---

Defence Policy

In this debate, I want to consider globalisation—how we can face the challenge that it poses, the role played by defence in doing so, and the interaction between defence policy and international development policy. However, before I touch on those matters, I want to take advantage of my first opportunity since the conclusion of the naval base review to convey the thanks of Portsmouth people to the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for the far-sightedness and excellent judgment displayed in their decision to keep all three of our bases open. That, of course, was what we in Portsmouth advocated all along, for sound military and strategic reasons. We also had a sound financial case, and I should like to place on record my thanks to everyone involved in the campaign. That included neighbouring MPs from all parties, the South East England Development Agency, the Government office for the south-east, the city council, the Royal Navy, our industrial partners in the naval base, the trade unions, our local newspaper, the people of Portsmouth, and the many serving and ex-serving Royal Navy personnel from all over the world. They could not imagine Portsmouth without the Royal Navy—or, indeed, the Royal Navy without Portsmouth. The announcement that the bases were safe from closure has given a huge boost to the morale of all who work in the naval base. Yesterday, I welcomed our new Minister for the South East, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), to Portsmouth and accompanied him on a very quick tour of the naval base. The important thing that I pointed out to him was that the success of our operations in Portsmouth was due to partnership working between the Navy and our industrial partners, which I believe to be an example of best practice. The Minister was able to see that for himself on a visit to the VT Shipbuilding yard, when he inspected the bow sections of the type 45 destroyers that are under construction there. We were, of course, also able to show him where we are going to berth the two new aircraft carriers. They will dwarf any other ship that is or ever has been based at Portsmouth, and will be a very visible reminder to the people of the city of its strategic importance to the defence of our nation. The wider message of the decision to keep all three bases open, and of the announcement of the decision to go ahead with building the two new aircraft carriers, is that this Labour Government are committed to a strong Royal Navy that is able to carry out its duties, not just patrolling our own shores, but further afield. Given that most of our world is water, the carriers will ensure that Britain’s contribution to being a force for good in the world includes a strong maritime presence. As many hon. Members have said, it is unlikely that we will act on our own as a nation state in the foreseeable future. We will be acting as part of a multinational coalition, so the two new carriers will mean that we will be bringing some serious equipment to the table, and that our voice is heard in a multinational maritime strategy. That brings me back to the argument about globalisation. Over the past 10 years, we have heard a lot about the challenge of globalisation, but mainly in an economic context. The global market place is much more developed than it was even 20 or 30 years ago. In the new global electronic economy, finance and capital can be transferred around the world at the click of a mouse. Products can be produced in, and services provided from, anywhere in the world—but a question mark hangs over how far nation states can manage their own destiny. For a recent example of that, we need look no further than what happened with Northern Rock: that problem was caused not by our economic actions, but as a consequence of lending decisions in the US. One of the biggest effects of globalisation is the transfer of information. The advent of satellite communications—by the way, that is yet another technology manufactured in Portsmouth—means that instantaneous communication is possible between one side of the world and the other. We have seen the effect of that already in the defence context, with pictures from operational theatres being sent by mobile phones. We have had to modify our rules and regulations to take account of that. However, instantaneous electronic communication is not just about conveying information more quickly. It is about information reaching people who have never been reached before, despite the efforts of the nation state to prevent it. Again, we just have to look at the events in Burma a few weeks ago to see an example of that. So, in defence terms, where does that leave the nation state? Professor Anthony Giddens has said:"““nations no longer have enemies…Nations today face risks and dangers rather than enemies, a massive shift in their very nature.””" Is he right? If so, we need a defence policy not against a specific enemy, as in the days of the cold war, but one that is flexible and enables us to respond rapidly to whatever risks and dangers may emerge. Is globalisation one of those risks? Is it a threat against which we should be defending ourselves, or is it a good thing that we should encourage, as it opens up the world and opens up opportunities for people to grow and develop? It is probably both: we do not have to look too far into the future to see a growing world population, with everyone competing for limited resources, such as water, food and energy. Inevitably, that will produce tensions. We can see new, growing economies quite rightly wanting their share of those resources as they develop, and people in those countries wanting to share in the lifestyles that they are increasingly able to see in more developed countries through the internet and mobile phone networks. We must ensure that competition for resources is based not on defending or trying to seize access to the world’s resources by force, but on encouraging stability and democracy in less developed states, and in states that are unstable and have no democratic rule of law. So defence policy, foreign policy and international development policy become increasingly intertwined, and our modern armed forces must be equipped with the training and the resources to undertake that increasingly multi-faceted role. In June I was lucky enough to visit Afghanistan, where I saw that multi-faceted role in action. We are not in Afghanistan as part of an invading force taking over the country, but at the invitation of the Afghan Government to help them bring about democracy and stability, which the people of Afghanistan need so that they can move forward. When our forces go into villages in Helmand province and ask villagers what they want—schools, hospitals or roads—the answer is always security first. They want security for themselves and for their children, and only then do they want health care, transport infrastructure and education. Democracy and stability in Afghanistan are also in our national interest, to prevent the country from becoming a base for international terrorism that threatens our safety and security. That does not apply just to Afghanistan; we need democracy and stability in all nation states if we are to prevent future armed conflict in a growing world population eager to share in growth and prosperity, but competing for limited resources. In Afghanistan it is clear that we shall not achieve that objective with firepower alone: to use a well-worn phrase, shock and awe are not enough. We need to use another well-worn phrase, and win over hearts and minds. The Taliban do not have popular support among the Afghan people, most of whom are afraid of them. The Afghan people need to know that the international forces are in it for the long term, and that we will not abandon them if the going gets rough. The worst of all worlds would be for them to kick the Taliban out with our help, only for us to decide to pull our troops out of Afghanistan because it is too dangerous.