The Man from MI5 Gives a Speech

In the Telegraph on the 17the Sept is the text of a speech given to the Worshipful Company of Security Professionals by Jonathan Evans head of MI5 in which he covers what the service sees as the current threats to British Homeland Security.

• The revival of Terrorist Activity in the Province of Northern Island.
  Extract: A persistent rise in terrorist activity and ambition in Northern Ireland over the last three years.
  Perhaps we were giving insufficient weight to the pattern of history over the last hundred years which shows that whenever the main body of Irish republicanism has reached a political accommodation and rejoined constitutional politics, a hardliner rejectionist group would fragment off and continue with the so called "armed struggle".
  
• The Al Qaida and its affiliates and those inspired by its ideology.
  Extract: To sum up the Al Qaida related threat. The country continues to face a real threat from Al Qaida-related terrorism. That threat is diverse in both geography and levels of skill involved but it is persistent and dangerous and trying to control it involves a continual invisible struggle. Counter-terrorist capabilities have improved in recent years but there remains a serious risk of a lethal attack taking place. I see no reason to believe that the position will significantly improve in the immediate future.
  
  
• The espionage threat - Both Traditional and Cyber.
  Extract: Espionage did not start with the Cold War and it did not end with it either. Both traditional and cyber espionage continue to pose a threat to British interests, with the commercial sector very much in the front line along with more traditional diplomatic and defence interests. Using cyberspace, especially the Internet, as a vector for espionage has lowered the barriers to entry and has also made attribution of attacks more difficult, reducing the political risks of spying.
  

I felt one of the most important messages delivered in the speech was contained within the part dealing with the Al Qaida threat:

It is interesting to note in this context that in the last ten years what might be called a "zero tolerance” attitude to terrorist risk in Great Britain has become more widespread. While it has always been the case that the authorities have made every effort to prevent terrorist attacks, it used to be accepted as part of everyday life that sometimes the terrorists would get lucky and there would be an attack. In recent years we appear increasingly to have imported from the American media the assumption that terrorism is 100% preventable and any incident that is not prevented is seen as a culpable government failure. This is a nonsensical way to consider terrorist risk and only plays into the hands of the terrorists themselves. Risk can be managed and reduced but it cannot realistically be abolished and if we delude ourselves that it can we are setting ourselves up for a nasty disappointment.

These extracts and the final quote, I hope will encourage you to read the transcript of the entire speech: Jonathan Evans' terrorism speech

Britain's New Aircraft Carriers

Having read Defence review: 'Carriers give politicians options – not dead ends' an Article by Duncan Redford in the Telegraph, I am going to add my 'totally unqualified to comment' 10 pennyworth!

• A modern well equipped Warship forms a defensive bubble around itself and if the armament includes Cruise Missiles can provide considerable offensive capability, but that offensive capability lacks flexibility.
  A Carrier Group projects Power and provides the ability to give a flexible response to situations. Its very presence in theatre of operations gives pause to potential opponents as it is not just a threat, but an entire range of threat levels and this may give diplomacy the time needed to come to a peaceful resolution.
  Conversely the well equipped Warship will be seen as a single type of threat and possibly harden resolve not to back down.
• A Carrier Group provides a floating sovereign base and is therefore not subject to regional politics and as it is not located within a 'Host Nation' Air Base it is therefore not subject to local insurgency attacks.
• In the MoD Report one of the Threats Identified is to British Overseas Territories. The Falklands War may have happened a long time ago, but without the Carriers it would almost certainly not have been won.
• In the constantly evolving geopolitics, there is an ever increasing need for the ability to project power without necessarily having to use it. A Carrier Group provides a non-nuclear deterrent and an operational flexibility that in many circumstances would not otherwise be available.

Recent Related Posts:
Britain's Future Threats 14th September 2010
Defence of Britain 14th September 2010

External Links:
Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - Royal Navy Site

Delegation to make its case for aircraft carrier contract Scotsman 15 Sep 2010

Britain's Future Threats

Following my previous post: Defence of Britain, I read Thomas Harding's article: Strategic Defence and Security Review: four future scenarios and how they might play out in the Telegraph, which mentioned and in turn led me to read the Ministry of Defence Document: The Future Character of Conflict. Neither the Article, nor the Document make comfortable reading.

In the Article Harding look at 4 Possible Scenarios all an increasing number of years away: Iran 2016, 2018 Pakistan, Uganda 2023 and Baltic States 2023. To each of these he gives an opinion as to probability and Britain's readiness to deal with the situation. I do not doubt he has given considerable thought before selecting these possibilities as the ones to be published and he obviously has access to sources unavailable to me, but for the first two Iran and Pakistan, I feel the timeline may be shorter than he proposes.

The MoD Report is actually a much more sober and in many ways sombre text, less about scenarios but types of threat and why they might occur. This is understandable as this is an official document. In summary the report details:
Global trends that indicate increasing instability and growing opportunity for confrontation and conflict.
State failure, extremists, increased competition for resources and the changing global balance of power will dictate why, where and how conflict occurs.
The study concludes that the character of conflict will continue to evolve. Though it is impossible to accurately predict the exact character of the future conflict, in many future operations the armed forces are likely to face a range of simultaneous threats and adversaries in an anarchic and extended operating area.

I am not qualified to comment on the analysis and conclusions of the MOD Report, but as a result of reading it, I do feel that the chances of Britain's Armed Services being involved (whether HMG, or the Public wish it) in further conflicts within the next few years is inevitable. In addition attacks, whether by hacking penetration or direct action against the infrastructure of Computer Network Operations (CNO), or as I think of it Cyber War, will be an increasing factor in conflicts. Now that is a sobering and sombre thought.

Defence of Britain

In recent times I have not specifically covered Defence as regards policy, or politics, in the hope that Richard North would cover these areas in his Defence of the Realm Blog but as Richard is strangely quiet in that Blog (although he does touch on defence in the EU Referendum blog), I thought I would at least bring the following two articles in the Telegraph to your attention:
Strategic Defence and Security Review: Britain faces impossible choices in an uncertain world 13th Sep 2010
The Strategic Defence and Security Review is being conducted against a backdrop of bitter arguments between the Services and the threat of cuts of up to 20 per cent, yet it is meant to define Britain’s place in the world and our foreign policy and defence priorities for decades to come, says Professor Michael Clarke.

What is effectively a follow up article: General Sir Richard Dannatt on the Strategic Defence and Security Review: Britain is at stake 14th Sep 2010
The Strategic Defence and Security Review puts the Services under the
spotlight. Planners now have the job of predicting what future enemies we
might face; yet 10 years ago, no one foresaw the demands of Afghanistan, says General Sir Richard Dannatt.

Both articles are thought provoking and I recommend they are read in date order. Some will not agree with the conclusions, or perhaps even the tone of these articles, but both are written by those who's knowledge and experience means they are qualified to cover the subject, unlike so many of today's commentators: Professor Michael Clarke is Director of the Royal United Services Institute and General Sir Richard Dannatt was Chief of the General Staff from 2006 to
2009.

The United Kingdom Extradition Review

I welcome the Independent Extradition Review which in particular will put the current US-UK Extradition Treaty of 2003, the European Arrest Warrant and the more general EU Extradition arrangements under the Microscope, but will also cover Extradition Treaties with other Jurisdictions.

Starting off with the US-UK Extradition Treaty, which despite US Assertions that it fair, is probably one the most unbalanced negotiated by Britain in recent times, even the then Home Secretary David Blunkett (merely one of a long line of pretty useless Home Office Ministers) now admits he may have 'given too much to the Americans', NOT just an understatement, but 7 years late and an indication that David Blunkett should never have been Home Secretary (or indeed a Minister of the Crown in any capacity).

The trigger for putting the US-UK Treaty as a major element of the review appears to be the case of Gary McKinnon, who as far as I am concerned is one case where the Treaty has a value
(See: Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty Posted 1st August 2009). But this Blog has been highlighting what I see as the failings of this treaty since 2006. See:

• UK-US Extradition Treaty and Certain American Politicians Support for Terrorists 13th August 2006.
• The Natwest Three 29th 29th November 2007
• The Murder of Captain Nairac - Two Suspects still Safe in the USA 23rd May 2008
  
• Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty 01st August 2008
• The Extradite Gary McKinnon Saga Continues 28th November 2009

Moving on to the European Arrest Warrant; when this became law, I saw this in general as a good thing and conceptually I still do. But the reality has shown that it is open to being abuse and that it needs urgent reform. Part of the problem is this is an EU Law and therefore allows the Home Secretary, or their equivalent in other EU Countries, no 'wriggle room' to deal with Warrants that fall outside what is compatible with UK Law.

Whilst it is right that European Arrest Warrant is put under the Microscope, it is actually only part of a wider problem and this is the all encompassing EU Human Rights Legislation. Once again a pan-European Bill of Human rights is conceptually a good idea, but it terms and conditions are so aimed at the rights of the individual, they ignore the rights of society and indeed the rights of states to try Defendants according to their laws. See: Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him! This treaty does not need to be reviewed, Britain should withdraw from it immediately and replace it with a properly constructed UK Bill of Human Rights where the rights of the Individual and the rights of Society are balanced (Unfortunately my distrust of British Politicians has reached the point that I doubt they could actually construct such a bill).

The two threads of this post so far came together in the case of the extradition to the US on terror charges of radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri and three other men, which I covered in this post: How Dare the EU Block Abu Hamza US extradition on the 10th July 2010.

Even just reviewing the US-UK Extradition Treaty and the European Arrest Warrant would require considerable time, regardless of how qualified the Review Team might be. Adding in (quite rightly) other Extradition treaties and Arrangements means that the current Home Secretary's statement that this review will not report for a year is reasonable. But this statement is in itself unsatisfactory, as it doesn't address what needs to be done in the interim. My view is that the United Kingdom should suspend both the US-UK Treaty and the European Arrest Warrant and go further and withdraw Britain's acceptance of the Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights until further notice.

With any decent Home Secretary this would actually resolve some issues with the USA as both Gary Mckinnon and Abu Hamza (and his associates) would be extradited anyway. But instead we have the permanently disappointed Theresa May (If only Dr John Reid had felt able to stay as Home Secretary, we would have at least a Home Office fit for purpose even if the current Home Secretary wasn't). Of course with the 'beloved Theresa' in charge nothing will happen!