Re-Examination Process of Britain’s Defence, as a Good Guide

to Our Building of Defense Consensus

 

by Satoru NAKAMURA

Member of Research Committee, DRC

  

Forward

The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) had been announced on July 1998 by the British Defence Secretary. Its aim is to build on the developing consensus on defense and to establish the widest possible shared vision about Britain’s future security needs and the tasks of its Armed Forces. The Review is a good guide for us to study its fundamental approach to build consensus on the defense policy of our country.

In the last year, the Japanese emergency legislation bill was shelved to the next session. Our Government has made an error of judgment in mustering consensus of the Diet and local governments.

So it is needed for us to try to find the cause of its failure and to make a new approach for wide national consensus.

 

1. Approach of the SDR

The British Labour Government came to power with one of its manifesto commitment about a comprehensive Defence review in May 1997. At the beginning of the SDR, the Secretary of State for Defence said that he wanted their conclusions “to have been formed and tested in a wide forum”. The process would be open and inclusive, not conducted in secret behind closed doors. They were guided by the principles of;

-openness- keeping their own people, Parliament, their Allies and partners, the wider defense community and the public in touch with the progress;

-maximum use of existing structure- drawing on the expertise of their in-house staff, rather than setting up a separate Review team;

-the widest possible involvement within the Ministry of Defence, the Government as a whole and more widely.

The process of the SDR has laid the foundations for that ‘open and inclusive’ approach. Formerly over the years, the access to documents has been denied on the basis that they constitute ‘advice to Ministers’, on the basis that they are ‘commercially confidential’, on ground of ‘national security’ or because of political sensitivity.

It seemed for the some people concerned that the openness was a risky approach and there has remained some doubts as to whether there has been a genuine and enduring culture change.

As a result of discussions, it was concluded that the process underlying the SDR does represent a new and welcome departure in making more open discussion and formulation of their security and defense policy. It is said that this became the most open re-examination of Britain’s defense.

 

2. Policy Framework and National Interest

The objectives of the Ministry of Defence are to provide the defense capabilities need: -to ensure the security and defense of the United Kingdom and the Overseas Territories, including against terrorism; -to support the Government’s foreign policy objectives, particularly in promoting international peace and security.

At the first stage of the Government’s approach, it assessed the national interest. Foreign policy should be based on national interests. National security is the bases of foreign policy. It was fundamental to the Government's approach that the Review would be foreign policy-led.

We should consider the view about national interest. National interest is the foundation for a state to consider its action. As permanent national interest, nation's life and property, territory and national sovereignty concern national survival. Foreign free trade is economic interests. International environment stabilized in peace is concerning international order.

The first, Britain has a following view of national interest. Britain is a major European state. Britain's place in the world is determined by her interest as a nation and as a leading member of the national community, and the two are inextricably linked. Interest is not of course always consistent, and may even be contradictory. One problem is to distinguish between direct and indirect threats to Britain’s interest. Britain may not be under fire but if allies and partners are hurt, then she might suffer as well. How the instability in other areas in the world affect them is a problem which must be considered well.

The second, Britain has a following nation's foreign policy. Britain considers that a nation's foreign policy must reflect its value system, so Britain stands for a strong world community. As a Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council, Britain is both willing and able to play a leading role internationally. Britain has a responsibility to contribute to a strong world community. But they cannot achieve all their aims alone. Instead, they need to work through strong partnerships and alliances, particularly with the EU and NATO. They also attach immense importance to the international community as a whole working together through the UN and other international organizations.

         

3. Armed Forces contribution to State

Britain considers the contribution to the state of the armed forces as follows. The armed forces make a major contribution to Britain's objectives in this rapidly changing world. They must not only be able to carry out the range of task which may arise from current priorities, but also be sufficiently robust and flexible to cope with the longer term, when circumstances and priorities may change.

Such a view is very important for us and is helpful to us in considering the contribution of the Self- Defense Force.

Under new international conditions, the United Nations’ role of maintaining international peace and security is increasing in importance. Especially, its peacekeeping operations are becoming more important among other U.N. activities. But Japan has not always performed our role as a leading nation in Asia, because of our legal limitation by an interest of thinking.   

Furthermore, when our country extended the defense mission from direct defense to peacekeeping operation, there should have been debates as to the priority of defense missions. There was a impressive debate in the SDR process that "Is direct defense really such a low priority mission that it does not merit in its own right the maintenance of a significant military capability?"

We must keep in mind the principal purpose for which armed forces have an important role in direct defense.

 

4. Consideration for Our National Consensus

As the Review has been foreign policy –led, national security is fundamental for our foreign policy. Similarly, our diplomacy should be based on national interest and must have the severe posture in keeping national interest.

In order to consider our national objectives in the world community, we should reassess what our vital interest is.

In our country there has been prejudice in the post-war history to regard the word "National Interest" implies reactionary. So discussion wide has been avoided and education about it has not been carried out. Although our Government uses it in fragments, the whole has been not clarified till now.

When a serious problem arises in international society, our Government is required a political judgement and a decision of execution based on national interest. But that is very questionable. Our country had been politically negligent in going back to the true nature of national defense and arguing it out. Since the peace continued for a long time in our country, there has been little national concern about security problems. But now it is needed to argue about our future national defense policy widely between politicians, intelligent people of each field, mass media, and common people.

If we continue with the past process in building national consensus, we would not be able to clear the high hurdle of “the Article nine of the Constitution” and “the right of collective self-defense”. The government needs to show clearly to the nation the role of the defense power and the priority of the duty of the Self-Defense Forces in a new era.

The Self-Defense Forces could not perform its duty without wide national consensus and support.

 

Conclusion

Britain has taken in extensive arguments and opinions in the process of re-examination of Britain’s defense. Our emergency legislation bill was not materialized in the former Diet. Now the discussion is continuing, but there is little prospect of formation. It is said that the reason is in defects of this bill, a governmental blunder or disturbance of the opposition parties.

But a real, fundamental problem is the insufficiency of national consensus which should be formed in a new process hereafter. We are asked for many effort and originality in order to build national consensus and to get national support.

 

○    Biographies of authors

○    Contents