, 2007-2015

Whose interests does British foreign policy serve? Is the national interest a useful explanatory tool for foreign policy analysts? This interdisciplinary collection responds to these questions exploring ideas of Britain's national interest and their impact on strategy, challenging current thinking and practice in the making of foreign policy.

The Defence Committee says the Government must describe the circumstances in which the UK would intervene militarily in the future. A strategic and well-articulated vision of the UK's position in the world and the level of influence it is able to exert would lead to more rational decisions on whether or not to intervene as well as a better public understanding of the rationale for any such future decision. It would also assist in identifying the strategic objective of such operations, contributing to a more coherent UK foreign, defence and security policy. The Committee supports the Government's adoption of an "adaptable posture" in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review. The threats to UK national security remain uncertain and unpredictable and it is important flexibility to deal with them is retained. The current main national security threat was from international terrorism, but the Committee calls on the Government to ensure that the next National Security Strategy gives due weight to the likelihood of a return to an increased threat of state versus state conflict. The Government needs to resolve the balance between Parliament's essential role as a strategic inquisitor on military deployments and the use of the Royal Prerogative in conflict decisions. The Government should commit to ensuring that a summary of the legal justification on military action is available to Parliament in advance of any debate. The Government should also set out how it intends to define and assess successful exit strategies and end states.