Powerbase - User contributions [en]

Geoffrey Pattie

2010-11-19T13:54:07Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

'''Sir Geoffrey Pattie''' is Chairman of [[Strategic Communication Laboratories]], and centre-right think-tank [[First Defence]] as well as the Senior Partner of [[Terrington Management]], a lobbying consultancy based in Westminster, London.<ref>First Defence [http://www.firstdefence.org/html/sir_geoffrey_pattie.html 'First Defence - Board of Directors'], Accessed 16th November 2010</ref>

==Career History==

After graduating from Cambridge with Honours in Law, Sir Geoffrey entered the advertising business and became CEO of one of the UK’s leading agencies. He was elected to the House of Commons in 1974 and served for eight years in Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s first two Administrations – first as a Defence Minister and then as the Technology Minister. In these capacities, he had oversight of the Government sponsored defence and civil research programmes, and took a keen interest in promoting areas of advanced technology, especially in IT and space. On leaving Parliament in 1997, Sir Geoffrey was Chairman of GEC Marconi, the defence arm of GEC and, in that capacity he had many dealings with the International Defence industry. Sir Geoffrey set up his own business, Terrington Management LLP of which he is Senior Partner in 1999. Sir Geoffrey is an Honorary Fellow of St. Catharine’s College Cambridge. <ref> Tri Polus [http://www.tripolus.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=83 'Tri Polus - Management Board'], accessed 16th November 2010. </ref>

In April 1990 Pattie was appointed Vice-Chairman of the [[Conservative Party]] with particular responsibility for liaising with other parties in Europe and emerging democracies in Eastern Europe. In May 1992, he was appointed Vice-Chairman (International) of the [[Conservative Party]]. He resigned from his seat in Parliament at the General Election in 1997. He was awarded the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Law by Sheffield University in July 1997. He was Chairman of [[Marconi Electronic Systems]] Ltd from June 1990 to 1999, Director of Marketing at [[GEC]] plc from 1997 to 1998 and Director of Communications at GEC from 1998 to 1999. He was a Non-Executive Director of the Fairey Group from 1987 to 1993 and Chairman of the Intellectual Property Institute from 1994 to 1999.<ref>Strategic Communications Limited 'Board of Directors',[http://www.scl.cc/staffmember.php?staffid=5&section=6 'Strategic Communications Limited - Board of Directors'], Accessed 23 July 2007.</ref>

==Affiliations==

[[First Defence]] | [[Strategic Communication Laboratories]]

==References==
<references/>

Globalisation:First Defence Documents

2010-11-19T01:58:18Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

=='The State of The Navy' By Dr. Julian Lewis==

==Summary of the Argument==

Eight years after emerging apparently victorious from the 1998 Strategic Defence
Review, the Royal Navy is bloodied, battered and on the ropes.
An initial sacrifice of three frigates and two submarines has turned into the
devastating loss of 14 major frontline vessels – with a prospect of even more being
run down or mothballed.
There is a serious prospect of 19 destroyers and frigates having to do the work of 30.
These reckless reductions have been based on the strategic falsehood – the ‘Hoon
Excuse’ – that numbers no longer matter in an era of more capable ships.
The reluctant acquiescence of the Admirals has been bought by the promise – as yet
unfulfilled – that two Future Aircraft Carriers will be ordered. In the meantime, their
target in-service dates of 2012 and 2015 have been abandoned in all but name.
Having admitted that the Armed Forces are involved in more complex and more
numerous operations than were anticipated in the Strategic Defence Review, the
Government have betrayed the Royal Navy by inflicting massive damage to the front
line instead of augmenting it.
The next step in this betrayal is a threat to close one of the United Kingdom’s only
three Naval Bases.
The Type 45 destroyer-building programme has been slashed from 12 to eight; only
six of these have been ordered; and none is to be fitted with the Tomahawk
land-attack cruise missiles requested by the Naval Staff.
The final size of the future submarine fleet is uncertain, but seems likely to consist of
only eight, or for a period just seven, boats – apart from those carrying the nuclear
deterrent.
This whole sorry saga has provoked a level of concern at the top of the Service
unprecedented since the East of Suez controversy in the 1960s, and has led to a
degree of public criticism by the former First Sea Lord which it would be perilous to
ignore.<ref>[http://www.firstdefence.org/documents First Defence Documents]First Defence Website,accessed 16th November 2010 </ref>

The full content of the document can be accessed at the [[First Defence]] website.

==Nuclear Disarmament versus peace in the 21st Century==
By Dr. Julian Lewis

Dr Julian Lewis, Parliamentary Chairman of First Defence, is the Shadow Defence
Minister dealing with nuclear deterrence and Royal Navy issues. He has served
on the Defence Select Committee and was Shadow Minister for the Cabinet
Office in the run-up to the 2005 General Election. He has been Conservative MP
for New Forest East since 1997, and was a Deputy Director of the Conservative
Research Department from 1990 to 1996. In the 1980s, he was a leading
campaigner against the CND and in favour of the decisions to acquire Trident and
deploy NATO cruise missiles. A second edition of his book, Changing Direction:
British Military Planning for Post-war Strategic Defence, 1942-47, was published
by Frank Cass in 2003.<ref>[http://www.firstdefence.info/documents/Nuclear%20Disarmament%20versus%20Peace.pdf Nuclear Disarmament]First Defence Website, accessed 17th November 2010</ref>

The full article can be found here at [[http://www.firstdefence.info/our-reports/76-nuclear-disarmament]]

==External Vigilance:The Defence of a Free Society==
By Mark Frisk MP

In this paper Mark Prisk MP offers some practical ideas which government should adopt. He reinforces the notion that we
should not only be vigilant about our security, but that by responding to the new kind of terror we do not succumb to the desired end-game of our enemy; the very end of our open and democratic society.<ref>[http://www.firstdefence.info/documents/vigilance.pdf External Vigilance]The Defence of a Free Society, accessed 17th November 2010</ref>

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:First Defence Documents

2010-11-19T01:50:46Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

=='The State of The Navy' By Dr. Julian Lewis==

==Summary of the Argument==

Eight years after emerging apparently victorious from the 1998 Strategic Defence
Review, the Royal Navy is bloodied, battered and on the ropes.
An initial sacrifice of three frigates and two submarines has turned into the
devastating loss of 14 major frontline vessels – with a prospect of even more being
run down or mothballed.
There is a serious prospect of 19 destroyers and frigates having to do the work of 30.
These reckless reductions have been based on the strategic falsehood – the ‘Hoon
Excuse’ – that numbers no longer matter in an era of more capable ships.
The reluctant acquiescence of the Admirals has been bought by the promise – as yet
unfulfilled – that two Future Aircraft Carriers will be ordered. In the meantime, their
target in-service dates of 2012 and 2015 have been abandoned in all but name.
Having admitted that the Armed Forces are involved in more complex and more
numerous operations than were anticipated in the Strategic Defence Review, the
Government have betrayed the Royal Navy by inflicting massive damage to the front
line instead of augmenting it.
The next step in this betrayal is a threat to close one of the United Kingdom’s only
three Naval Bases.
The Type 45 destroyer-building programme has been slashed from 12 to eight; only
six of these have been ordered; and none is to be fitted with the Tomahawk
land-attack cruise missiles requested by the Naval Staff.
The final size of the future submarine fleet is uncertain, but seems likely to consist of
only eight, or for a period just seven, boats – apart from those carrying the nuclear
deterrent.
This whole sorry saga has provoked a level of concern at the top of the Service
unprecedented since the East of Suez controversy in the 1960s, and has led to a
degree of public criticism by the former First Sea Lord which it would be perilous to
ignore.<ref>[http://www.firstdefence.org/documents First Defence Documents]First Defence Website,accessed 16th November 2010 </ref>

The full content of the document can be accessed at the [[First Defence]] website.

==Nuclear Disarmament Versus Peace in the 21st Century==
By Dr. Julian Lewis

Dr Julian Lewis, Parliamentary Chairman of First Defence, is the Shadow Defence
Minister dealing with nuclear deterrence and Royal Navy issues. He has served
on the Defence Select Committee and was Shadow Minister for the Cabinet
Office in the run-up to the 2005 General Election. He has been Conservative MP
for New Forest East since 1997, and was a Deputy Director of the Conservative
Research Department from 1990 to 1996. In the 1980s, he was a leading
campaigner against the CND and in favour of the decisions to acquire Trident and
deploy NATO cruise missiles. A second edition of his book, Changing Direction:
British Military Planning for Post-war Strategic Defence, 1942-47, was published
by Frank Cass in 2003.<ref>[http://www.firstdefence.info/documents/Nuclear%20Disarmament%20versus%20Peace.pdf Nuclear Disarmament]First Defence Website, accessed 17th November 2010</ref>

The full article can be found here at [[http://www.firstdefence.info/our-reports/76-nuclear-disarmament]]

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:First Defence Documents

2010-11-19T01:37:52Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

Conservative Party (UK)

2010-11-19T01:33:08Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

[[Image:Conservative and Unionist Party.png|right|160px]]
'''Conservative and Unionist Party''', also known as '''Conservative Party''' or '''Tory Party''', is a centre-right conservative political party in the UK, and is currently in power in Westminster,led by Prime Minister David Cameron.<ref>[http://www.conservatives.com/Conservative Party]Conservative Party Website,accessed 17th November 2010</ref>

==Website==

http://www.conservatives.com

==Resources==

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category: Political Party in UK]]
[[Category: European Political Party]][[Category:Conservative Party]]
{{Template:MEPedia_badge}}

Conservative Party (UK)

2010-11-19T01:19:48Z

Leigh McDiarmid: Conservative Party (UK) moved to Globalisation:Conservative Party (UK)

[[Image:Conservative and Unionist Party.png|right|160px]]
'''Conservative and Unionist Party''', also known as '''Conservative Party''' or '''Tory Party''', is a centre-right conservative political party in the UK.

:Website:
:http://www.conservatives.com/

==Resources==

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category: Political Party in UK]]
[[Category: European Political Party]][[Category:Conservative Party]]
{{Template:MEPedia_badge}}

Globalisation:Rt. Hon Liam Fox

2010-11-19T01:02:44Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

==Background==

Dr. Liam Fox has been a Conservative MP for 18 years and lives in Tickenham. He holds regular surgeries for constituents in Clevedon, Nailsea, Portishead and Yatton and has a reputation as a hard-working constituency MP.

He worked as a GP in Nailsea before becoming a member of Parliament and has held high office in both opposition and government. He has the experience inside and outside Parliament we need for good government.

Liam has been at the centre of local campaigns such as the defence of the green belt, especially around Long Ashton, Dundry and Failand. He has been a leading figure in the local battles such as the electricity pylons affecting Blackwell, Nailsea and Yatton. In Parliament he has campaigned for a Portishead railway link and famously described Portishead as the biggest cul-de-sac in Britain .

He is patron of a large number of local organisations and charities including Mencap, Children's Hospice South West, Clevedon Pier, Portishead lifeboat, the Jessie May Trust, the Curzon Cinema and numerous sports clubs.<ref>[http://www.liamfox.co.uk/text.aspx?id=4 About Liam Fox] Liam Fox Website,accessed 16th November 2010</ref>

==Political Experience==

Liam contested Roxburgh and Berwickshire in the 1987 General Election, and was elected as the Member of Parliament for Woodspring (renamed North Somerset for the 2010 General Election) in April 1992.

In June 1993, Liam was appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to Michael Howard, then Home Secretary. In July 1994, he was appointed an Assistant Government Whip, and promoted to the position of Senior Government Whip the following year. He was a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1996 until the 1997 General Election.

In June 1997, Liam was appointed Opposition Front Bench Spokesman on Constitutional Affairs. For four years from May 1999 to November 2003 he served as Shadow Secretary of State for Heath before being appointed Co-Chairman of the Party in 2003. Subsequently, from May 2005 to December 2005, he served as Shadow Foreign Secretary. He then served as Shadow Secretary of State for Defence from December 2005 to May 2010.

Liam was appointed Secretary of State for Defence by Prime Minister David Cameron on 12th May 2010.

==Recent Articles==
*[[Globalisation:First Defence:Rt.Hon Liam Fox:Recent Articles]]

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:First defence:Rt.Hon Liam Fox:Recent Articles

2010-11-19T00:59:33Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

==Recent Articles==

Here is a recent article from the Ministry of Defence Website with the [[Rt. Hon Liam Fox]], and his opinion on Afghanistan.

Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox gave an interview to Sky News yesterday evening during which he spoke about operations in Afghanistan and the progress that has been made in Helmand province over recent months.<ref>[http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/DrLiamFoxWeAreMakingProgressInAfghanistan.htm Progress in Afghanistan]MoD Website,accessed 17th November 2010</ref>

Asked whether we are winning the war against the Taliban, Dr Fox said:

"Yes, I think we are. If you spend time visiting our troops on a regular basis, you can see the differences.

"A couple of months ago, three months ago, say, if you went to Lashkar Gah in Helmand you would have to be in an armoured vehicle and wear body armour. Now there are three flights a day from Lashkar Gah to Kabul for business people, and simple things like the ice factory being open - being distributed to the local bazaars to keep food and fruit fresh - was a sign of economic activity coming back, and that's because we have been able to liberate people from the oppression of the Taliban.

"It's not to say that there's not a considerable insurgency still there. But there's no doubt that we're making progress, and when we talk about the difficulties, we have to be honest about the gains that we're making, and I think we have to be balanced about that."

Dr Fox was asked about how easy it is for insurgents to lay the bombs or improvised explosive devices (IEDs) which have been the main cause of loss of life amongst British troops in Helmand. He said:

"Well, one of the points that I think we should take issue with is that they [the insurgents laying the IEDs] are operating almost with impunity. Even in the filming we saw, they were stopped several times because of ISAF helicopters operating in the area, so increasingly they are being disrupted.

"We have a number of ways of protecting against these devices - obviously we have armoured vehicles to protect our personnel; better than that is if we can disarm them.

"It's not to say that there's not a considerable insurgency still there, but there's no doubt that we're making progress."
Dr Liam Fox

"Even better than that is where we've had considerable success in recent months, which is being able to disrupt the networks that plant them and the supplies that help create them. It's our intelligence as much as anything else which is making a difference."

Dr Fox was asked whether the evidence that suggests the Taliban appear to be spreading to other areas around Afghanistan is worrying. He replied:

"You can look at that two ways, can't you, because if they're appearing elsewhere, it may well be that they're being squeezed out of areas like Helmand. There's no doubt that the Taliban and their command structure has been under enormous pressure down in the south of the country.

"There's no doubt that those who see themselves as being a shadow government have found themselves under increasing pressure. That's a good thing, and we should want to see the Taliban becoming more desperate.

"We need to remember that when they [the Taliban] talk about networks in Britain and they talk about having fighters ready, we've got to be very careful that we're not inadvertently putting out Taliban propaganda.

"I understand entirely why we should be wanting to see what the enemy looks like, but we have to take - with a very large pinch of salt - anything they say, because what they are looking for is, of course, free access to public opinion in the United Kingdom.

"And we have to counter that by saying that what we're doing is protecting the population of Afghanistan, trying to give them a chance to shape their own destiny, and to push back the men of violence who would set the country back even more than the position that they left behind when they were swept away in 2001."

"We know that there are terror networks that have been spreading internationally," he said. "One of the whole reasons of going to Afghanistan was to try to stop that. And I think that to simply accept that what they tell us is true is to give them a platform - which I think a lot of people would find very questionable.

"Now, this is a free country, we have free media - it's one of the things that makes us better than the people trying to undermine us - but we have to counter-balance that freedom with the responsibility of not assuming that what they tell us is true.

"We know from the 7/7 bombings in London that there are attempts to create terror networks here. We know from the Security Services that they are constantly trying to break up terror plots in the United Kingdom.

"And what people need to understand is that this is the nature of the people we are facing: they are willing to blow up our soldiers and, incidentally, civilians in Afghanistan - the vast majority of the casualties are ordinary civilians, people who may themselves walk on IEDs, who become collateral damage to the Taliban; it's how they see it.

"They would be happy to blow up men, women and children in the underground in London or anywhere else that they could. That's what transnational terrorism looks like.

"We didn't choose to take up this fight; we didn't choose aeroplanes flying into Manhattan on 9/11, but the challenge has been thrown down to us and we have to take it up or we will see more of these incidents and more of these threats; these are people who dislike us, not because of where we are or what we do, but they dislike our very way of life and who we are and our history.

"The broader battle against transnational terrorism is as much an ideological battle as anything else, and we have to continue to pursue that."

"And that's something that we have to be willing to stand up against."

Asked if he feels that we are winning that battle, if we in the UK are getting the better of this challenge, and will eventually stop an enemy that currently seems to undermine our country and our very culture, Dr Fox said:

"The broader battle against transnational terrorism is as much an ideological battle as anything else, and we have to continue to pursue that.

"In Afghanistan, I think, we've got to be very careful not to always see Afghanistan through the prism of Helmand.

"We tend to see our news in Britain according to what's happening to our Armed Forces, but if you go to the west of Afghanistan or up to the north of Afghanistan, you will find whole areas where the writ of the Government is now there; where economic activity is picking up; people are having new police forces; they've got the protection of the Afghan Army; and life is beginning to return to, what we might regard as normal, when they've had 30 years of war.

"And it's important to see Afghanistan in the round, and I think it would be extremely helpful if we took on wider filming about Afghanistan as a whole country; you know, only about 3.5 per cent of the population live in Helmand; only about 1 per cent of the Afghan population live in the area covered by British troops.

"So, I think to see the whole picture of Afghanistan, the areas where peace and normality are returning, would be a very good counter-balance to Taliban propaganda."

Dr Fox concluded by answering whether in the end is the only way we're going to achieve peace in Afghanistan by talking to the Taliban. He said:

"Well, it depends who you mean by the Taliban. Of course, there will be a political settlement of some sort - there always is at the end of an insurgency. The question is who are the people who are reconcilable to the Afghan Government - the constitution and the democratic set-up in Afghanistan - and who are willing to make agreements and allow that to happen?

"And who are those who are irreconcilable, who will never ever accept the democratic government and who would never accept anything other than a very violent anti-Western fundamentalist view?

"I'm afraid that those people have to be confronted because they're a threat, not only to the stability of Afghanistan, but our own national security.

"It would be very nice to live in a world where there were no fanatics but we have to side with the ones who are reconcilable, and then take on the fanatics - that's the only way to have peace and security."

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:First defence:Rt.Hon Liam Fox:Recent Articles

2010-11-19T00:57:22Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

==Recent Articles==

Here are some recent articles on Rt. Hon Liam Fox, and his opinion on Afghanistan.

Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox gave an interview to Sky News yesterday evening during which he spoke about operations in Afghanistan and the progress that has been made in Helmand province over recent months.<ref>[http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/DrLiamFoxWeAreMakingProgressInAfghanistan.htm Progress in Afghanistan]MoD Website,accessed 17th November 2010</ref>

Asked whether we are winning the war against the Taliban, Dr Fox said:

"Yes, I think we are. If you spend time visiting our troops on a regular basis, you can see the differences.

"A couple of months ago, three months ago, say, if you went to Lashkar Gah in Helmand you would have to be in an armoured vehicle and wear body armour. Now there are three flights a day from Lashkar Gah to Kabul for business people, and simple things like the ice factory being open - being distributed to the local bazaars to keep food and fruit fresh - was a sign of economic activity coming back, and that's because we have been able to liberate people from the oppression of the Taliban.

"It's not to say that there's not a considerable insurgency still there. But there's no doubt that we're making progress, and when we talk about the difficulties, we have to be honest about the gains that we're making, and I think we have to be balanced about that."

Dr Fox was asked about how easy it is for insurgents to lay the bombs or improvised explosive devices (IEDs) which have been the main cause of loss of life amongst British troops in Helmand. He said:

"Well, one of the points that I think we should take issue with is that they [the insurgents laying the IEDs] are operating almost with impunity. Even in the filming we saw, they were stopped several times because of ISAF helicopters operating in the area, so increasingly they are being disrupted.

"We have a number of ways of protecting against these devices - obviously we have armoured vehicles to protect our personnel; better than that is if we can disarm them.

"It's not to say that there's not a considerable insurgency still there, but there's no doubt that we're making progress."
Dr Liam Fox

"Even better than that is where we've had considerable success in recent months, which is being able to disrupt the networks that plant them and the supplies that help create them. It's our intelligence as much as anything else which is making a difference."

Dr Fox was asked whether the evidence that suggests the Taliban appear to be spreading to other areas around Afghanistan is worrying. He replied:

"You can look at that two ways, can't you, because if they're appearing elsewhere, it may well be that they're being squeezed out of areas like Helmand. There's no doubt that the Taliban and their command structure has been under enormous pressure down in the south of the country.

"There's no doubt that those who see themselves as being a shadow government have found themselves under increasing pressure. That's a good thing, and we should want to see the Taliban becoming more desperate.

"We need to remember that when they [the Taliban] talk about networks in Britain and they talk about having fighters ready, we've got to be very careful that we're not inadvertently putting out Taliban propaganda.

"I understand entirely why we should be wanting to see what the enemy looks like, but we have to take - with a very large pinch of salt - anything they say, because what they are looking for is, of course, free access to public opinion in the United Kingdom.

"And we have to counter that by saying that what we're doing is protecting the population of Afghanistan, trying to give them a chance to shape their own destiny, and to push back the men of violence who would set the country back even more than the position that they left behind when they were swept away in 2001."

"We know that there are terror networks that have been spreading internationally," he said. "One of the whole reasons of going to Afghanistan was to try to stop that. And I think that to simply accept that what they tell us is true is to give them a platform - which I think a lot of people would find very questionable.

"Now, this is a free country, we have free media - it's one of the things that makes us better than the people trying to undermine us - but we have to counter-balance that freedom with the responsibility of not assuming that what they tell us is true.

"We know from the 7/7 bombings in London that there are attempts to create terror networks here. We know from the Security Services that they are constantly trying to break up terror plots in the United Kingdom.

"And what people need to understand is that this is the nature of the people we are facing: they are willing to blow up our soldiers and, incidentally, civilians in Afghanistan - the vast majority of the casualties are ordinary civilians, people who may themselves walk on IEDs, who become collateral damage to the Taliban; it's how they see it.

"They would be happy to blow up men, women and children in the underground in London or anywhere else that they could. That's what transnational terrorism looks like.

"We didn't choose to take up this fight; we didn't choose aeroplanes flying into Manhattan on 9/11, but the challenge has been thrown down to us and we have to take it up or we will see more of these incidents and more of these threats; these are people who dislike us, not because of where we are or what we do, but they dislike our very way of life and who we are and our history.

"The broader battle against transnational terrorism is as much an ideological battle as anything else, and we have to continue to pursue that."

"And that's something that we have to be willing to stand up against."

Asked if he feels that we are winning that battle, if we in the UK are getting the better of this challenge, and will eventually stop an enemy that currently seems to undermine our country and our very culture, Dr Fox said:

"The broader battle against transnational terrorism is as much an ideological battle as anything else, and we have to continue to pursue that.

"In Afghanistan, I think, we've got to be very careful not to always see Afghanistan through the prism of Helmand.

"We tend to see our news in Britain according to what's happening to our Armed Forces, but if you go to the west of Afghanistan or up to the north of Afghanistan, you will find whole areas where the writ of the Government is now there; where economic activity is picking up; people are having new police forces; they've got the protection of the Afghan Army; and life is beginning to return to, what we might regard as normal, when they've had 30 years of war.

"And it's important to see Afghanistan in the round, and I think it would be extremely helpful if we took on wider filming about Afghanistan as a whole country; you know, only about 3.5 per cent of the population live in Helmand; only about 1 per cent of the Afghan population live in the area covered by British troops.

"So, I think to see the whole picture of Afghanistan, the areas where peace and normality are returning, would be a very good counter-balance to Taliban propaganda."

Dr Fox concluded by answering whether in the end is the only way we're going to achieve peace in Afghanistan by talking to the Taliban. He said:

"Well, it depends who you mean by the Taliban. Of course, there will be a political settlement of some sort - there always is at the end of an insurgency. The question is who are the people who are reconcilable to the Afghan Government - the constitution and the democratic set-up in Afghanistan - and who are willing to make agreements and allow that to happen?

"And who are those who are irreconcilable, who will never ever accept the democratic government and who would never accept anything other than a very violent anti-Western fundamentalist view?

"I'm afraid that those people have to be confronted because they're a threat, not only to the stability of Afghanistan, but our own national security.

"It would be very nice to live in a world where there were no fanatics but we have to side with the ones who are reconcilable, and then take on the fanatics - that's the only way to have peace and security."

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:First defence:Rt.Hon Liam Fox:Recent Articles

2010-11-19T00:56:06Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

==Recent Articles==

Here are some recent articles on Rt. Hon Liam Fox, and his opinion on Afghanistan.

Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox gave an interview to Sky News yesterday evening during which he spoke about operations in Afghanistan and the progress that has been made in Helmand province over recent months.<ref>[http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/DrLiamFoxWeAreMakingProgressInAfghanistan.htm Progress in Afghanistan]MoD Website,accessed 17th November 2010</ref>

Asked whether we are winning the war against the Taliban, Dr Fox said:

"Yes, I think we are. If you spend time visiting our troops on a regular basis, you can see the differences.

"A couple of months ago, three months ago, say, if you went to Lashkar Gah in Helmand you would have to be in an armoured vehicle and wear body armour. Now there are three flights a day from Lashkar Gah to Kabul for business people, and simple things like the ice factory being open - being distributed to the local bazaars to keep food and fruit fresh - was a sign of economic activity coming back, and that's because we have been able to liberate people from the oppression of the Taliban.

"It's not to say that there's not a considerable insurgency still there. But there's no doubt that we're making progress, and when we talk about the difficulties, we have to be honest about the gains that we're making, and I think we have to be balanced about that."

Dr Fox was asked about how easy it is for insurgents to lay the bombs or improvised explosive devices (IEDs) which have been the main cause of loss of life amongst British troops in Helmand. He said:

"Well, one of the points that I think we should take issue with is that they [the insurgents laying the IEDs] are operating almost with impunity. Even in the filming we saw, they were stopped several times because of ISAF helicopters operating in the area, so increasingly they are being disrupted.

"We have a number of ways of protecting against these devices - obviously we have armoured vehicles to protect our personnel; better than that is if we can disarm them.

"It's not to say that there's not a considerable insurgency still there, but there's no doubt that we're making progress."
Dr Liam Fox

"Even better than that is where we've had considerable success in recent months, which is being able to disrupt the networks that plant them and the supplies that help create them. It's our intelligence as much as anything else which is making a difference."

Dr Fox was asked whether the evidence that suggests the Taliban appear to be spreading to other areas around Afghanistan is worrying. He replied:

"You can look at that two ways, can't you, because if they're appearing elsewhere, it may well be that they're being squeezed out of areas like Helmand. There's no doubt that the Taliban and their command structure has been under enormous pressure down in the south of the country.

"There's no doubt that those who see themselves as being a shadow government have found themselves under increasing pressure. That's a good thing, and we should want to see the Taliban becoming more desperate.

"We need to remember that when they [the Taliban] talk about networks in Britain and they talk about having fighters ready, we've got to be very careful that we're not inadvertently putting out Taliban propaganda.

"I understand entirely why we should be wanting to see what the enemy looks like, but we have to take - with a very large pinch of salt - anything they say, because what they are looking for is, of course, free access to public opinion in the United Kingdom.

"And we have to counter that by saying that what we're doing is protecting the population of Afghanistan, trying to give them a chance to shape their own destiny, and to push back the men of violence who would set the country back even more than the position that they left behind when they were swept away in 2001."

Dr Fox was asked to give an assurance that the Taliban aren't raising money in the UK and that they haven't got dedicated fighters here ready to create violence and to commit terrorist acts in this country, as they claim:

"We know that there are terror networks that have been spreading internationally," he said. "One of the whole reasons of going to Afghanistan was to try to stop that. And I think that to simply accept that what they tell us is true is to give them a platform - which I think a lot of people would find very questionable.

"Now, this is a free country, we have free media - it's one of the things that makes us better than the people trying to undermine us - but we have to counter-balance that freedom with the responsibility of not assuming that what they tell us is true.

"We know from the 7/7 bombings in London that there are attempts to create terror networks here. We know from the Security Services that they are constantly trying to break up terror plots in the United Kingdom.

"And what people need to understand is that this is the nature of the people we are facing: they are willing to blow up our soldiers and, incidentally, civilians in Afghanistan - the vast majority of the casualties are ordinary civilians, people who may themselves walk on IEDs, who become collateral damage to the Taliban; it's how they see it.

"They would be happy to blow up men, women and children in the underground in London or anywhere else that they could. That's what transnational terrorism looks like.

"We didn't choose to take up this fight; we didn't choose aeroplanes flying into Manhattan on 9/11, but the challenge has been thrown down to us and we have to take it up or we will see more of these incidents and more of these threats; these are people who dislike us, not because of where we are or what we do, but they dislike our very way of life and who we are and our history.

"The broader battle against transnational terrorism is as much an ideological battle as anything else, and we have to continue to pursue that."

"And that's something that we have to be willing to stand up against."

Asked if he feels that we are winning that battle, if we in the UK are getting the better of this challenge, and will eventually stop an enemy that currently seems to undermine our country and our very culture, Dr Fox said:

"The broader battle against transnational terrorism is as much an ideological battle as anything else, and we have to continue to pursue that.

"In Afghanistan, I think, we've got to be very careful not to always see Afghanistan through the prism of Helmand.

"We tend to see our news in Britain according to what's happening to our Armed Forces, but if you go to the west of Afghanistan or up to the north of Afghanistan, you will find whole areas where the writ of the Government is now there; where economic activity is picking up; people are having new police forces; they've got the protection of the Afghan Army; and life is beginning to return to, what we might regard as normal, when they've had 30 years of war.

"And it's important to see Afghanistan in the round, and I think it would be extremely helpful if we took on wider filming about Afghanistan as a whole country; you know, only about 3.5 per cent of the population live in Helmand; only about 1 per cent of the Afghan population live in the area covered by British troops.

"So, I think to see the whole picture of Afghanistan, the areas where peace and normality are returning, would be a very good counter-balance to Taliban propaganda."

Dr Fox concluded by answering whether in the end is the only way we're going to achieve peace in Afghanistan by talking to the Taliban. He said:

"Well, it depends who you mean by the Taliban. Of course, there will be a political settlement of some sort - there always is at the end of an insurgency. The question is who are the people who are reconcilable to the Afghan Government - the constitution and the democratic set-up in Afghanistan - and who are willing to make agreements and allow that to happen?

"And who are those who are irreconcilable, who will never ever accept the democratic government and who would never accept anything other than a very violent anti-Western fundamentalist view?

"I'm afraid that those people have to be confronted because they're a threat, not only to the stability of Afghanistan, but our own national security.

"It would be very nice to live in a world where there were no fanatics but we have to side with the ones who are reconcilable, and then take on the fanatics - that's the only way to have peace and security."

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:First defence:Rt.Hon Liam Fox:Recent Articles

2010-11-19T00:52:43Z

Leigh McDiarmid: New page: Here are some recent articles on Rt. Hon Liam Fox Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox gave an interview to Sky News yesterday evening during which he spoke about operations in Afghanistan and t...

Here are some recent articles on Rt. Hon Liam Fox

Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox gave an interview to Sky News yesterday evening during which he spoke about operations in Afghanistan and the progress that has been made in Helmand province over recent months.<ref>[http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/DrLiamFoxWeAreMakingProgressInAfghanistan.htm Progress in Afghanistan]MoD Website,accessed 17th November 2010</ref>

Asked whether we are winning the war against the Taliban, Dr Fox said:

"Yes, I think we are. If you spend time visiting our troops on a regular basis, you can see the differences.

"A couple of months ago, three months ago, say, if you went to Lashkar Gah in Helmand you would have to be in an armoured vehicle and wear body armour. Now there are three flights a day from Lashkar Gah to Kabul for business people, and simple things like the ice factory being open - being distributed to the local bazaars to keep food and fruit fresh - was a sign of economic activity coming back, and that's because we have been able to liberate people from the oppression of the Taliban.

"It's not to say that there's not a considerable insurgency still there. But there's no doubt that we're making progress, and when we talk about the difficulties, we have to be honest about the gains that we're making, and I think we have to be balanced about that."

Dr Fox was asked about how easy it is for insurgents to lay the bombs or improvised explosive devices (IEDs) which have been the main cause of loss of life amongst British troops in Helmand. He said:

"Well, one of the points that I think we should take issue with is that they [the insurgents laying the IEDs] are operating almost with impunity. Even in the filming we saw, they were stopped several times because of ISAF helicopters operating in the area, so increasingly they are being disrupted.

"We have a number of ways of protecting against these devices - obviously we have armoured vehicles to protect our personnel; better than that is if we can disarm them.

"It's not to say that there's not a considerable insurgency still there, but there's no doubt that we're making progress."
Dr Liam Fox

"Even better than that is where we've had considerable success in recent months, which is being able to disrupt the networks that plant them and the supplies that help create them. It's our intelligence as much as anything else which is making a difference."

Dr Fox was asked whether the evidence that suggests the Taliban appear to be spreading to other areas around Afghanistan is worrying. He replied:

"You can look at that two ways, can't you, because if they're appearing elsewhere, it may well be that they're being squeezed out of areas like Helmand. There's no doubt that the Taliban and their command structure has been under enormous pressure down in the south of the country.

"There's no doubt that those who see themselves as being a shadow government have found themselves under increasing pressure. That's a good thing, and we should want to see the Taliban becoming more desperate.

"We need to remember that when they [the Taliban] talk about networks in Britain and they talk about having fighters ready, we've got to be very careful that we're not inadvertently putting out Taliban propaganda.

"I understand entirely why we should be wanting to see what the enemy looks like, but we have to take - with a very large pinch of salt - anything they say, because what they are looking for is, of course, free access to public opinion in the United Kingdom.

"And we have to counter that by saying that what we're doing is protecting the population of Afghanistan, trying to give them a chance to shape their own destiny, and to push back the men of violence who would set the country back even more than the position that they left behind when they were swept away in 2001."

Dr Fox was asked to give an assurance that the Taliban aren't raising money in the UK and that they haven't got dedicated fighters here ready to create violence and to commit terrorist acts in this country, as they claim:

"We know that there are terror networks that have been spreading internationally," he said. "One of the whole reasons of going to Afghanistan was to try to stop that. And I think that to simply accept that what they tell us is true is to give them a platform - which I think a lot of people would find very questionable.

"Now, this is a free country, we have free media - it's one of the things that makes us better than the people trying to undermine us - but we have to counter-balance that freedom with the responsibility of not assuming that what they tell us is true.

"We know from the 7/7 bombings in London that there are attempts to create terror networks here. We know from the Security Services that they are constantly trying to break up terror plots in the United Kingdom.

"And what people need to understand is that this is the nature of the people we are facing: they are willing to blow up our soldiers and, incidentally, civilians in Afghanistan - the vast majority of the casualties are ordinary civilians, people who may themselves walk on IEDs, who become collateral damage to the Taliban; it's how they see it.

"They would be happy to blow up men, women and children in the underground in London or anywhere else that they could. That's what transnational terrorism looks like.

"We didn't choose to take up this fight; we didn't choose aeroplanes flying into Manhattan on 9/11, but the challenge has been thrown down to us and we have to take it up or we will see more of these incidents and more of these threats; these are people who dislike us, not because of where we are or what we do, but they dislike our very way of life and who we are and our history.

"The broader battle against transnational terrorism is as much an ideological battle as anything else, and we have to continue to pursue that."
Dr Liam Fox

"And that's something that we have to be willing to stand up against."

Asked if he feels that we are winning that battle, if we in the UK are getting the better of this challenge, and will eventually stop an enemy that currently seems to undermine our country and our very culture, Dr Fox said:

"The broader battle against transnational terrorism is as much an ideological battle as anything else, and we have to continue to pursue that.

"In Afghanistan, I think, we've got to be very careful not to always see Afghanistan through the prism of Helmand.

"We tend to see our news in Britain according to what's happening to our Armed Forces, but if you go to the west of Afghanistan or up to the north of Afghanistan, you will find whole areas where the writ of the Government is now there; where economic activity is picking up; people are having new police forces; they've got the protection of the Afghan Army; and life is beginning to return to, what we might regard as normal, when they've had 30 years of war.

"And it's important to see Afghanistan in the round, and I think it would be extremely helpful if we took on wider filming about Afghanistan as a whole country; you know, only about 3.5 per cent of the population live in Helmand; only about 1 per cent of the Afghan population live in the area covered by British troops.

"So, I think to see the whole picture of Afghanistan, the areas where peace and normality are returning, would be a very good counter-balance to Taliban propaganda."

Dr Fox concluded by answering whether in the end is the only way we're going to achieve peace in Afghanistan by talking to the Taliban. He said:

"Well, it depends who you mean by the Taliban. Of course, there will be a political settlement of some sort - there always is at the end of an insurgency. The question is who are the people who are reconcilable to the Afghan Government - the constitution and the democratic set-up in Afghanistan - and who are willing to make agreements and allow that to happen?

"And who are those who are irreconcilable, who will never ever accept the democratic government and who would never accept anything other than a very violent anti-Western fundamentalist view?

"I'm afraid that those people have to be confronted because they're a threat, not only to the stability of Afghanistan, but our own national security.

"It would be very nice to live in a world where there were no fanatics but we have to side with the ones who are reconcilable, and then take on the fanatics - that's the only way to have peace and security."

==Notes==
</references>

Globalisation:Rt. Hon Liam Fox

2010-11-19T00:47:40Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

Globalisation:Rt. Hon Liam Fox

2010-11-19T00:45:05Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

==Background==

Liam Fox has been a Conservative MP for 18 years and lives in Tickenham. He holds regular surgeries for constituents in Clevedon, Nailsea, Portishead and Yatton and has a reputation as a hard-working constituency MP.

He worked as a GP in Nailsea before becoming a member of Parliament and has held high office in both opposition and government. He has the experience inside and outside Parliament we need for good government.

Liam has been at the centre of local campaigns such as the defence of the green belt, especially around Long Ashton, Dundry and Failand. He has been a leading figure in the local battles such as the electricity pylons affecting Blackwell, Nailsea and Yatton. In Parliament he has campaigned for a Portishead railway link and famously described Portishead as the biggest cul-de-sac in Britain .

He is patron of a large number of local organisations and charities including Mencap, Children's Hospice South West, Clevedon Pier, Portishead lifeboat, the Jessie May Trust, the Curzon Cinema and numerous sports clubs.<ref>[http://www.liamfox.co.uk/text.aspx?id=4 About Liam Fox] Liam Fox Website,accessed 16th November 2010</ref>

==Political Experience==

Liam contested Roxburgh and Berwickshire in the 1987 General Election, and was elected as the Member of Parliament for Woodspring (renamed North Somerset for the 2010 General Election) in April 1992.

In June 1993, Liam was appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to Michael Howard, then Home Secretary. In July 1994, he was appointed an Assistant Government Whip, and promoted to the position of Senior Government Whip the following year. He was a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1996 until the 1997 General Election.

In June 1997, Liam was appointed Opposition Front Bench Spokesman on Constitutional Affairs. For four years from May 1999 to November 2003 he served as Shadow Secretary of State for Heath before being appointed Co-Chairman of the Party in 2003. Subsequently, from May 2005 to December 2005, he served as Shadow Foreign Secretary. He then served as Shadow Secretary of State for Defence from December 2005 to May 2010.

Liam was appointed Secretary of State for Defence by Prime Minister David Cameron on 12th May 2010.

==Recent Articles==

This article is a Defence Policy and Business news article, from November 2010.

Secretary of State for Defence Dr Liam Fox has welcomed the news that 950 Canadian troops will remain in Afghanistan in a training capacity when their combat mission comes to an end in 2011.

Constable Lorant 'Junior' Hegedus, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team, supervises an Afghan National Police Officer on the Camp Nathan Smith pistol firing range

They, along with their NATO allies, have been building on the significant progress in the areas of security, diplomacy and development in Afghanistan; specifically building the capability and capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces. The 950 troops will be part of the NATO Training Mission - Afghanistan until 2014 and will be contributing to the goal of preparing the Afghans to take responsibility for their own security.

Ahead of the Lisbon Summit, where NATO will launch the transition process which will see Afghans begin to steadily take the lead for their own security, the Secretary of State for Defence said:

"We, along with our NATO colleagues, welcome the decision by the Canadian Government to continue their deployment of troops in Afghanistan. They will be fundamental in the ongoing efforts to develop the Afghan National Security Forces [ANSF].

"Having a capable and credible ANSF will be key in helping the Afghans to continue to bring security to their own country and guard against terrorism - and this in turn will reduce the threat to people at home in the UK."

Canada's new non-combat role will focus on four key areas: investing in the future of Afghan children and youth through education and health; advancing security, the rule of law and human rights; promoting regional diplomacy; and delivering humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people.

Announcing the continuation of military deployments to Afghanistan, Lawrence Cannon, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, said:

"Building on strengths and accomplishments over the past years, Canada is committed to helping build a more secure, stable and self-sufficient Afghanistan that is no longer a safe haven for terrorists.

"The combat mission will end in 2011. As we continue to work alongside the Afghan people and the international community, Canada will continue to play an important role in supporting efforts toward a better future for all Afghans".
==Notes==

<references/>

Rt. Hon Liam Fox

2010-11-19T00:39:52Z

Leigh McDiarmid: Rt. Hon Liam Fox moved to Globalisation:Rt. Hon Liam Fox

#REDIRECT [[Globalisation:Rt. Hon Liam Fox]]

Globalisation:Rt. Hon Liam Fox

2010-11-19T00:39:51Z

Leigh McDiarmid: Rt. Hon Liam Fox moved to Globalisation:Rt. Hon Liam Fox

==About Liam==

Liam has been a Conservative MP for 18 years and lives in Tickenham. He holds regular surgeries for constituents in Clevedon, Nailsea, Portishead and Yatton and has a reputation as a hard-working constituency MP.

He worked as a GP in Nailsea before becoming a member of Parliament and has held high office in both opposition and government. He has the experience inside and outside Parliament we need for good government.

Liam has been at the centre of local campaigns such as the defence of the green belt, especially around Long Ashton, Dundry and Failand. He has been a leading figure in the local battles such as the electricity pylons affecting Blackwell, Nailsea and Yatton. In Parliament he has campaigned for a Portishead railway link and famously described Portishead as the biggest cul-de-sac in Britain .

He is patron of a large number of local organisations and charities including Mencap, Children's Hospice South West, Clevedon Pier, Portishead lifeboat, the Jessie May Trust, the Curzon Cinema and numerous sports clubs.

==Political Experience==

Liam contested Roxburgh and Berwickshire in the 1987 General Election, and was elected as the Member of Parliament for Woodspring (renamed North Somerset for the 2010 General Election) in April 1992.

In June 1993, Liam was appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to Michael Howard, then Home Secretary. In July 1994, he was appointed an Assistant Government Whip, and promoted to the position of Senior Government Whip the following year. He was a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1996 until the 1997 General Election.

In June 1997, Liam was appointed Opposition Front Bench Spokesman on Constitutional Affairs. For four years from May 1999 to November 2003 he served as Shadow Secretary of State for Heath before being appointed Co-Chairman of the Party in 2003. Subsequently, from May 2005 to December 2005, he served as Shadow Foreign Secretary. He then served as Shadow Secretary of State for Defence from December 2005 to May 2010.

Liam was appointed Secretary of State for Defence by Prime Minister David Cameron on 12th May 2010.

==Recent Articles==

This article is a Defence Policy and Business news article, from November 2010.

Secretary of State for Defence Dr Liam Fox has welcomed the news that 950 Canadian troops will remain in Afghanistan in a training capacity when their combat mission comes to an end in 2011.

Constable Lorant 'Junior' Hegedus, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team, supervises an Afghan National Police Officer on the Camp Nathan Smith pistol firing range

They, along with their NATO allies, have been building on the significant progress in the areas of security, diplomacy and development in Afghanistan; specifically building the capability and capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces. The 950 troops will be part of the NATO Training Mission - Afghanistan until 2014 and will be contributing to the goal of preparing the Afghans to take responsibility for their own security.

Ahead of the Lisbon Summit, where NATO will launch the transition process which will see Afghans begin to steadily take the lead for their own security, the Secretary of State for Defence said:

"We, along with our NATO colleagues, welcome the decision by the Canadian Government to continue their deployment of troops in Afghanistan. They will be fundamental in the ongoing efforts to develop the Afghan National Security Forces [ANSF].

"Having a capable and credible ANSF will be key in helping the Afghans to continue to bring security to their own country and guard against terrorism - and this in turn will reduce the threat to people at home in the UK."

Canada's new non-combat role will focus on four key areas: investing in the future of Afghan children and youth through education and health; advancing security, the rule of law and human rights; promoting regional diplomacy; and delivering humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people.

Announcing the continuation of military deployments to Afghanistan, Lawrence Cannon, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, said:

"Building on strengths and accomplishments over the past years, Canada is committed to helping build a more secure, stable and self-sufficient Afghanistan that is no longer a safe haven for terrorists.

"The combat mission will end in 2011. As we continue to work alongside the Afghan people and the international community, Canada will continue to play an important role in supporting efforts toward a better future for all Afghans".
==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:First Defence:Activities

2010-11-19T00:38:21Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

==Strategic Defence and Security Review==

Prime Minister David Cameron has unveiled details of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR).

This is the first time that a UK government has taken decisions on its defence, security, intelligence, resilience, development and foreign affairs capabilities in the round, setting out the delivery of the ends set out in the National Security Strategy.

It sets out the Government’s determination to make the right decisions for the long term defence and prosperity of the country.<ref>[http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/latest-news/2010/10/strategic-defence-review-55906 strategic defence review]'accessed 16th November 2010</ref>
The Secretary of State for Defence, the [[Rt. Hon Liam Fox]] was speaker at a Conference on October 5th 2010, the eve of the Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The conference specifically addressed how the government views defence, Britain’s future role in the world, and what the outcomes may be.

This demonstrates that First Defence works closely with Policy Makers and the Government. The following section reports the main points of Rt. Hon Liam Fox's speech.

==Introduction==

I would first like to thanks Caroline, [[First Defence]] and [[EADS]] for sponsoring this event. First Defence has done so much over the years to advance the defence debate in the UK. Each and every year the First Defence Fringe becomes more and more popular and I am happy to have been invited once again to speak here.

Today, I am going to speak on the future challenges facing defence in the United Kingdom. Here I see two main challenges.

First, configuring national security structures in such a way that will allow us to be prepared for 21st Century Threats.

Second, being able to do so in what is the most challenging financial environment since the Second World War.

I will take each of these in turn.

==Future Threats==

As we carry out the much needed Strategic Defence and Security Review, it is important to consider what types of threats we may face in the future and how we can best counter these threats.

We know from bitter historical experience the difficulty of predicting future conflict- either its nature or its location. We cannot base our future security on the assumption that future wars will be like the current ones.

That is why we must maintain generic capability able to adapt to any changing threats as they emerge. This is the adaptive posture the NCS decided on in July.

Since the last Strategic Defence Review in 1998 the world has become a more dangerous place. Trans-national terrorism, nuclear proliferation, the battle for cyberspace and the effects of climate change are all playing a part in destabilising the delicate equilibrium of global security.

The terrorists attacks of 9/11 completely altered the Western view of global security. An attack that cost only $250,000 to stage ended up costing the U.S. economy $80bn.

International terrorism continues to pose a real threat.

Although largely defeated in Iraq, Al-Qa'ida is challenging the stability of Pakistan, the Arabian Peninsula-notably Yemen and the Horn of Africa, Southeast Asia and elsewhere.

While some countries like Libya have given up their WMD ambitions, North Korea has successfully tested two nuclear bombs.

Iran is still intent on acquiring a nuclear weapon and continues to be a net exporter of terrorism.

The nature and behaviour of the regime and the risk of triggering a nuclear arms race in the Middle East makes this a cause of growing anxiety.

Climate Change is forcing us to address new threats. For example, with Polar ice caps melting and piracy rife in some of the world's busiest and warmest shipping lanes; maritime transport in the High North is not only becoming a reality but is also looking attractive for commerce. It is also a potential source of political and military tension.

The possibility of state-on-state warfare, most recently demonstrated by the Russian invasion of Georgia and the subsequent occupation of 20 per cent of its territory, cannot be ruled out. Especially as the competition for scarce resources heats up in some of the world's most unstable regions.

Other threats may seem remote but if they became a reality would have a devastating effect on our way of life:

• biological weapons proliferation and their use by terrorist organisations and other non-state actors;

• nuclear terrorism and dirty bombs;

• and the use of an electromagnetic pulse device which could destroy all electronic and communications infrastructure over a distance of hundreds of miles.

Like it or not, Cyber Warfare is a modern-day reality-not something that 'might' occur in the future as some commentators suggest.

And these threats are occurring on top of our contingent overseas operations like Afghanistan, maritime security in the Gulf, or reacting to natural disasters like the recent floods in Pakistan where the key priorities of the UK aid effort in Pakistan were air transport of relief stores and restoring damaged or destroyed bridges—both provided by the British military.

The multi polarity of the post Cold War era and the speed of globalisation mean that Britain's economic and security interests are increasingly interlinked to others with an unavoidable shared set of interests and the shared importation of strategic risk.

As recent events have shown with the economic crisis, instability in one corner of the globe can quickly affect us all.

Britain's national interests no longer stop at the White Cliffs of Dover, Gibraltar or the Falklands.

This global interdependence has major implications on how we must organise our national (and international) security structures and identify our threats. It goes without saying that the challenges this presents to our Armed Forces are numerous and complex.

The Twenty-first Century strategic environment demands that Western militaries are able to simultaneously conduct war fighting, peacekeeping, continuous deterrence-both conventional and nuclear, and humanitarian disaster relief operations.

Furthermore, it requires Western Governments to supplement these military operations through an array of soft power tools, such as international aid, defence diplomacy, and the spread of information and ideas.

This is why the creation of the National Security Council under the leadership of the Prime Minister is so important.

The NSC recognises how issues like foreign relations, international development, homeland security, energy security and the structure of our Armed Forces themselves are all interlinked and require joined up thinking if we are to both protect our own citizens at home and contribute to global security abroad.

But if the nature of the Twenty-first century forces us- the West- to re-evaluate current war fighting we should assume that our enemies are forced to do the same. It is in this context that we can understand the types of threats we are likely to face in the future.

There is an on-going debate inside in the UK on what form the future of warfare will take. Usually there are two schools of thought. On one side we are told that future conflicts will be asymmetric and irregular in nature-similar to what we commonly experience in Afghanistan today.

On the other side we are told that state-on-state warfare in the traditional sense cannot be ruled out and if anything, however remote the possibility may seem, this form of warfare is likely to pose the biggest threat to UK sovereignty.

The choice between the two schools of thought is not binary and mutually exclusive. It is no more true to say that we will face only asymmetric threats than it is to say we face only state on state threats. The truth lies somewhere in between-in a hybrid form of warfare-that will require an adaptable Britain requiring generic and flexible defence capabilities.

State-on-state warfare is viewed by many as an anachronism in the Twenty-first Century but until there is a radical change in the Westphalian nation-state system that has been around since 1648, state-on-state warfare remains a possibility-and one that we must be prepared for regardless of how unlikely it may seem today. There is always the possibility of the UK being dragged into state on state warfare between other nations.

But even state-on-state warfare may not necessarily take the same linear, symmetric, and conventional form as it did in the Twenty-first century.

The present superiority of Western conventional military might, coupled with the advantages offered by globalisation, have led our adversaries to look beyond the approach of choosing between conventional and asymmetrical types of warfare and adopt a hybrid warfare approach.

Potential adversaries may confront us with conventional military might that is at, on occasions, equal to Western technology.

But it is more likely that, knowing that they cannot match our technology, resources or conventional firepower our adversaries will resort to strategic and tactical asymmetric measures in an attempt to defeat us.

With hybrid warfare we should assume that our adversaries will simultaneously employ a mix of conventional weapons and irregular tactics that may even include organised crime and acts of terrorism.

We must understand that the conflicts of the future will go beyond the conventional arena and threaten our social well-being, our domestic infrastructure and our economic capabilities.
Russia's invasion of Georgia, with heavy armour, air strikes and ground troops-all very conventional- was augmented by a surgical cyber attack on the Georgian Government and a sophisticated information operations campaign aimed at the Georgian people and the international community.

The changing scope and nature of these threats have implications for our procurement plans. We need to focus more on capability and less on specific equipment.

Saying that we can only focus on one particular type of threat is not good enough for the British people and would be an easy way out for any government whose first and foremost responsibility is the defence of the realm.

==Financial Situation==

If we learned anything from the Cold War it was that the stronger your economy the more secure your national security. We defeated the Soviet threat because we prevailed in the ideological battle but we also out spent largely because of the strength of the Western economies. Today, we find ourselves in the appalling situation where the out going Labour Chief Secretary actually leaves a note that says “Sorry, there is no money left”.

Labour’s failed economic policies saw our national debt double.

Now, I didn't come into politics wishing to see a reduction in our Defence budget.

Neither did David Cameron.

Indeed, we have both often argued in the past that in a dangerous world – the world in which we live - there is a strong case to increase our spending on national security.

But while we can never predict where events will take us or the unavoidable bills we will have to pay as a consequence, we must confront the ghastly truth of Labour's legacy.

Next year the interest bill alone for Labour’s debt will be over £46bn – more than the entire Defence budget for the UK.

There is an unfunded liability in Defence of around £38 billion over the next 10 years.

During their time in office Labour pushed projects ever more desperately into future years to try to make an impossible budget balance in year, only to increase the overall cost of the Defence programme still further.

They behaved like someone who has just received a catalogue in the post and who keeps ordering more and more items from it without once considering whether they might have the income to pay for any of them when the goods arrive.

The price of this irresponsibility will ultimately be paid for by short-term reductions as we try to return Defence to a sound footing.

So we face the SDSR with unavoidably constrained finances.

==Conclusion==

We will not be able to do all that we would like at least not in the short term but we will create better stability for planning for both the military and the defence industry.

The Defence Reform Unit which I recently established will radically reform the MoD itself and along with the service chiefs look at issues such as rank structure and force generation where review is long over due.

Regular defence reviews will mean more incremental changes better matched through the changing nature of the threats we face.

The one thing I am determined to do whatever the frustrations and whatever the difficulties is that no future defence secretary will inherit the shambles that I have inherited from Labour and that our national security will take its full place in the country’s political priorities.<ref>[http://www.firstdefence.info/First Defence Events News]First Defence Website accessed 6th November 2010</ref>

==David Cameron's Speech to the House of Commons on the Strategic Defence and Security Review==

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

There are four things to say upfront.

First, this is not simply a cost-saving exercise to get to grips with the biggest budget deficit in post-war history it is about taking the right decisions to protect our national security in the years ahead.

But the two are not separate.

Our National Security depends on our economic strength and vice versa.

As our national security is a priority so defence and security budgets will contribute to deficit reduction on a lower scale than most other departments.

Over four years the defence budget will rise in cash terms and fall by only 8 per cent.

And it will meet the NATO 2 per cent of GDP target for defence spending throughout the next four years.

But this Government has inherited a £38 billion black hole in the future defence plans bigger than the entire annual defence budget of £33 billion.

Sorting this out is not just vital for tackling the deficit but vital to protecting our national security.

Second, this Review is about how we project power and influence in a rapidly changing world.

We are the sixth largest economy in the world.

Even after this Review we expect to continue with the fourth largest military budget in the world.

We have a unique network of alliances and relationships with the United States as a member of the EU and NATO and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

We have one of the biggest aid programmes in the world one of the biggest networks of Embassies a time zone that allows us to trade with Asia in the morning and the Americas in the evening and a language that is spoken across the globe.

Our national interest requires our full and active engagement in world affairs.

It requires our economy to compete with the strongest and the best.

And it requires too that we stand up for the values we believe in.

Britain has punched above its weight in the world.

And we should have no less ambition for our country in the decades to come.

But we need to be more thoughtful, more strategic and more co-ordinated in the way we advance our interests and protect our national security.

That is what this Review sets out to achieve.

Third, I want to be clear there is no cut whatsoever in the support for our forces in Afghanistan.

The funding for our operations in Afghanistan comes not from the budget of the Ministry of Defence but instead from the Treasury Special Reserve.

So the changes to the Ministry of Defence that result from today’s Review will not affect this funding.

Furthermore, every time the Chiefs have advised me that a particular change might have implications for our operations in Afghanistan either now or in the years to come I have heeded that advice.

In fact we have been and will be providing more for our brave forces in Afghanistan more equipment to counter the threat from IEDs more training and training equipment more protected vehicles – like the warthog heavy protection vehicle which will be out there by the end of the year more surveillance capability, including unmanned aircraft systems and crucially, at last, the right level of helicopter capability.

Fourth, this Review has been very different from those before it.

It has looked at all elements of national security, home and abroad, together, not just defence on its own.

It’s been led from the top with all the relevant people around the table and it will be repeated every five years.

A step change
Mr Speaker, this Review sets out a step change in the way we protect this country’s security interests.

From a Ministry of Defence that is too big, too inefficient and too over-spent to a Department that is smaller, smarter, and more responsible in its spending.

From a strategy over-reliant on military intervention to a higher priority for conflict prevention.

From concentrating on conventional threats to a new focus on unconventional threats.

And from armed forces that are overstretched, under-equipped and deployed too often without appropriate planning to the most professional and most flexible modern forces in the world, fully equipped for the challenges of the future.

Mr Speaker, let me take each in turn.

Ministry of Defence
First, the MOD.

Even though the MOD will get real growth in its budget next year the Department will face some significant challenges.

So the MOD will cut its Estate, dispose of unnecessary assets, renegotiate contracts with industry.

…and cut its management overheads, including reducing civilian numbers in the MOD by 25,000 by 2015.

We will also adjust and simplify civilian and military allowances.

The new operational allowance stays but there will be difficult decisions, although these will be made easier by the return of the army from Germany.

Taken together, all these changes in the MOD will save £4.7 billion over the Spending review period.

Getting to grips with procurement is vital.

Take the Nimrod programme for example.

It has cost the British taxpayer over £3bn.

The number of aircraft to be procured has fallen from 21 to 9.

The cost per aircraft has increased by over 200 per cent and it’s over 8 years late.

Today we are cancelling it.

Conflict prevention
Second, from military intervention to conflict prevention.

Mr Speaker, Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the immense financial and human costs of large scale military interventions.

While we must retain the ability to undertake such operations we must also get better at treating the causes of instability, not just dealing with the consequences.

When we fail to prevent conflict and have to resort to military intervention, the costs are always far higher.

We will expand our capability to deploy military and civilian teams to support stabilisation efforts and build capacity in other states.

And we will double our investment in aid for fragile and unstable countries so by 2015 just under a third of the budget of the Department for International Development will be spent on conflict prevention.

Unconventional threats
Third, we need to focus more of our resources

not on the conventional threats of the past but on the unconventional threats of the future.

Over the next four years, we will invest over half a billion pounds of new money in a national cyber security programme.

This will significantly enhance our ability to detect and defend against cyber attacks and fix shortfalls in the critical cyber infrastructure on which the whole country now depends.

We will continue to prioritise tackling the terrorist threat both from Al Qaeda and its affiliates and from dissident republicans in Northern Ireland.

Although efficiencies will need to be made we are giving priority to continuing investment in our world-class intelligence agencies.

And we will sharpen our readiness to act on civil emergencies, energy security, organised crime, counter proliferation and border security.

Armed Forces
Fourth, from armed forces that are over-stretched and under-equipped we need to move to the most professional and most flexible modern forces in the world.

Mr Speaker, we inherited an Army with scores of tanks in Germany but that was until recently forced to face the deadly threat of improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan in Land Rovers designed for Northern Ireland.

We have a Royal Air Force hampered in its efforts to support our forces overseas because of an ageing strategic airlift fleet and a Royal Navy locked into a cycle of ever smaller numbers of ever more expensive ships.

Mr Speaker, we can not go on like this.

The White Paper we have published today sets out a clear vision for the future structure of our Armed Forces.

The precise budgets will be agreed in future spending reviews.

My own strong view is that this structure will require year on year real-terms growth in the defence budget in the years beyond 2015.

Between now and then the Government is committed to the vision of 2020 set out in this Review and will make decisions accordingly.

We are also absolutely determined that the MOD will become much more commercially hard headed in future and adopt a much more aggressive drive for efficiencies.

The transition from the mess we inherited to that coherent future force will be a difficult process, especially in the current economic conditions.

But we are determined to take the necessary steps.

Our ground forces will continue to have a vital operational role so we will retain a large well-equipped Army, numbering around 95,500 by 2015 that is 7,000 less than today.

We will continue to be one of very few countries able to deploy a self-sustaining properly equipped Brigade-sized force anywhere around the world and sustain it indefinitely if needs be.

And we will be able to put 30,000 into the field for a major, one off operation.

In terms of the return from Germany half our personnel should be back by 2015 and the remainder by 2020.

And tanks and heavy artillery numbers will be reduced by around 40%.

But the introduction of 12 new heavy lift Chinook helicopters new protected mobility vehicles and enhanced communications equipment will make the Army more mobile, more flexible and better equipped to face future threats than ever before.

We will also review the structure of our Reserve forces to ensure we make the most efficient use of their skills, experience and outstanding capabilities.

This will be chaired by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, General Houghton with my Honorable Friend the Member for Canterbury who serves in the Reserves acting as his deputy.

Mr Speaker, the Royal Navy will be similarly equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.

We are procuring a fleet of the most capable nuclear powered hunter-killer astute class submarines anywhere in the world.

Able to operate in secret across the world’s oceans these submarines will also feed vital strategic intelligence back to the UK and to our military forces across the world.

We will complete the production of six Type 45 destroyers one of the most effective multi-role destroyers in the world.

But we will also start a new programme to develop less expensive, more flexible, modern frigates.

Total naval manpower will reduce to around 30,000 by 2015.

And by 2020 the total number of frigates and destroyers will reduce from 23 to 19 but the fleet as a whole will be better able to take on today’s tasks from tackling drug trafficking and piracy to counter-terrorism.

Mr Speaker, the Royal Air Force will also need to take some tough measures in the coming years to ensure a strong future.

We have decided to retire the Harrier which has served this country so well for 40 years.

The Harrier is a remarkably flexible aircraft but the military advice is that we should sustain the Tornado fleet as that aircraft is more capable and better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan.

RAF manpower will also reduce to around 33,000 by 2015.

Inevitably this will mean changes in the way in which some RAF bases are used but some are likely to be required by the Army as forces return from Germany.

We owe it to communities up and down the country who have supported our armed forces for many years to engage with them before final decisions are taken.

Mr Speaker, by the 2020s, the Royal Air Force will be based around a fleet of two of the most capable fighter jets anywhere in the world a modernised Typhoon fleet fully capable of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions; and the Joint Strike Fighter, the world’s most advanced multi-role combat jet.

This fleet will be complemented by a growing fleet of Unmanned Air Vehicles

And the A400M transport aircraft together with the existing fleet of C17 aircraft and the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft will allow us to fly our forces wherever they are needed in the world.

Prepared for the unexpected
Mr Speaker, as we refocus our resources on the most likely threats to our security so we will remain vigilant against all possible threats and retain the capability to react to the unexpected.

So as we cut back on tanks and heavy artillery we will retain the ability to regenerate those capabilities if needs be.

And while in the short term the ability to deploy airpower from the sea is unlikely to be essential over the longer term, we cannot assume that bases for land-based aircraft will always be available when and where we need them.

So we will ensure the UK has carrier strike capability for the future.

Mr Speaker, this is another area where the last Government got it badly wrong.

There’s only one thing worse than spending money you don’t have.

And that’s buying the wrong things with it – and doing so in the wrong way.

The carriers they ordered are unable to work effectively with our key defence partners, the United States or France.

They had failed to plan so carriers and planes would arrive at the same time.

They ordered the more expensive, less capable version of the Joint Strike Fighter to fly off the carriers.

And they signed contracts so we were left in a situation where even cancelling the second carrier would cost more than to build it.

I have this in written confirmation from BAE systems.

That is the legacy we inherited.

An appalling legacy the British people have every right to be angry about.

But I say to them today – this Government will act in the national interest.

We would not have started from here but the right decisions are now being made in the right way and for the right reasons.

Mr Speaker, it will take time to rectify these mistakes but this is how we will do so.

We will build both carriers, but hold one in extended readiness.

We will fit the “cats and traps” – the catapults and arrestor gear to the operational carrier.

This will allow our allies to operate from our operational carrier and allow us to buy the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter which is more capable, less expensive, has a longer range and carries more weapons.

We will also aim to bring the planes and carriers in at the same time.

Finally, Mr Speaker, we can not dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge.

So we will retain and renew the ultimate insurance policy – our independent nuclear deterrent, which guards this country round the clock every day of the year.

We have completed a value for money review of our future deterrent plans.

As a result we can:

…extend the life of the Vanguard class so that the first replacement submarine is not required until 2028;

…reduce the number of operational launch tubes on those new submarines from 12 to eight…

…reduce the number of warheads on our submarine at sea from 48 to 40…..

…and reduce our stockpile of operational warheads from less than 160 to fewer than 120.

The next phase of the programme to renew our deterrent will start by the end of this year.

But as a result of the changes to the programme, the decision to start construction of the new submarines need not now be taken until around 2016.

We will save around £1.2 billion and defer a further £2 billion of spending from the next ten years.

So yes, Mr Speaker, we will save money.

But we will retain and renew a credible, continuous and effective minimum nuclear deterrent that will stand constant guard over this nation’s security.

Finally, Mr Speaker, the immense contribution of our highly professional Special Forces is necessarily largely unreported but their immense capability is recognised all across the world.

We are significantly increasing our investment in our Special Forces to ensure they remain at the leading edge of operational capability prepared to meet current and future threats, and maintaining their unique and specialist role.

This enhanced capability will allow them to remain at “extremely high readiness” for emergency operations through enhanced logistics, medical support and greater intelligence capability to support their operations.

==Conclusion==
Mr Speaker, we were left a situation where we had a budget £38 billion overspent armed forces at war, overstretched, under-equipped and ill-prepared for the challenges of the future.

And the biggest budget deficit in post-war history.

Mr Speaker, I believe we have begun to deal with all these things sorting out the legacy and fitting Britain’s defences for the future.

And I commend this statement to the House.<ref>[http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/latest-news/2010/10/strategic-defence-review-55906 Defence Response]Number 10 Website,accessed 16th November 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

BAE Systems

2010-11-19T00:26:57Z

Leigh McDiarmid: BAE Systems moved to Globalisation:BAE Systems

#REDIRECT [[Globalisation:BAE Systems]]

BAe Systems

2010-11-19T00:26:57Z

Leigh McDiarmid: BAE Systems moved to Globalisation:BAE Systems

<blockquote style="background-color:beige;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%;width:50%">"The Systems Company Innovating for a Safer World."<br>—BAE Systems North American website<ref>[http://www.na.baesystems.com/ www.na.baesystems.com/]</ref></blockquote>

==Industry Areas==

BAE Systems plc is a global arms company, with interests also in civilian avionics and engineering. Its subsidiaries are also involved in providing intelligence, personnel and logistics support to US/UK military.

===Market Share/Importance===

BAE Systems aims to be "the premier global defence and aerospace company delivering a full range of products and services for air, land and naval forces". <ref>BAE Systems website </ref> As such, the company has interests in areas spanning the range of avionics and defence systems, from hardware manufacture to personnel training. Primarily, however, BAE is an arms company, with military equipment currently accounting for around 80% of the company's total sales. <ref>Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) website [http://www.caat.org.uk/publications/companies/baes.php]
</ref> In 2005 their military revenue amounted to $20,935 million (from a total revenue of $26,500 million). <ref>Defense News Top 100 http://defensenews.com/index.php?S=06top100</ref> It is the world's fourth largest defence and aerospace firm, behind [[Lockheed Martin]], [[Boeing]] and [[Northrop Grumman]]. <ref>ibid.</ref>

The company is a significant employer, directly employing around 88,600 people. <ref>'BAE Systems at a glance', BAE Systems Annual Report 2006 [http://www.investis.com/investors/downloads/annualreport2006.pdf]</ref> Over a third of its workforce is outside the UK, largely in their other five home markets – the US, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, South Africa and Australia. BAE Systems is present in five continents, with "customers and partners in more than 100 countries", <ref>BAE systems website [http://www.baesystems.com/AboutUs/index.htm About Us]</ref> and its order book at the end of 2006 totalled £31.7 billion. <ref>'Results in brief', [http://www.investis.com/investors/downloads/annualreport2006.pdf BAE Systems Annual Report 2006, p.3]</ref> Its biggest rivals are the US companies [[Lockheed Martin]], [[Boeing]] and [[Northrop Grumman]], as well as the European syndicate [[EADS]] Inc, which formed when BAE acquired GEC (see History, below). In theory, BAE Systems is financially strong enough to attempt a takeover of its rivals. However, BAE Systems' ambition to merge with [[Boeing]] or [[Lockheed Martin|Lockheed]] has been ruled out by the US government. <ref> Wrigley, C. (2001) Arms Industry Briefing, CAAT website [http://www.caat.org.uk/publications/companies/arms-industry.php]</ref> Nevertheless, its desire to break into the US market, by far the largest in the world for arms companies, continues unabated.

==History and Strategy==

British Aerospace (BAe) was first formed as a nationalised corporation in April 1977 by the merger of the British Aircraft Corporation, Hawker Siddeley Aviation, Hawker Siddeley Dynamics and Scottish Aviation. State control over the arms trade didn't survive for very long under the Thatcher government, however, with the UK Government selling 51.57% of its shares in BAe in February 1981, upon its formation as a public limited company (PLC). <ref>BAE Systems Company History, BAE Systems graduate recruitment site [http://www.graduates-baesystems.com/html/corporateTimeline.php]</ref> In 1985, the UK Government sold its remaining shares, keeping only a special £1 'golden' share in order to ensure that the company continued under British control. <ref>BAE Systems website [http://production.investis.com/investors/shareholder/shforeign/]</ref>

At around the same time as it became an entirely privately-owned company, BAe became involved in one of the biggest trade scandals of the 1980s -- the Al Yamamah deals with Saudia Arabia. According to the Financial Times, the arms deal (known as Al Yamamah II) was "the biggest [UK] sale ever of anything, to anyone". <ref> cited in Hirst, C. 'The Arabian Connection: The UK Arms Trade to Saudi Arabia,' CAAT website http://www.caat.org.uk/publications/countries/saudi-arabia.php</ref> The deals were condemned by [[Amnesty International]] as a clear endorsement of a country in the hands of a repressive regime who display a "persistent pattern of gross human rights violations". <ref>Amnesty International 1999 Annual Report http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/mde23.htm</ref> BAe was the prime contractor for the entire deal, which included the sale of 48 Tornado bombers, 24 Tornado fighters, 30 Hawk trainer-fighters, and a large number of Rapier missiles. It also involved millions of pounds worth of corrupt commissions paid to Arabian businessmen, which the Conservative government of the time denied (see [[BAe Systems: Corporate Crimes|Corporate Crimes]] section). Needless to say, this part of the company's history does not appear on its own corporate timeline.

Meanwhile, in 1988 BAe began to expand its holdings, starting with the acquistion of the [[Rover]] group. By 1991 [[Heckler & Koch GMbh]], the German small arms company, had joined them, and in 1992 the company reorganised itself. The arms side of the company were amalgamated into British Aerospace Defence Limited, whereas three new companies were formed to replace British Aerospace (Commercial Aircraft) Limited. These were British Aerospace Airbus Limited, British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Limited and British Aerospace Corporate Jets Limited.<ref>BAE Systems Company History, BAE Systems graduate recruitment site [http://www.graduates-baesystems.com/html/corporateTimeline.php]</ref> As well as internal reorganisation, BAe also began to form alliances with other companies in the arms sector; in October 1993 a joint venture company was formed with [[GEC-Marconi]] to "manage and develop their involvement in the naval Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS) guided weapons project."<ref>BAE Systems Company History, BAE Systems graduate recruitment site [http://www.graduates-baesystems.com/html/corporateTimeline.php]</ref> This reflected the increasing trend for co-operation between companies in the sector.

Undeterred by the outrage and corruption which had mired its arms deals to Saudi Arabia, in November 1996 the Conservative Government handed BAe another morally dubious trade agreement. A large shipment of arms, including 16 Hawk fighter aircraft, was to be sent to the dictatorship that ruled Indonesia, despite widespread suspicion that they would inevitably be used to facilitate the repression of East Timor. As [[Robin Cook]] stated in the House of Commons in 1994, "Hawk aircraft have been observed on bombing runs in East Timor in most years since 1984." <ref>Hildyard, N. (1999) [http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=51970 Snouts in the Trough]: Export Credit Agencies, Corporate Welfare and Policy Incoherence', Corner House Briefing No. 14, The Corner House website</ref> Unsurprisingly, this evidence did nothing to dissuade BAe from extracting the maximum profit available from the deal.

In the following years, BAe continued to restructure its business, concentrating more heavily on its 'core competencies' and divesting its shares in other, unrelated businesses. In March 1998, for example, it disposed of shares representing a 16.11% ownership of [[Orange]] plc, making £763.8 million. Meanwhile, it increased its interest in the civil aerospace interest of Airbus, and continued to expand into the US arms market by joining [[Lockheed Martin]]'s Joint Strike Fighter project team. In September 1998 it entered into partnership agreements (along with Rolls Royce) with the Universities of Cambridge, Sheffield and Southampton in order to "research into future engineering design processes." <ref>BAE Systems Company History, BAE Systems graduate recruitment site [http://www.graduates-baesystems.com/html/corporateTimeline.php]</ref> (see [[BAe Systems: Corporate Crimes]])

Perhaps the biggest change for company came in January 1999, when British Aerospace announced its merger with GEC's [[Marconi Electronic Systems]] business (essentially the arms dealing side of [[GEC-Marconi]]). In November 1999, the two businesses merged, creating a new corporate entity named BAE Systems, which became the largest arms dealer in the world. All was not necessarily rosy with the new company, however, with a profits warning issued on January 10, 2001, wiping away a quarter of the company's value on the stockmarket. <ref>Kuo, D. (2001) Market Comment: 'BAE Systems Dives', The Motley Fool website [http://www.fool.co.uk/news/comment/2001/c010110b.htm]</ref>

New developments have, however, made the company's future look bright. The British Government continues to look after its corporate friends, with the recent £28 million sale of a military air-traffic control system to debt-stricken Tanzania causing outrage among ordinary voters. As [[Justin Forsyth]], Oxfam's head of policy, has put it: "It is outrageous that Tanzania's debt relief will go towards bolstering the profits of BAE and Barclays bank rather than helping the poor people of Tanzania". <ref>Denny, C. (2001) [http://www.guardian.co.uk/tanzania/story/0,11441,623358,00.html Backlash over costly high-tech for Tanzania], The ''Guardian'' website, 21 December 2001
</ref> On top of this, the British government is currently mounting an intensive campaign to sell 60 Hawk jets, worth £1bn, to India. This is despite the danger of the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir spilling into war and destabilising the entire region. BAE Systems has already sold Jaguar combat aircraft to India in licensing deals that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) refuses to disclose <ref>Norton-Taylor, R. (2002) [http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story/0,2763,688932,00.html British plane sales to India raise fears of nuclear use], The ''Guardian'' website, 23 April 2002</ref> (see [[BAe Systems: Corporate Crimes|Corporate Crimes]] section).

External factors have also helped to secure BAE's future - most notably the fallout from the attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11th, 2001. The "War on Terrorism" cannot fail to boost BAE's profits, and as the Board of BAE point out in their preliminary results for 2001, the loss of revenue from civilian aeronautics will be mitigated "by the overall improvement in performance in the other business groups." <ref>'BAE SYSTEMS delivers 2001 financial results to plan with a strong order book and balance sheet', BAE Systems website 14 February 2002 [http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2002/press_14022002.html]</ref> In other words, the fall in civilian air traffic doesn't matter to BAE Systems, because they will continue to profit from the spiral of death and destruction which constitutes the arms trade. The outlook is bright for this company only when it is bleak for the rest of the world.

Despite an increase in share prices and a generally good outlook for the company, on Tuesday March 26th, 2002, a boardroom coup shocked The City. This lead to the departure of CEO John Weston, who had been with the company for more than 30 years. It has been suggested that his style clashed with the Chairman of the Board of Directors, [[Sir Richard Evans]], and that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) resented being "bullied" by Weston. As the ''Observer'' put it: "Weston had irritated Defence Secretary [[Geoff Hoon]] by his opposition to the Government's defence procurement process... Evans is good at relationship building; Weston has sometimes been criticised for adopting a more robust approach with officials." <ref>Wachman, R. (2002) 'A very British coup at BAE', 31/3/02, The ''Observer'' website, 31 March 2002 [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,676379,00.html]</ref> Whatever the reason, [[Mike Turner]] (formerly Chief Operating Officer) was quickly promoted to the vacant CEO spot, and The City expects more changes to occur soon, not least in the orientation of the company. Rather than a single focus on the United States, it is thought that Turner will concentrate on keeping the activities of BAE diversified, and on rebuilding relations with the MoD.

==Intelligence support in Iraq==
BAE set up Human Terrain Systems (HTS) at the beginning of the 2003 US attack on Iraq. HTS hires anthropologists and embeds them with US/UK military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to provide culture sensitive interpretation to advice local commanders, and to gather intelligence.<ref>William O Beeman, [Iraq's lethal fieldwork], Le monde diplomatique, March 2008</ref>

==Contact, References and Resources==
===Contact===
===Resources===
*[[BAe Systems: Products/Projects]]
*[[BAe Systems: Who, Where, How much?]]
*[[BAe Systems: Influence/Lobbying]]
*[[BAe Systems: Corporate Crimes]]

==External Links==
*Campaign Against Arms Trade http://www.caat.org.uk/
*BAE Systems http://www.baesystems.com/
*Defense News http://defensenews.com/
*Amnesty International http://www.amnesty.org/
*The Corner House http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/
*Guardian Unlimited http://www.guardian.co.uk/

===References===
<references/>

[[Category:Transnational Corporations]]
[[Category:Arms Industry]]

MBDA

2010-11-19T00:25:25Z

Leigh McDiarmid: MBDA moved to Globalisation:MBDA

'''MBDA''' is a multi-national group, and a world leader in missile systems and has nearly 10,000 employees across Europe and the USA. MBDA has three main shareholders in defence and aeronautical systems – [[BAE]] Systems (37.5%), [[EADS]](37.5%) and Finmeccanica (25%). The [[MBDA]] website reports a turnover of 2.6 Billion Euros and produced over 3000 missiles. Furthermore, [[MBDA]] works with over 90 armed forces worldwide.
<ref>[http://www.mbda.co.uk MDBA website], accessed November 2010</ref>

==Background==

MBDA operates in all of the major world markets and is the only company in its sector able to design and produce guided weapon systems for land-based, naval and airborne requirements. Now a standalone company in its own right and more than 70 customers worldwide. While consolidation in the sector was behind this merger, the entity that has been created better reflects developments within the worldwide industry, according to the company.

Coming from such a distinguished background - [[BAE]] Systems is a global defence operator, [[EADS]] is the largest aerospace company in Europe and Finmeccanica is Italy’s second-largest industrial group - MBDA has a strong pedigree. But its new-found strength lies in that it has at its heart Europe’s top guided weapons design and production centres united by strong transnational programmes such as the Storm Shadow/SCALP stand-off cruise missile family, the Meteor advanced generation beyond visual range air-to-air missile and the Aster family of anti-missile missile systems.
<ref>[http:www.themanufacturer.com/uk/profile/471/MBDA_UK MBDA Profile]April 2002,accessed 17th November 2010</ref>

==Company Profile==

MBDA was created in December 2001, after the merger of the main missile producers in France, Italy and Great Britain. Each of these companies contributed the experience gained from fifty years of technological and operational success. The restructuring of the industry in Europe was completed with the acquisition of the German subsidiary EADS/LFK in March 2006. This further enriched MDBA’s range of technologies and products, consolidating the Group’s world-leading position in the industry.

MBDA is the only Group capable of designing and producing missiles and missile systems to meet the whole range of current and future operational requirements for the three armed forces (army, navy, air force). Overall, the Group offers a range of 45 products in service and another 15 in development.

MBDA has demonstrated its ability to bring together the best skills across the whole of Europe, and has succeeded in becoming the prime contractor for a series of strategic multi-national programmes. These include the six-nation Meteor air superiority weapon, the Franco-British conventionally armed cruise missile, Storm Shadow/SCALP, and a family of air defence systems based on the Aster missile for France and Italy (for ground and naval based air defence) and for the UK (naval air defence for the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers).

Other programmes such as MEADS further serve to position MBDA at the heart of the European defence sector as well as establishing cooperative transatlantic links with the principal groups in the US defence industry.
<ref>[http://www.mbda.net MDBA website]MBDA Website accessed 16th November 2010</ref>

==MBDA Promotional Video==
<youtube>j8KOPzLbdF0</youtube>

==Contacts==
http://www.mbda.co.uk

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Arms Industry]]

MBDA

2010-11-19T00:24:39Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

MBDA

2010-11-19T00:22:36Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

'''MBDA''' is a multi-national group, and a world leader in missile systems and has nearly 10,000 employees across Europe and the USA. MBDA has three main shareholders in defence and aeronautical systems – [[BAE]] Systems (37.5%), [[EADS]](37.5%) and Finmeccanica (25%). The [[MBDA]] website reports a turnover of 2.6 Billion Euros and produced over 3000 missiles. Furthermore, [[MBDA]] works with over 90 armed forces worldwide.
<ref>[http://www.mbda.co.uk MDBA website], accessed November 2010</ref>

==Background==
MBDA operates in all of the major world markets and is the only company in its sector able to design and produce guided weapon systems for land-based, naval and airborne requirements. Now a standalone company in its own right and more than 70 customers worldwide. While consolidation in the sector was behind this merger, the entity that has been created better reflects developments within the worldwide industry, according to the company.

Coming from such a distinguished background - [[BAE]] Systems is a global defence operator, [[EADS]] is the largest aerospace company in Europe and Finmeccanica is Italy’s second-largest industrial group - MBDA has a strong pedigree. But its new-found strength lies in that it has at its heart Europe’s top guided weapons design and production centres united by strong transnational programmes such as the Storm Shadow/SCALP stand-off cruise missile family, the Meteor advanced generation beyond visual range air-to-air missile and the Aster family of anti-missile missile systems.
<ref>[http:www.themanufacturer.com/uk/profile/471/MBDA_UK MBDA Profile]April 2002,accessed 17th November 2010</ref>

==Company Profile==
[[MBDA]] was created in December 2001, after the merger of the main missile producers in France, Italy and Great Britain. Each of these companies contributed the experience gained from fifty years of technological and operational success. The restructuring of the industry in Europe was completed with the acquisition of the German subsidiary EADS/LFK in March 2006. This further enriched [[MDBA]]’s range of technologies and products, consolidating the Group’s world-leading position in the industry.

[[MBDA]] is the only Group capable of designing and producing missiles and missile systems to meet the whole range of current and future operational requirements for the three armed forces (army, navy, air force). Overall, the Group offers a range of 45 products in service and another 15 in development.

[[MBDA]] has demonstrated its ability to bring together the best skills across the whole of Europe, and has succeeded in becoming the prime contractor for a series of strategic multi-national programmes. These include the six-nation Meteor air superiority weapon, the Franco-British conventionally armed cruise missile, Storm Shadow/SCALP, and a family of air defence systems based on the Aster missile for France and Italy (for ground and naval based air defence) and for the UK (naval air defence for the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers).

Other programmes such as MEADS further serve to position MBDA at the heart of the European defence sector as well as establishing cooperative transatlantic links with the principal groups in the US defence industry.
<ref>[http://www.mbda.net MDBA website]MBDA Website accessed 16th November 2010</ref>

==MBDA Promotional Video==
<youtube>j8KOPzLbdF0</youtube>

==Contacts==
http://www.mbda.co.uk

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Arms Industry]]

MBDA

2010-11-19T00:21:15Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

'''MBDA''' is a multi-national group, and a world leader in missile systems and has nearly 10,000 employees across Europe and the USA. MBDA has three main shareholders in defence and aeronautical systems – [[BAE]] Systems (37.5%), [[EADS]](37.5%) and Finmeccanica (25%). The [[MBDA]] website reports a turnover of 2.6 Billion Euros and produced over 3000 missiles. Furthermore, [[MBDA]] works with over 90 armed forces worldwide.
<ref>[http://www.mbda.co.uk MDBA website], accessed November 2010</ref>

==Background==
MBDA operates in all of the major world markets and is the only company in its sector able to design and produce guided weapon systems for land-based, naval and airborne requirements. Now a standalone company in its own right and more than 70 customers worldwide. While consolidation in the sector was behind this merger, the entity that has been created better reflects developments within the worldwide industry, according to the company.

Coming from such a distinguished background - [[BAE]] Systems is a global defence operator, [[EADS]] is the largest aerospace company in Europe and Finmeccanica is Italy’s second-largest industrial group - MBDA has a strong pedigree. But its new-found strength lies in that it has at its heart Europe’s top guided weapons design and production centres united by strong transnational programmes such as the Storm Shadow/SCALP stand-off cruise missile family, the Meteor advanced generation beyond visual range air-to-air missile and the Aster family of anti-missile missile systems.
<ref>[http:www.themanufacturer.com/uk/profile/471/MBDA_UK MBDA Profile]April 2002,accessed 17th November 2010</ref>

==Company Profile==
[[MBDA]] was created in December 2001, after the merger of the main missile producers in France, Italy and Great Britain. Each of these companies contributed the experience gained from fifty years of technological and operational success. The restructuring of the industry in Europe was completed with the acquisition of the German subsidiary EADS/LFK in March 2006. This further enriched [[MDBA]]’s range of technologies and products, consolidating the Group’s world-leading position in the industry.

[[MBDA]] is the only Group capable of designing and producing missiles and missile systems to meet the whole range of current and future operational requirements for the three armed forces (army, navy, air force). Overall, the Group offers a range of 45 products in service and another 15 in development.

[[MBDA]] has demonstrated its ability to bring together the best skills across the whole of Europe, and has succeeded in becoming the prime contractor for a series of strategic multi-national programmes. These include the six-nation Meteor air superiority weapon, the Franco-British conventionally armed cruise missile, Storm Shadow/SCALP, and a family of air defence systems based on the Aster missile for France and Italy (for ground and naval based air defence) and for the UK (naval air defence for the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers).

Other programmes such as MEADS further serve to position [[MBDA]] at the heart of the European defence sector as well as establishing cooperative transatlantic links with the principal groups in the US defence industry.
<ref>[http://www.mbda.net MDBA website]MBDA Website accessed 16th November 2010</ref>

==MBDA Promotional Video==
<youtube>j8KOPzLbdF0</youtube>

==Contacts==
http://www.mbda.co.uk

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Arms Industry]]

EADS

2010-11-19T00:10:22Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

[[EADS]] is a large pan-European aerospace corporation, formed by the merger on 10 July 2000 of Aérospatiale-Matra of France, DaimlerChrysler Aerospace AG (DASA) of Germany, and Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA (CASA) of Spain. The company develops and markets civil and military aircraft, as well as communications systems, missiles, space rockets, satellites, and related systems. The company is headquartered in Leiden, the Netherlands, and operates under Dutch law.
<ref>[http://www.eads.com/1024/en/eads/eaads_at_a_glance/eads_at_a_glance.html EADS at a glance], EADS website, accessed 9th November 2010</ref>

==Company Strategy==

Following the initiative of CEO Louis Gallois, EADS has formulated a strategic roadmap called Vision 2020. This blueprint for EADS' future was presented to the Board of Directors in January 2008. Since then, it has been turned into a Group-wide action plan, applied by every Division.
We aim to achieve:
A better balance between commercial aircraft and our other activities. Commercial aircraft is an extremely capital intensive and cyclical business, with great sensitivity to the US Dollar exchange rate. In 2008 it represented 63% of Group revenues. Our goal is to increase the share of our other activities, especially defence and institutional business, in order to reach a 50/50 balance.
A better balance between platforms and services. With a strong customer base for advanced platforms and systems, EADS is in a position to develop high-value related services, which are not only highly profitable but also counter-cyclical. Our target is to raise the services' share of revenues from 10% to 25% by 2020.
A better balance between our European roots and our global footprint. To gain access to new markets and technology resources, as well as low-cost and multi-currency-based sourcing, we need to expand our international footprint. Our target is to have 20% of employees and 40% of sourcing outside Europe.
Furthermore, we aim to become truly eco-efficient. We are determined to demonstrate our responsible attitude and to make eco-efficiency a competitive advantage.
Reaching these targets will require significant technological and human resources. We will continue to deliver the best of European technology, and will encourage greater mobility and international diversity.<ref>[http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/our-strategy.html EADS Company Strategy]EADS Website,accessed 16th November 2010</ref>

==Management and Control==

Since its creation in 2000 and until 22 October 2007, [[EADS]] was led by a dual-headed management structure, with two Chairmen and two co-Chief Executive Officers, which provided the necessary balance and stability required for a company with such a unique industrial and multinational heritage.
On 16 July 2007, Daimler (formerly DaimlerChrysler), the French Government and Lagardère decided, together with the EADS management team, to implement a new management and leadership structure. The German Government was also consulted. Guiding principles of this modification were efficiency, cohesiveness and simplification of EADS’ management and leadership structure, towards corporate governance best practices while maintaining a balance between the French and the German core shareholders. Under the simplified management structure, EADS is now led by a single Chairman and a single Chief Executive Officer.
The core shareholders also concluded that it was in the best interest of the Group to recommend an increase in the number of independent members on the Board of Directors to appropriately reflect the global profile of EADS by conforming to international corporate governance best practices.
In this respect, both Daimler and Sogeade relinquished two seats on the Board of Directors and four independent Directors were elected during the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders held on 22 October 2007. Apart from the Chief Executive Officer, the Board of Directors no longer comprises executive directors.
The core shareholders have also decided to amend the responsibilities assumed by the Board of Directors, the Chairman, the Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Committee, as described below. These modifications were fully implemented and became effective from the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders and Board of Directors’ meet-ing both held on 22 October 2007.<ref>[http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/our-governance.html EADS Management and Control]EADS Website,accessed 16th November 2010</ref>

==Corporate Video==
<youtube>mAXvHlu_7Es</youtube>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Arms Industry]]

EADS

2010-11-19T00:05:58Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

[[EADS]] is a large pan-European aerospace corporation, formed by the merger on 10 July 2000 of Aérospatiale-Matra of France, DaimlerChrysler Aerospace AG (DASA) of Germany, and Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA (CASA) of Spain. The company develops and markets civil and military aircraft, as well as communications systems, missiles, space rockets, satellites, and related systems. The company is headquartered in Leiden, the Netherlands, and operates under Dutch law.
<ref>[http://www.eads.com/1024/en/eads/eaads_at_a_glance/eads_at_a_glance.html EADS at a glance], EADS website, accessed 9th November 2010</ref>

==Company Strategy==

Following the initiative of CEO Louis Gallois, EADS has formulated a strategic roadmap called Vision 2020. This blueprint for EADS' future was presented to the Board of Directors in January 2008. Since then, it has been turned into a Group-wide action plan, applied by every Division.
We aim to achieve:
A better balance between commercial aircraft and our other activities. Commercial aircraft is an extremely capital intensive and cyclical business, with great sensitivity to the US Dollar exchange rate. In 2008 it represented 63% of Group revenues. Our goal is to increase the share of our other activities, especially defence and institutional business, in order to reach a 50/50 balance.
A better balance between platforms and services. With a strong customer base for advanced platforms and systems, EADS is in a position to develop high-value related services, which are not only highly profitable but also counter-cyclical. Our target is to raise the services' share of revenues from 10% to 25% by 2020.
A better balance between our European roots and our global footprint. To gain access to new markets and technology resources, as well as low-cost and multi-currency-based sourcing, we need to expand our international footprint. Our target is to have 20% of employees and 40% of sourcing outside Europe.
Furthermore, we aim to become truly eco-efficient. We are determined to demonstrate our responsible attitude and to make eco-efficiency a competitive advantage.
Reaching these targets will require significant technological and human resources. We will continue to deliver the best of European technology, and will encourage greater mobility and international diversity.

==Management and Control==

Since its creation in 2000 and until 22 October 2007, [[EADS]] was led by a dual-headed management structure, with two Chairmen and two co-Chief Executive Officers, which provided the necessary balance and stability required for a company with such a unique industrial and multinational heritage.
On 16 July 2007, Daimler (formerly DaimlerChrysler), the French Government and Lagardère decided, together with the EADS management team, to implement a new management and leadership structure. The German Government was also consulted. Guiding principles of this modification were efficiency, cohesiveness and simplification of EADS’ management and leadership structure, towards corporate governance best practices while maintaining a balance between the French and the German core shareholders. Under the simplified management structure, EADS is now led by a single Chairman and a single Chief Executive Officer.
The core shareholders also concluded that it was in the best interest of the Group to recommend an increase in the number of independent members on the Board of Directors to appropriately reflect the global profile of EADS by conforming to international corporate governance best practices.
In this respect, both Daimler and Sogeade relinquished two seats on the Board of Directors and four independent Directors were elected during the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders held on 22 October 2007. Apart from the Chief Executive Officer, the Board of Directors no longer comprises executive directors.
The core shareholders have also decided to amend the responsibilities assumed by the Board of Directors, the Chairman, the Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Committee, as described below. These modifications were fully implemented and became effective from the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders and Board of Directors’ meet-ing both held on 22 October 2007.

==Corporate Video==
<youtube>mAXvHlu_7Es</youtube>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Arms Industry]]

EADS

2010-11-18T23:57:41Z

Leigh McDiarmid: EADS moved to Globalisation:EADS

[[EADS]] is a large pan-European aerospace corporation, formed by the merger on 10 July 2000 of Aérospatiale-Matra of France, DaimlerChrysler Aerospace AG (DASA) of Germany, and Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA (CASA) of Spain. The company develops and markets civil and military aircraft, as well as communications systems, missiles, space rockets, satellites, and related systems. The company is headquartered in Leiden, the Netherlands, and operates under Dutch law.

<ref>[http://www.eads.com/1024/en/eads/eaads_at_a_glance/eads_at_a_glance.html EADS at a glance], EADS website, accessed 9th November 2010</ref>

==Company Strategy==

Following the initiative of CEO Louis Gallois, EADS has formulated a strategic roadmap called Vision 2020. This blueprint for EADS' future was presented to the Board of Directors in January 2008. Since then, it has been turned into a Group-wide action plan, applied by every Division.
We aim to achieve:
• A better balance between commercial aircraft and our other activities. Commercial aircraft is an extremely capital intensive and cyclical business, with great sensitivity to the US Dollar exchange rate. In 2008 it represented 63% of Group revenues. Our goal is to increase the share of our other activities, especially defence and institutional business, in order to reach a 50/50 balance.
• A better balance between platforms and services. With a strong customer base for advanced platforms and systems, EADS is in a position to develop high-value related services, which are not only highly profitable but also counter-cyclical. Our target is to raise the services' share of revenues from 10% to 25% by 2020.
• A better balance between our European roots and our global footprint. To gain access to new markets and technology resources, as well as low-cost and multi-currency-based sourcing, we need to expand our international footprint. Our target is to have 20% of employees and 40% of sourcing outside Europe.
• Furthermore, we aim to become truly eco-efficient. We are determined to demonstrate our responsible attitude and to make eco-efficiency a competitive advantage.
• Reaching these targets will require significant technological and human resources. We will continue to deliver the best of European technology, and will encourage greater mobility and international diversity.

==Management and Control==

Since its creation in 2000 and until 22 October 2007, EADS was led by a dual-headed management structure, with two Chairmen and two co-Chief Executive Officers, which provided the necessary balance and stability required for a company with such a unique industrial and multinational heritage.
On 16 July 2007, Daimler (formerly DaimlerChrysler), the French Government and Lagardère decided, together with the EADS management team, to implement a new management and leadership structure. The German Government was also consulted. Guiding principles of this modification were efficiency, cohesiveness and simplification of EADS’ management and leadership structure, towards corporate governance best practices while maintaining a balance between the French and the German core shareholders. Under the simplified management structure, EADS is now led by a single Chairman and a single Chief Executive Officer.
The core shareholders also concluded that it was in the best interest of the Group to recommend an increase in the number of independent members on the Board of Directors to appropriately reflect the global profile of EADS by conforming to international corporate governance best practices.
In this respect, both Daimler and Sogeade relinquished two seats on the Board of Directors and four independent Directors were elected during the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders held on 22 October 2007. Apart from the Chief Executive Officer, the Board of Directors no longer comprises executive directors.
The core shareholders have also decided to amend the responsibilities assumed by the Board of Directors, the Chairman, the Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Committee, as described below. These modifications were fully implemented and became effective from the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders and Board of Directors’ meet-ing both held on 22 October 2007.

==Corporate Video==
<youtube>mAXvHlu_7Es</youtube>
==Contacts==
http://www.eads.com/

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Arms Industry]]

Adam Holloway

2010-11-18T23:56:42Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

==Background==

[[Adam Holloway]] was born in Faversham, Kent and educated in Surrey. He read Theology and then Social and Political Science at Cambridge University. After university he went to the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst before being commissioned into the Grenadier Guards.

After leaving the army, he became an investigative journalist reporting ITN from Bosnia and made a series of documentaries including undercover films on diverse subjects such as living as a schizophrenic, living rough on the streets of London for three months, people trafficking and asylum seekers and living life in a wheelchair.
Adam was elected to serve as the MP for Gravesham in May 2005. In 2006 he was appointed onto the Defence Select Committee.
He campaigns on retaining and improving health services, crime and anti-social behaviour, more visible policing and champions those who work in the social services and voluntary sectors, without whom life would be very unbearable for those less fortunate than the majority.<ref>[http://www.adamholloway.co.uk/about.htm About Adam], Adam Holloway accessed 17th November 2010</ref>

Holloway is a former Army officer. According to Frederick Forsyth, he served in the SAS during the First Gulf War, taking part in the operation to sabotage missiles in Iraq's western desert.<ref>[http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/175048? PATHETIC ARMCHAIR GENERALS SHAME US], Frederick Forsyth, 14 May 2010.</ref>

==Affiliations==
*[[First Defence]] - Parliamentary Chairman

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:British Army|Holloway, Adam]][[Category:MP|Holloway, Adam]][[Category:Old Cranleighans|Holloway, Adam]]

Adam Holloway

2010-11-18T23:55:19Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

==Background==

[[Adam Holloway]] was born in Faversham, Kent and educated in Surrey. He read Theology and then Social and Political Science at Cambridge University. After university he went to the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst before being commissioned into the Grenadier Guards.

After leaving the army, he became an investigative journalist reporting ITN from Bosnia and made a series of documentaries including undercover films on diverse subjects such as living as a schizophrenic, living rough on the streets of London for three months, people trafficking and asylum seekers and living life in a wheelchair.
Adam was elected to serve as the MP for Gravesham in May 2005. In 2006 he was appointed onto the Defence Select Committee.
He campaigns on retaining and improving health services, crime and anti-social behaviour, more visible policing and champions those who work in the social services and voluntary sectors, without whom life would be very unbearable for those less fortunate than the majority.<ref>[http://www.adamholloway.co.uk/about.htm About Adam], Adam Holloway, MP, accessed 17th April 2010</ref>

Holloway is a former Army officer. According to Frederick Forsyth, he served in the [[SAS]] during the First Gulf War, taking part in the operation to sabotage missiles in Iraq's western desert.<ref>[http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/175048? PATHETIC ARMCHAIR GENERALS SHAME US], Frederick Forsyth, 14 May 2010.</ref>

==Affiliations==
*[[First Defence]] - Parliamentary Chairman

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:British Army|Holloway, Adam]][[Category:MP|Holloway, Adam]][[Category:Old Cranleighans|Holloway, Adam]]

Adam Holloway

2010-11-18T23:26:42Z

Leigh McDiarmid: Adam Holloway moved to Globalisation:Adam Holloway

[[Adam Holloway]] is the Conservative MP for Gravesham.<ref>[http://www.adamholloway.co.uk/about.htm About Adam], Adam Holloway, MP, accessed 5 April 2010.</ref>

Holloway is a former Army officer. According to [[Frederick Forsyth]], he served in the [[SAS]] during the First Gulf War, taking part in the operation to sabotage missiles in Iraq's western desert.<ref>[http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/175048? PATHETIC ARMCHAIR GENERALS SHAME US], Frederick Forsyth, 14 May 2010.</ref>

==Affiliations==
*[[First Defence]] - Parliamentary Chairman

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:British Army|Holloway, Adam]][[Category:MP|Holloway, Adam]][[Category:Old Cranleighans|Holloway, Adam]]

Nick Watts

2010-11-18T23:21:16Z

Leigh McDiarmid: Nick Watts moved to Globalisation:Nick Watts

[[Nick Watts]] is Policy Director of [[First Defence]], and is a freelance international defence policy and strategy advisor.

Since 1999 he has worked on a variety of projects with an international and European dimension. He was Secretary to the Commission on the Commonwealth, set up by Francis Maude MP from June 2000-March 2001. He was previously director of the cross-party Future of Europe Trust(RET), based in the House of Commons from 1991-99. As Director of FET, he travelled extensively in central Europe and Russia, meeting many of the current generation of political leaders as they progressed up the career ladder. He has written numerous articles on international and European topics. Prior to his period in Westminster, he worked as a Lloyd’s broker in the City of London.<ref> First Defence '[http://www.firstdefence.info/about-us/first-defence-people/90-watts Nick Watts]', Accessed 14 November 2010</ref>
==References==
<references/>

Mark Prisk

2010-11-18T23:17:56Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

[[Mark Prisk]] is a Minister of State at the Department for Business, Information and Skills.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/13/full-list-of-new-cabinet-ministers Full list of new cabinet ministers and other government appointments], guardian.co.uk, 13 May 2010.</ref>

==Sheffield Forgemasters Controversy==

Mark Prisk received a letter dated 25th May 2010 from [[Conservative Party]] donor [[Andrew Cook]] arguing that a proposed £80 million loan to the firm Sheffield Forgemasters should be cancelled. Labour MP Clive Betts argued that there were several letters submitted to the consultation over the loan but the only letters arguing against the loan came from Andrew Cook.<ref>BBC News, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8841000/8841446.stm Tory donor 'lobbied minister' to axe Forgemasters loan], BBC News, 21-July-2010</ref> Cook wrote to Mark Prisk again on the 9th June arguing that the loan would be "in breach of EU State Aid Regulations".<ref>BBC News, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8841000/8841446.stm Tory donor 'lobbied minister' to axe Forgemasters loan], BBC News, 21-July-2010</ref>

The loan was cancelled by the government on the 17th June. Mark Prisk argued that "The department did receive an email from Mr Cook's company and whilst it was noted like every other representation, it had no bearing on the decision-making process."<ref>BBC News, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8841000/8841446.stm Tory donor 'lobbied minister' to axe Forgemasters loan], BBC News, 21-July-2010</ref>

==Affiliations==
*[[First Defence]] - Vice-President
*[[Industry and Parliament Trust]] - Trustee

==External Resources==
*[http://www.conservatives.com/People/Members_of_Parliament/Prisk_Mark.aspx Mark Prisk] - Conservative Party profile

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Old Truronians|Prisk, Mark]][[Category:Conservative Party|Prisk, Mark]][[Category:MP|Prisk, Mark]][[Category:UK Ministers|Prisk, Mark]]

Mark Prisk

2010-11-18T23:17:11Z

Leigh McDiarmid: Mark Prisk moved to Globalisation:Mark Prisk

[[Mark Prisk]] is a Minister of State at the [[Department for Business, Information and Skills]].<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/13/full-list-of-new-cabinet-ministers Full list of new cabinet ministers and other government appointments], guardian.co.uk, 13 May 2010.</ref>

==Sheffield Forgemasters Controversy==

Mark Prisk received a letter dated 25th May 2010 from [[Conservative Party]] donor [[Andrew Cook]] arguing that a proposed £80 million loan to the firm Sheffield Forgemasters should be cancelled. Labour MP Clive Betts argued that there were several letters submitted to the consultation over the loan but the only letters arguing against the loan came from Andrew Cook.<ref>BBC News, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8841000/8841446.stm Tory donor 'lobbied minister' to axe Forgemasters loan], BBC News, 21-July-2010</ref> Cook wrote to Mark Prisk again on the 9th June arguing that the loan would be "in breach of EU State Aid Regulations".<ref>BBC News, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8841000/8841446.stm Tory donor 'lobbied minister' to axe Forgemasters loan], BBC News, 21-July-2010</ref>

The loan was cancelled by the government on the 17th June. Mark Prisk argued that "The department did receive an email from Mr Cook's company and whilst it was noted like every other representation, it had no bearing on the decision-making process."<ref>BBC News, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8841000/8841446.stm Tory donor 'lobbied minister' to axe Forgemasters loan], BBC News, 21-July-2010</ref>

==Affiliations==
*[[First Defence]] - Vice-President
*[[Industry and Parliament Trust]] - Trustee

==External Resources==
*[http://www.conservatives.com/People/Members_of_Parliament/Prisk_Mark.aspx Mark Prisk] - Conservative Party profile

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Old Truronians|Prisk, Mark]][[Category:Conservative Party|Prisk, Mark]][[Category:MP|Prisk, Mark]][[Category:UK Ministers|Prisk, Mark]]

Mark Prisk

2010-11-18T23:16:43Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

Caroline Flynn-MacLeod

2010-11-18T23:14:39Z

Leigh McDiarmid: Caroline Flynn-MacLeod moved to Globalisation:Caroline Flynn-MacLeod

==Background Information==

Caroline Flynn-MacLeod gained a B.A. (Hons) in European Studies, from the University of Bradford, and studied European Law and Politics at the University of Aix-Marseille, Aix-en-Provence, France. She won a post-graduate scholarship to the College of Europe, Bruges Belgium where she furthered her European Studies, and was trained to work and negotiate in an international environment. She is a fluent French speaker. From 1997-1999 Caroline was Senior Business Analyst and Head of Parliamentary Affairs at GEC plc, where she developed productive relations between the GEC defence businesses and NATO, as well as the governments of Central and Eastern European countries. Prior to joining GEC Caroline served on NATO's International Staff as Director of the Briefing Programme for politicians, diplomats and journalists during the four years following the fall of the Berlin Wall (1990-1994). Subsequently she worked as Director of the Regional Resources Office for the US Information Agency, at the U.S. Embassy in London. Since 1999 she has been a Partner in Terrington Management LLP.<ref>[http://www.tripolus.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=83 'Tri Polus - Management Board]'15th November 2010, accessed 16th November 2010 </ref>

==Affiliations==
*[[First Defence]]

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:US Propaganda|Flynn-MacLeond, Caroline]]

Mark Cann

2010-11-18T23:12:52Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

==Mark Cann==

Mark Cann is Chief Executive of The British Forces Foundation. He is also CEO of its trading company, Forces Events Ltd. Prior to that he was in the Army as a Queen’s Royal Lancer for 12 years.

His service took him on operations to Belize, Mozambique, Bosnia, and Cyprus.

He also served in India, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Canada and UK. He retired, declining a place at Staff College, a Major, having been an Operations Officer, Adjutant and Squadron Leader, aged 33. He commanded D Squadron Royal Yeomanry for 18 months after retiring.Educated at Repton School, and Loughborough University (BA (Hon) in Politics and History.

As Chief Executive of The British Forces Foundation (a morale boosting charity for serving members of the Armed Forces) Mark specialises in putting on events mainly in Operational Theatres, many of these projects have been televised and were produced by Mark. He won the Charity Times ‘Principle of the year’ at the 2008/09 charity awards.

Mark is also currently a Director of CU2 Ltd (a successful ‘Events, Consultancy and PR’ company) The Armed Forces Charities Advisory Company (which overseas investments of £220 million with Black Rock on behalf of Forces Charities), The Combined Services Polo Association, RAC/AAC Skiing, Administrator of the Erach and Roshan Sadri Foundation (a grant giving Foundation for Homelessness and Education) and Trustee of Wiltshire Bobby Van Trust (that protects elderly and vulnerable people and victims of domestic violence). He is also a respected adviser on Charity, Foreign Affairs and Defence and a founding Director of the First Defence Think Tank.

Mark is passionate about sport and regularly enjoys, polo, skiing and tennis. He is an enthusiastic but awful golfer. His other passions are watching football (supporting Arsenal), collecting first edition political autobiographies, portrait photographs and first edition early twentieth century novels. Mark is married to Emma a very talented equestrian, School Governor and company director. They have a daughter Emily (born 20/11/01) and twin boys, Frederick and Barnaby (01/08/04). They live in Patney, Wiltshire.Date of Birth 28th November 1965.The British Forces Foundation is a member of COBSEO, Association of Charitable Foundations and the Fundraising Standards Board. Mark is a member of the Cavalry & Guards and Royal Automobile Clubs.<ref>[http://www.firstdefence.info/about-us/first-defence-people/93-mark-c First Defence]First Defence Website,accessed 10th November 2010</ref>

==Notes==

<references/>

Mark Cann

2010-11-18T23:10:05Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

==Mark Cann==

Mark Cann is Chief Executive of The British Forces Foundation. He is also CEO of its trading company, Forces Events Ltd. Prior to that he was in the Army as a Queen’s Royal Lancer for 12 years.

His service took him on operations to Belize, Mozambique, Bosnia, and Cyprus.

He also served in India, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Canada and UK. He retired, declining a place at Staff College, a Major, having been an Operations Officer, Adjutant and Squadron Leader, aged 33. He commanded D Squadron Royal Yeomanry for 18 months after retiring.Educated at Repton School, and Loughborough University (BA (Hon) in Politics and History.

As Chief Executive of The British Forces Foundation (a morale boosting charity for serving members of the Armed Forces) Mark specialises in putting on events mainly in Operational Theatres, many of these projects have been televised and were produced by Mark. He won the Charity Times ‘Principle of the year’ at the 2008/09 charity awards.

Mark is also currently a Director of CU2 Ltd (a successful ‘Events, Consultancy and PR’ company) The Armed Forces Charities Advisory Company (which overseas investments of £220 million with Black Rock on behalf of Forces Charities), The Combined Services Polo Association, RAC/AAC Skiing, Administrator of the Erach and Roshan Sadri Foundation (a grant giving Foundation for Homelessness and Education) and Trustee of Wiltshire Bobby Van Trust (that protects elderly and vulnerable people and victims of domestic violence). He is also a respected adviser on Charity, Foreign Affairs and Defence and a founding Director of the First Defence Think Tank.

Mark is passionate about sport and regularly enjoys, polo, skiing and tennis. He is an enthusiastic but awful golfer. His other passions are watching football (supporting Arsenal), collecting first edition political autobiographies, portrait photographs and first edition early twentieth century novels. Mark is married to Emma a very talented equestrian, School Governor and company director. They have a daughter Emily (born 20/11/01) and twin boys, Frederick and Barnaby (01/08/04). They live in Patney, Wiltshire.Date of Birth 28th November 1965.The British Forces Foundation is a member of COBSEO, Association of Charitable Foundations and the Fundraising Standards Board. Mark is a member of the Cavalry & Guards and Royal Automobile Clubs.

==Notes==
http://www.firstdefence.info/about-us/first-defence-people/93-mark-c
</references>

Mark Cann

2010-11-18T23:09:28Z

Leigh McDiarmid: Mark Cann moved to Globalisation:Mark Cann

==Mark Cann==

Mark Cann is Chief Executive of The British Forces Foundation. He is also CEO of its trading company, Forces Events Ltd. Prior to that he was in the Army as a Queen’s Royal Lancer for 12 years.

His service took him on operations to Belize, Mozambique, Bosnia, and Cyprus.

He also served in India, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Canada and UK. He retired, declining a place at Staff College, a Major, having been an Operations Officer, Adjutant and Squadron Leader, aged 33. He commanded D Squadron Royal Yeomanry for 18 months after retiring.Educated at Repton School, and Loughborough University (BA (Hon) in Politics and History.

As Chief Executive of The British Forces Foundation (a morale boosting charity for serving members of the Armed Forces) Mark specialises in putting on events mainly in Operational Theatres, many of these projects have been televised and were produced by Mark. He won the Charity Times ‘Principle of the year’ at the 2008/09 charity awards.

Mark is also currently a Director of CU2 Ltd (a successful ‘Events, Consultancy and PR’ company) The Armed Forces Charities Advisory Company (which overseas investments of £220 million with Black Rock on behalf of Forces Charities), The Combined Services Polo Association, RAC/AAC Skiing, Administrator of the Erach and Roshan Sadri Foundation (a grant giving Foundation for Homelessness and Education) and Trustee of Wiltshire Bobby Van Trust (that protects elderly and vulnerable people and victims of domestic violence). He is also a respected adviser on Charity, Foreign Affairs and Defence and a founding Director of the First Defence Think Tank.

Mark is passionate about sport and regularly enjoys, polo, skiing and tennis. He is an enthusiastic but awful golfer. His other passions are watching football (supporting Arsenal), collecting first edition political autobiographies, portrait photographs and first edition early twentieth century novels. Mark is married to Emma a very talented equestrian, School Governor and company director. They have a daughter Emily (born 20/11/01) and twin boys, Frederick and Barnaby (01/08/04). They live in Patney, Wiltshire.Date of Birth 28th November 1965.The British Forces Foundation is a member of COBSEO, Association of Charitable Foundations and the Fundraising Standards Board. Mark is a member of the Cavalry & Guards and Royal Automobile Clubs.

==Notes==
http://www.firstdefence.info/about-us/first-defence-people/93-mark-c

Geoffrey Pattie

2010-11-18T23:07:44Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

'''Sir Geoffrey Pattie''' is Chairman of [[Strategic Communication Laboratories]], and centre-right think-tank [[First Defence]] as well as the Senior Partner of [[Terrington Management]], a lobbying consultancy based in Westminster, London.<ref>First Defence [http://www.firstdefence.org/html/sir_geoffrey_pattie.html 'First Defence - Board of Directors'], Accessed 23 July 2007. </ref>

==Career History==

After graduating from Cambridge with Honours in Law, Sir Geoffrey entered the advertising business and became CEO of one of the UK’s leading agencies. He was elected to the House of Commons in 1974 and served for eight years in Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s first two Administrations – first as a Defence Minister and then as the Technology Minister. In these capacities, he had oversight of the Government sponsored defence and civil research programmes, and took a keen interest in promoting areas of advanced technology, especially in IT and space. On leaving Parliament in 1997, Sir Geoffrey was Chairman of GEC Marconi, the defence arm of GEC and, in that capacity he had many dealings with the International Defence industry. Sir Geoffrey set up his own business, Terrington Management LLP of which he is Senior Partner in 1999. Sir Geoffrey is an Honorary Fellow of St. Catharine’s College Cambridge. <ref> Tri Polus [http://www.tripolus.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=83 'Tri Polus - Management Board'], accessed 16th November 2010. </ref>

In April 1990 Pattie was appointed Vice-Chairman of the [[Conservative Party]] with particular responsibility for liaising with other parties in Europe and emerging democracies in Eastern Europe. In May 1992, he was appointed Vice-Chairman (International) of the [[Conservative Party]]. He resigned from his seat in Parliament at the General Election in 1997. He was awarded the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Law by Sheffield University in July 1997. He was Chairman of [[Marconi Electronic Systems]] Ltd from June 1990 to 1999, Director of Marketing at [[GEC]] plc from 1997 to 1998 and Director of Communications at GEC from 1998 to 1999. He was a Non-Executive Director of the Fairey Group from 1987 to 1993 and Chairman of the Intellectual Property Institute from 1994 to 1999.<ref>Strategic Communications Limited 'Board of Directors',[http://www.scl.cc/staffmember.php?staffid=5&section=6 'Strategic Communications Limited - Board of Directors'], Accessed 23 July 2007.</ref>

==Affiliations==

[[First Defence]] | [[Strategic Communication Laboratories]]

==References==
<references/>

Geoffrey Pattie

2010-11-18T23:06:04Z

Leigh McDiarmid: Geoffrey Pattie moved to Globalisation:Geoffrey Pattie

'''Sir Geoffrey Pattie''' is Chairman of [[Strategic Communication Laboratories]], and centre-right think-tank [[First Defence]] as well as the Senior Partner of [[Terrington Management]], a lobbying consultancy based in Westminster, London.<ref>First Defence [http://www.firstdefence.org/html/sir_geoffrey_pattie.html 'First Defence - Board of Directors'], Accessed 23 July 2007. </ref>

==Career History==

After graduating from Cambridge with Honours in Law, Sir Geoffrey entered the advertising business and became CEO of one of the UK’s leading agencies. He was elected to the House of Commons in 1974 and served for eight years in Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s first two Administrations – first as a Defence Minister and then as the Technology Minister. In these capacities, he had oversight of the Government sponsored defence and civil research programmes, and took a keen interest in promoting areas of advanced technology, especially in IT and space. On leaving Parliament in 1997, Sir Geoffrey was Chairman of GEC Marconi, the defence arm of GEC and, in that capacity he had many dealings with the International Defence industry. Sir Geoffrey set up his own business, Terrington Management LLP of which he is Senior Partner in 1999. Sir Geoffrey is an Honorary Fellow of St. Catharine’s College Cambridge. <ref> Tri Polus [http://www.tripolus.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=83 'Tri Polus - Management Board'], accessed 16th November 2010. </ref>

:In April 1990 Pattie was appointed Vice-Chairman of the [[Conservative Party]] with particular responsibility for liaising with other parties in Europe and emerging democracies in Eastern Europe. In May 1992, he was appointed Vice-Chairman (International) of the [[Conservative Party]]. He resigned from his seat in Parliament at the General Election in 1997. He was awarded the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Law by Sheffield University in July 1997. He was Chairman of [[Marconi Electronic Systems]] Ltd from June 1990 to 1999, Director of Marketing at [[GEC]] plc from 1997 to 1998 and Director of Communications at GEC from 1998 to 1999. He was a Non-Executive Director of the [[Fairey Group]] from 1987 to 1993 and Chairman of the [[Intellectual Property Institute]] from 1994 to 1999.<ref>Strategic Communications Limited 'Board of Directors',[http://www.scl.cc/staffmember.php?staffid=5&section=6 'Strategic Communications Limited - Board of Directors'], Accessed 23 July 2007.</ref>

==Affiliations==

[[First Defence]] | [[Strategic Communication Laboratories]]

==References==
<references/>

Globalisation:First Defence: Recent Events

2010-11-18T23:04:13Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

First Defence has had a number of recent events. The most recent of those events was held on the eve of the Strategic Defence Review in October 2010, and was chaired by the [[Rt. Hon Liam Fox]]. Listed below are other events held by members of [[Globalisation:First Defence]].
==The War. A War==

Speaker: Gerald Howarth M.P.
Shadow Defence Procurement Minister

Chaired by:
Adam Holloway M.P.
First Defence Parliamentary Chairman

Tuesday, 2nd February 2010, House of Commons

Britain is facing the most significant Strategic Defence Review in a generation. While current economic difficulties constrain expenditure options, Afghanistan seems to dominate doctrinal discussions.
Will all future wars look like Afghanistan? If so should we re-configure our forces to address this type of warfare? Is Afghanistan the war – or just a war?

What are the implications of this conflict for our armed forces? And, if there is to be a reconfiguration of our forces, what will be the implications for the defence sector?

Gerald Howarth MP has been a Shadow Defence Minister since 2002 and holds the Defence Procurement brief . He is at the heart of planning for a Conservative Strategic Defence Review.

==Post Conflict Afghanistan==

Speaker: Tobias Ellwood M.P.
Shadow Defence Procurement Minister

Chaired by:
Adam Holloway M.P.
First Defence Parliamentary Chairman

Saturday, 7th Dec 2009, House of Commons.

Tobias was born in New York, USA. He grew up in Bonn, Germany and Vienna, Austria, but returned to the UK to complete his first degree at Loughborough University. He spent five years in the Army with The Royal Green Jackets, and served in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Kuwait, Germany, Gibraltar and Bosnia.

On leaving the army Tobias worked as a researcher for the former Defence Secretary, the Rt Hon Tom King MP (now Lord King). He returned to university to complete an MBA at City University Business School. Tobias then moved to the London Stock Exchange for two years where he was a Senior Business Development Manager and, following that, to a similar role for the law firm Allen and Overy.

Tobias was elected as Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East in May 2005.

In January 2006 he was appointed Opposition Whip and in July 2007 was promoted to the post of Shadow Minister for Culture Media and Sport where he is responsible for a portfolio including tourism, gambling and licensing. Tobias completed the senior executive course in National and International Studies at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University in the summer of 2009 and in his role as an MP, continues to take an interest in military matters, specialising in post-conflict operations, and is a frequent visitor to the Middle East, in particular Iraq and Afghanistan. In October 2002 he lost his brother in Bali bomb attacks.<ref>[http://www.firstdefence.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=37&Itemid=64 First Defence Recent Events],First Defence Website,accessed 6th November 2010</ref>

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:First Defence: Recent Events

2010-11-18T23:03:14Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

First Defence has had a number of recent events. The most recent of those events was held on the eve of the Strategic Defence Review in October 2010, and was chaired by the [[Rt. Hon Liam Fox]]. Listed below are other events held by members of [[First Defence]].
==The War. A War==

Speaker: Gerald Howarth M.P.
Shadow Defence Procurement Minister

Chaired by:
Adam Holloway M.P.
First Defence Parliamentary Chairman

Tuesday, 2nd February 2010, House of Commons

Britain is facing the most significant Strategic Defence Review in a generation. While current economic difficulties constrain expenditure options, Afghanistan seems to dominate doctrinal discussions.
Will all future wars look like Afghanistan? If so should we re-configure our forces to address this type of warfare? Is Afghanistan the war – or just a war?

What are the implications of this conflict for our armed forces? And, if there is to be a reconfiguration of our forces, what will be the implications for the defence sector?

Gerald Howarth MP has been a Shadow Defence Minister since 2002 and holds the Defence Procurement brief . He is at the heart of planning for a Conservative Strategic Defence Review.

==Post Conflict Afghanistan==

Speaker: Tobias Ellwood M.P.
Shadow Defence Procurement Minister

Chaired by:
Adam Holloway M.P.
First Defence Parliamentary Chairman

Saturday, 7th Dec 2009, House of Commons.

Tobias was born in New York, USA. He grew up in Bonn, Germany and Vienna, Austria, but returned to the UK to complete his first degree at Loughborough University. He spent five years in the Army with The Royal Green Jackets, and served in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Kuwait, Germany, Gibraltar and Bosnia.

On leaving the army Tobias worked as a researcher for the former Defence Secretary, the Rt Hon Tom King MP (now Lord King). He returned to university to complete an MBA at City University Business School. Tobias then moved to the London Stock Exchange for two years where he was a Senior Business Development Manager and, following that, to a similar role for the law firm Allen and Overy.

Tobias was elected as Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East in May 2005.

In January 2006 he was appointed Opposition Whip and in July 2007 was promoted to the post of Shadow Minister for Culture Media and Sport where he is responsible for a portfolio including tourism, gambling and licensing. Tobias completed the senior executive course in National and International Studies at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University in the summer of 2009 and in his role as an MP, continues to take an interest in military matters, specialising in post-conflict operations, and is a frequent visitor to the Middle East, in particular Iraq and Afghanistan. In October 2002 he lost his brother in Bali bomb attacks.<ref>[http://www.firstdefence.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=37&Itemid=64 First Defence Recent Events],First Defence Website,accessed 6th November 2010</ref>

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:First Defence: Recent Events

2010-11-18T22:38:42Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

==The War. A War==

Speaker: Gerald Howarth M.P.
Shadow Defence Procurement Minister

Chaired by:
Adam Holloway M.P.
First Defence Parliamentary Chairman

Tuesday, 2nd February 2010, House of Commons

Britain is facing the most significant Strategic Defence Review in a generation. While current economic difficulties constrain expenditure options, Afghanistan seems to dominate doctrinal discussions.
Will all future wars look like Afghanistan? If so should we re-configure our forces to address this type of warfare? Is Afghanistan the war – or just a war?

What are the implications of this conflict for our armed forces? And, if there is to be a reconfiguration of our forces, what will be the implications for the defence sector?

Gerald Howarth MP has been a Shadow Defence Minister since 2002 and holds the Defence Procurement brief . He is at the heart of planning for a Conservative Strategic Defence Review.

==Post Conflict Afghanistan==

Speaker: Tobias Ellwood M.P.
Shadow Defence Procurement Minister

Chaired by:
Adam Holloway M.P.
First Defence Parliamentary Chairman

Saturday, 7th Dec 2009, House of Commons.

Tobias was born in New York, USA. He grew up in Bonn, Germany and Vienna, Austria, but returned to the UK to complete his first degree at Loughborough University. He spent five years in the Army with The Royal Green Jackets, and served in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Kuwait, Germany, Gibraltar and Bosnia.

On leaving the army Tobias worked as a researcher for the former Defence Secretary, the Rt Hon Tom King MP (now Lord King). He returned to university to complete an MBA at City University Business School. Tobias then moved to the London Stock Exchange for two years where he was a Senior Business Development Manager and, following that, to a similar role for the law firm Allen and Overy.

Tobias was elected as Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East in May 2005.

In January 2006 he was appointed Opposition Whip and in July 2007 was promoted to the post of Shadow Minister for Culture Media and Sport where he is responsible for a portfolio including tourism, gambling and licensing. Tobias completed the senior executive course in National and International Studies at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University in the summer of 2009 and in his role as an MP, continues to take an interest in military matters, specialising in post-conflict operations, and is a frequent visitor to the Middle East, in particular Iraq and Afghanistan. In October 2002 he lost his brother in Bali bomb attacks.

==Notes==
http://www.firstdefence.info/our-events
<references/>

Globalisation:First Defence:Activities

2010-11-18T22:31:29Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

Globalisation:First Defence:Activities

2010-11-18T22:20:58Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

==Strategic Defence and Security Review==

Prime Minister David Cameron has unveiled details of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR).

This is the first time that a UK government has taken decisions on its defence, security, intelligence, resilience, development and foreign affairs capabilities in the round, setting out the delivery of the ends set out in the National Security Strategy.

It sets out the Government’s determination to make the right decisions for the long term defence and prosperity of the country.<ref>[http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/latest-news/2010/10/strategic-defence-review-55906 strategic defence review]'accessed 16th November 2010</ref>
The Secretary of State for Defence, the [[Rt. Hon Liam Fox]] was speaker at a Conference on October 5th 2010, the eve of the Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The conference specifically addressed how the government views defence, Britain’s future role in the world, and what the outcomes may be.

This demonstrates that First Defence works closely with Policy Makers and the Government. The following section reports the main points of Rt. Hon Liam Fox's speech.

==Introduction==

I would first like to thanks Caroline, [[First Defence]] and [[EADS]] for sponsoring this event. First Defence has done so much over the years to advance the defence debate in the UK. Each and every year the First Defence Fringe becomes more and more popular and I am happy to have been invited once again to speak here.

Today, I am going to speak on the future challenges facing defence in the United Kingdom. Here I see two main challenges.

First, configuring national security structures in such a way that will allow us to be prepared for 21st Century Threats.

Second, being able to do so in what is the most challenging financial environment since the Second World War.

I will take each of these in turn.

==Future Threats==

As we carry out the much needed Strategic Defence and Security Review, it is important to consider what types of threats we may face in the future and how we can best counter these threats.

We know from bitter historical experience the difficulty of predicting future conflict- either its nature or its location. We cannot base our future security on the assumption that future wars will be like the current ones.

That is why we must maintain generic capability able to adapt to any changing threats as they emerge. This is the adaptive posture the NCS decided on in July.

Since the last Strategic Defence Review in 1998 the world has become a more dangerous place. Trans-national terrorism, nuclear proliferation, the battle for cyberspace and the effects of climate change are all playing a part in destabilising the delicate equilibrium of global security.

The terrorists attacks of 9/11 completely altered the Western view of global security. An attack that cost only $250,000 to stage ended up costing the U.S. economy $80bn.

International terrorism continues to pose a real threat.

Although largely defeated in Iraq, Al-Qa'ida is challenging the stability of Pakistan, the Arabian Peninsula-notably Yemen and the Horn of Africa, Southeast Asia and elsewhere.

While some countries like Libya have given up their WMD ambitions, North Korea has successfully tested two nuclear bombs.

Iran is still intent on acquiring a nuclear weapon and continues to be a net exporter of terrorism.

The nature and behaviour of the regime and the risk of triggering a nuclear arms race in the Middle East makes this a cause of growing anxiety.

Climate Change is forcing us to address new threats. For example, with Polar ice caps melting and piracy rife in some of the world's busiest and warmest shipping lanes; maritime transport in the High North is not only becoming a reality but is also looking attractive for commerce. It is also a potential source of political and military tension.

The possibility of state-on-state warfare, most recently demonstrated by the Russian invasion of Georgia and the subsequent occupation of 20 per cent of its territory, cannot be ruled out. Especially as the competition for scarce resources heats up in some of the world's most unstable regions.

Other threats may seem remote but if they became a reality would have a devastating effect on our way of life:

• biological weapons proliferation and their use by terrorist organisations and other non-state actors;

• nuclear terrorism and dirty bombs;

• and the use of an electromagnetic pulse device which could destroy all electronic and communications infrastructure over a distance of hundreds of miles.

Like it or not, Cyber Warfare is a modern-day reality-not something that 'might' occur in the future as some commentators suggest.

And these threats are occurring on top of our contingent overseas operations like Afghanistan, maritime security in the Gulf, or reacting to natural disasters like the recent floods in Pakistan where the key priorities of the UK aid effort in Pakistan were air transport of relief stores and restoring damaged or destroyed bridges—both provided by the British military.

The multi polarity of the post Cold War era and the speed of globalisation mean that Britain's economic and security interests are increasingly interlinked to others with an unavoidable shared set of interests and the shared importation of strategic risk.

As recent events have shown with the economic crisis, instability in one corner of the globe can quickly affect us all.

Britain's national interests no longer stop at the White Cliffs of Dover, Gibraltar or the Falklands.

This global interdependence has major implications on how we must organise our national (and international) security structures and identify our threats. It goes without saying that the challenges this presents to our Armed Forces are numerous and complex.

The Twenty-first Century strategic environment demands that Western militaries are able to simultaneously conduct war fighting, peacekeeping, continuous deterrence-both conventional and nuclear, and humanitarian disaster relief operations.

Furthermore, it requires Western Governments to supplement these military operations through an array of soft power tools, such as international aid, defence diplomacy, and the spread of information and ideas.

This is why the creation of the National Security Council under the leadership of the Prime Minister is so important.

The NSC recognises how issues like foreign relations, international development, homeland security, energy security and the structure of our Armed Forces themselves are all interlinked and require joined up thinking if we are to both protect our own citizens at home and contribute to global security abroad.

But if the nature of the Twenty-first century forces us- the West- to re-evaluate current war fighting we should assume that our enemies are forced to do the same. It is in this context that we can understand the types of threats we are likely to face in the future.

There is an on-going debate inside in the UK on what form the future of warfare will take. Usually there are two schools of thought. On one side we are told that future conflicts will be asymmetric and irregular in nature-similar to what we commonly experience in Afghanistan today.

On the other side we are told that state-on-state warfare in the traditional sense cannot be ruled out and if anything, however remote the possibility may seem, this form of warfare is likely to pose the biggest threat to UK sovereignty.

The choice between the two schools of thought is not binary and mutually exclusive. It is no more true to say that we will face only asymmetric threats than it is to say we face only state on state threats. The truth lies somewhere in between-in a hybrid form of warfare-that will require an adaptable Britain requiring generic and flexible defence capabilities.

State-on-state warfare is viewed by many as an anachronism in the Twenty-first Century but until there is a radical change in the Westphalian nation-state system that has been around since 1648, state-on-state warfare remains a possibility-and one that we must be prepared for regardless of how unlikely it may seem today. There is always the possibility of the UK being dragged into state on state warfare between other nations.

But even state-on-state warfare may not necessarily take the same linear, symmetric, and conventional form as it did in the Twenty-first century.

The present superiority of Western conventional military might, coupled with the advantages offered by globalisation, have led our adversaries to look beyond the approach of choosing between conventional and asymmetrical types of warfare and adopt a hybrid warfare approach.

Potential adversaries may confront us with conventional military might that is at, on occasions, equal to Western technology.

But it is more likely that, knowing that they cannot match our technology, resources or conventional firepower our adversaries will resort to strategic and tactical asymmetric measures in an attempt to defeat us.

With hybrid warfare we should assume that our adversaries will simultaneously employ a mix of conventional weapons and irregular tactics that may even include organised crime and acts of terrorism.

We must understand that the conflicts of the future will go beyond the conventional arena and threaten our social well-being, our domestic infrastructure and our economic capabilities.
Russia's invasion of Georgia, with heavy armour, air strikes and ground troops-all very conventional- was augmented by a surgical cyber attack on the Georgian Government and a sophisticated information operations campaign aimed at the Georgian people and the international community.

The changing scope and nature of these threats have implications for our procurement plans. We need to focus more on capability and less on specific equipment.

Saying that we can only focus on one particular type of threat is not good enough for the British people and would be an easy way out for any government whose first and foremost responsibility is the defence of the realm.

==Financial Situation==

If we learned anything from the Cold War it was that the stronger your economy the more secure your national security. We defeated the Soviet threat because we prevailed in the ideological battle but we also out spent largely because of the strength of the Western economies. Today, we find ourselves in the appalling situation where the out going Labour Chief Secretary actually leaves a note that says “Sorry, there is no money left”.

Labour’s failed economic policies saw our national debt double.

Now, I didn't come into politics wishing to see a reduction in our Defence budget.

Neither did David Cameron.

Indeed, we have both often argued in the past that in a dangerous world – the world in which we live - there is a strong case to increase our spending on national security.

But while we can never predict where events will take us or the unavoidable bills we will have to pay as a consequence, we must confront the ghastly truth of Labour's legacy.

Next year the interest bill alone for Labour’s debt will be over £46bn – more than the entire Defence budget for the UK.

There is an unfunded liability in Defence of around £38 billion over the next 10 years.

During their time in office Labour pushed projects ever more desperately into future years to try to make an impossible budget balance in year, only to increase the overall cost of the Defence programme still further.

They behaved like someone who has just received a catalogue in the post and who keeps ordering more and more items from it without once considering whether they might have the income to pay for any of them when the goods arrive.

The price of this irresponsibility will ultimately be paid for by short-term reductions as we try to return Defence to a sound footing.

So we face the SDSR with unavoidably constrained finances.

==Conclusion==

We will not be able to do all that we would like at least not in the short term but we will create better stability for planning for both the military and the defence industry.

The Defence Reform Unit which I recently established will radically reform the MoD itself and along with the service chiefs look at issues such as rank structure and force generation where review is long over due.

Regular defence reviews will mean more incremental changes better matched through the changing nature of the threats we face.

The one thing I am determined to do whatever the frustrations and whatever the difficulties is that no future defence secretary will inherit the shambles that I have inherited from Labour and that our national security will take its full place in the country’s political priorities.

==David Cameron's Speech to the House of Commons on the Strategic Defence and Security Review==

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

There are four things to say upfront.

First, this is not simply a cost-saving exercise to get to grips with the biggest budget deficit in post-war history it is about taking the right decisions to protect our national security in the years ahead.

But the two are not separate.

Our National Security depends on our economic strength and vice versa.

As our national security is a priority so defence and security budgets will contribute to deficit reduction on a lower scale than most other departments.

Over four years the defence budget will rise in cash terms and fall by only 8 per cent.

And it will meet the NATO 2 per cent of GDP target for defence spending throughout the next four years.

But this Government has inherited a £38 billion black hole in the future defence plans bigger than the entire annual defence budget of £33 billion.

Sorting this out is not just vital for tackling the deficit but vital to protecting our national security.

Second, this Review is about how we project power and influence in a rapidly changing world.

We are the sixth largest economy in the world.

Even after this Review we expect to continue with the fourth largest military budget in the world.

We have a unique network of alliances and relationships with the United States as a member of the EU and NATO and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

We have one of the biggest aid programmes in the world one of the biggest networks of Embassies a time zone that allows us to trade with Asia in the morning and the Americas in the evening and a language that is spoken across the globe.

Our national interest requires our full and active engagement in world affairs.

It requires our economy to compete with the strongest and the best.

And it requires too that we stand up for the values we believe in.

Britain has punched above its weight in the world.

And we should have no less ambition for our country in the decades to come.

But we need to be more thoughtful, more strategic and more co-ordinated in the way we advance our interests and protect our national security.

That is what this Review sets out to achieve.

Third, I want to be clear there is no cut whatsoever in the support for our forces in Afghanistan.

The funding for our operations in Afghanistan comes not from the budget of the Ministry of Defence but instead from the Treasury Special Reserve.

So the changes to the Ministry of Defence that result from today’s Review will not affect this funding.

Furthermore, every time the Chiefs have advised me that a particular change might have implications for our operations in Afghanistan either now or in the years to come I have heeded that advice.

In fact we have been and will be providing more for our brave forces in Afghanistan more equipment to counter the threat from IEDs more training and training equipment more protected vehicles – like the warthog heavy protection vehicle which will be out there by the end of the year more surveillance capability, including unmanned aircraft systems and crucially, at last, the right level of helicopter capability.

Fourth, this Review has been very different from those before it.

It has looked at all elements of national security, home and abroad, together, not just defence on its own.

It’s been led from the top with all the relevant people around the table and it will be repeated every five years.

A step change
Mr Speaker, this Review sets out a step change in the way we protect this country’s security interests.

From a Ministry of Defence that is too big, too inefficient and too over-spent to a Department that is smaller, smarter, and more responsible in its spending.

From a strategy over-reliant on military intervention to a higher priority for conflict prevention.

From concentrating on conventional threats to a new focus on unconventional threats.

And from armed forces that are overstretched, under-equipped and deployed too often without appropriate planning to the most professional and most flexible modern forces in the world, fully equipped for the challenges of the future.

Mr Speaker, let me take each in turn.

Ministry of Defence
First, the MOD.

Even though the MOD will get real growth in its budget next year the Department will face some significant challenges.

So the MOD will cut its Estate, dispose of unnecessary assets, renegotiate contracts with industry.

…and cut its management overheads, including reducing civilian numbers in the MOD by 25,000 by 2015.

We will also adjust and simplify civilian and military allowances.

The new operational allowance stays but there will be difficult decisions, although these will be made easier by the return of the army from Germany.

Taken together, all these changes in the MOD will save £4.7 billion over the Spending review period.

Getting to grips with procurement is vital.

Take the Nimrod programme for example.

It has cost the British taxpayer over £3bn.

The number of aircraft to be procured has fallen from 21 to 9.

The cost per aircraft has increased by over 200 per cent and it’s over 8 years late.

Today we are cancelling it.

Conflict prevention
Second, from military intervention to conflict prevention.

Mr Speaker, Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the immense financial and human costs of large scale military interventions.

While we must retain the ability to undertake such operations we must also get better at treating the causes of instability, not just dealing with the consequences.

When we fail to prevent conflict and have to resort to military intervention, the costs are always far higher.

We will expand our capability to deploy military and civilian teams to support stabilisation efforts and build capacity in other states.

And we will double our investment in aid for fragile and unstable countries so by 2015 just under a third of the budget of the Department for International Development will be spent on conflict prevention.

Unconventional threats
Third, we need to focus more of our resources

not on the conventional threats of the past but on the unconventional threats of the future.

Over the next four years, we will invest over half a billion pounds of new money in a national cyber security programme.

This will significantly enhance our ability to detect and defend against cyber attacks and fix shortfalls in the critical cyber infrastructure on which the whole country now depends.

We will continue to prioritise tackling the terrorist threat both from Al Qaeda and its affiliates and from dissident republicans in Northern Ireland.

Although efficiencies will need to be made we are giving priority to continuing investment in our world-class intelligence agencies.

And we will sharpen our readiness to act on civil emergencies, energy security, organised crime, counter proliferation and border security.

Armed Forces
Fourth, from armed forces that are over-stretched and under-equipped we need to move to the most professional and most flexible modern forces in the world.

Mr Speaker, we inherited an Army with scores of tanks in Germany but that was until recently forced to face the deadly threat of improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan in Land Rovers designed for Northern Ireland.

We have a Royal Air Force hampered in its efforts to support our forces overseas because of an ageing strategic airlift fleet and a Royal Navy locked into a cycle of ever smaller numbers of ever more expensive ships.

Mr Speaker, we can not go on like this.

The White Paper we have published today sets out a clear vision for the future structure of our Armed Forces.

The precise budgets will be agreed in future spending reviews.

My own strong view is that this structure will require year on year real-terms growth in the defence budget in the years beyond 2015.

Between now and then the Government is committed to the vision of 2020 set out in this Review and will make decisions accordingly.

We are also absolutely determined that the MOD will become much more commercially hard headed in future and adopt a much more aggressive drive for efficiencies.

The transition from the mess we inherited to that coherent future force will be a difficult process, especially in the current economic conditions.

But we are determined to take the necessary steps.

Our ground forces will continue to have a vital operational role so we will retain a large well-equipped Army, numbering around 95,500 by 2015 that is 7,000 less than today.

We will continue to be one of very few countries able to deploy a self-sustaining properly equipped Brigade-sized force anywhere around the world and sustain it indefinitely if needs be.

And we will be able to put 30,000 into the field for a major, one off operation.

In terms of the return from Germany half our personnel should be back by 2015 and the remainder by 2020.

And tanks and heavy artillery numbers will be reduced by around 40%.

But the introduction of 12 new heavy lift Chinook helicopters new protected mobility vehicles and enhanced communications equipment will make the Army more mobile, more flexible and better equipped to face future threats than ever before.

We will also review the structure of our Reserve forces to ensure we make the most efficient use of their skills, experience and outstanding capabilities.

This will be chaired by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, General Houghton with my Honorable Friend the Member for Canterbury who serves in the Reserves acting as his deputy.

Mr Speaker, the Royal Navy will be similarly equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.

We are procuring a fleet of the most capable nuclear powered hunter-killer astute class submarines anywhere in the world.

Able to operate in secret across the world’s oceans these submarines will also feed vital strategic intelligence back to the UK and to our military forces across the world.

We will complete the production of six Type 45 destroyers one of the most effective multi-role destroyers in the world.

But we will also start a new programme to develop less expensive, more flexible, modern frigates.

Total naval manpower will reduce to around 30,000 by 2015.

And by 2020 the total number of frigates and destroyers will reduce from 23 to 19 but the fleet as a whole will be better able to take on today’s tasks from tackling drug trafficking and piracy to counter-terrorism.

Mr Speaker, the Royal Air Force will also need to take some tough measures in the coming years to ensure a strong future.

We have decided to retire the Harrier which has served this country so well for 40 years.

The Harrier is a remarkably flexible aircraft but the military advice is that we should sustain the Tornado fleet as that aircraft is more capable and better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan.

RAF manpower will also reduce to around 33,000 by 2015.

Inevitably this will mean changes in the way in which some RAF bases are used but some are likely to be required by the Army as forces return from Germany.

We owe it to communities up and down the country who have supported our armed forces for many years to engage with them before final decisions are taken.

Mr Speaker, by the 2020s, the Royal Air Force will be based around a fleet of two of the most capable fighter jets anywhere in the world a modernised Typhoon fleet fully capable of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions; and the Joint Strike Fighter, the world’s most advanced multi-role combat jet.

This fleet will be complemented by a growing fleet of Unmanned Air Vehicles

And the A400M transport aircraft together with the existing fleet of C17 aircraft and the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft will allow us to fly our forces wherever they are needed in the world.

Prepared for the unexpected
Mr Speaker, as we refocus our resources on the most likely threats to our security so we will remain vigilant against all possible threats and retain the capability to react to the unexpected.

So as we cut back on tanks and heavy artillery we will retain the ability to regenerate those capabilities if needs be.

And while in the short term the ability to deploy airpower from the sea is unlikely to be essential over the longer term, we cannot assume that bases for land-based aircraft will always be available when and where we need them.

So we will ensure the UK has carrier strike capability for the future.

Mr Speaker, this is another area where the last Government got it badly wrong.

There’s only one thing worse than spending money you don’t have.

And that’s buying the wrong things with it – and doing so in the wrong way.

The carriers they ordered are unable to work effectively with our key defence partners, the United States or France.

They had failed to plan so carriers and planes would arrive at the same time.

They ordered the more expensive, less capable version of the Joint Strike Fighter to fly off the carriers.

And they signed contracts so we were left in a situation where even cancelling the second carrier would cost more than to build it.

I have this in written confirmation from BAE systems.

That is the legacy we inherited.

An appalling legacy the British people have every right to be angry about.

But I say to them today – this Government will act in the national interest.

We would not have started from here but the right decisions are now being made in the right way and for the right reasons.

Mr Speaker, it will take time to rectify these mistakes but this is how we will do so.

We will build both carriers, but hold one in extended readiness.

We will fit the “cats and traps” – the catapults and arrestor gear to the operational carrier.

This will allow our allies to operate from our operational carrier and allow us to buy the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter which is more capable, less expensive, has a longer range and carries more weapons.

We will also aim to bring the planes and carriers in at the same time.

Finally, Mr Speaker, we can not dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge.

So we will retain and renew the ultimate insurance policy – our independent nuclear deterrent, which guards this country round the clock every day of the year.

We have completed a value for money review of our future deterrent plans.

As a result we can:

…extend the life of the Vanguard class so that the first replacement submarine is not required until 2028;

…reduce the number of operational launch tubes on those new submarines from 12 to eight…

…reduce the number of warheads on our submarine at sea from 48 to 40…..

…and reduce our stockpile of operational warheads from less than 160 to fewer than 120.

The next phase of the programme to renew our deterrent will start by the end of this year.

But as a result of the changes to the programme, the decision to start construction of the new submarines need not now be taken until around 2016.

We will save around £1.2 billion and defer a further £2 billion of spending from the next ten years.

So yes, Mr Speaker, we will save money.

But we will retain and renew a credible, continuous and effective minimum nuclear deterrent that will stand constant guard over this nation’s security.

Finally, Mr Speaker, the immense contribution of our highly professional Special Forces is necessarily largely unreported but their immense capability is recognised all across the world.

We are significantly increasing our investment in our Special Forces to ensure they remain at the leading edge of operational capability prepared to meet current and future threats, and maintaining their unique and specialist role.

This enhanced capability will allow them to remain at “extremely high readiness” for emergency operations through enhanced logistics, medical support and greater intelligence capability to support their operations.

==Conclusion==
Mr Speaker, we were left a situation where we had a budget £38 billion overspent armed forces at war, overstretched, under-equipped and ill-prepared for the challenges of the future.

And the biggest budget deficit in post-war history.

Mr Speaker, I believe we have begun to deal with all these things sorting out the legacy and fitting Britain’s defences for the future.

And I commend this statement to the House.

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:Rt. Hon Liam Fox

2010-11-18T17:34:47Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

Globalisation:Rt. Hon Liam Fox

2010-11-18T17:32:50Z

Leigh McDiarmid: Undo revision 141341 by Leigh McDiarmid (Talk)

==About Liam==

Liam has been a Conservative MP for 18 years and lives in Tickenham. He holds regular surgeries for constituents in Clevedon, Nailsea, Portishead and Yatton and has a reputation as a hard-working constituency MP.

He worked as a GP in Nailsea before becoming a member of Parliament and has held high office in both opposition and government. He has the experience inside and outside Parliament we need for good government.

Liam has been at the centre of local campaigns such as the defence of the green belt, especially around Long Ashton, Dundry and Failand. He has been a leading figure in the local battles such as the electricity pylons affecting Blackwell, Nailsea and Yatton. In Parliament he has campaigned for a Portishead railway link and famously described Portishead as the biggest cul-de-sac in Britain .

He is patron of a large number of local organisations and charities including Mencap, Children's Hospice South West, Clevedon Pier, Portishead lifeboat, the Jessie May Trust, the Curzon Cinema and numerous sports clubs.

==Political Experience==

Liam contested Roxburgh and Berwickshire in the 1987 General Election, and was elected as the Member of Parliament for Woodspring (renamed North Somerset for the 2010 General Election) in April 1992.

In June 1993, Liam was appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to Michael Howard, then Home Secretary. In July 1994, he was appointed an Assistant Government Whip, and promoted to the position of Senior Government Whip the following year. He was a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1996 until the 1997 General Election.

In June 1997, Liam was appointed Opposition Front Bench Spokesman on Constitutional Affairs. For four years from May 1999 to November 2003 he served as Shadow Secretary of State for Heath before being appointed Co-Chairman of the Party in 2003. Subsequently, from May 2005 to December 2005, he served as Shadow Foreign Secretary. He then served as Shadow Secretary of State for Defence from December 2005 to May 2010.

Liam was appointed Secretary of State for Defence by Prime Minister David Cameron on 12th May 2010.<ref>'[http://www.liamfox.co.uk/text.aspx?id=4]', ''Liam Fox Website'' accessed 16th November 2010</ref>

==Recent Articles==

This article is a Defence Policy and Business news article, from November 2010.

Secretary of State for Defence Dr Liam Fox has welcomed the news that 950 Canadian troops will remain in Afghanistan in a training capacity when their combat mission comes to an end in 2011.

Constable Lorant 'Junior' Hegedus, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team, supervises an Afghan National Police Officer on the Camp Nathan Smith pistol firing range

They, along with their NATO allies, have been building on the significant progress in the areas of security, diplomacy and development in Afghanistan; specifically building the capability and capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces. The 950 troops will be part of the NATO Training Mission - Afghanistan until 2014 and will be contributing to the goal of preparing the Afghans to take responsibility for their own security.

Ahead of the Lisbon Summit, where NATO will launch the transition process which will see Afghans begin to steadily take the lead for their own security, the Secretary of State for Defence said:

"We, along with our NATO colleagues, welcome the decision by the Canadian Government to continue their deployment of troops in Afghanistan. They will be fundamental in the ongoing efforts to develop the Afghan National Security Forces [ANSF].

"Having a capable and credible ANSF will be key in helping the Afghans to continue to bring security to their own country and guard against terrorism - and this in turn will reduce the threat to people at home in the UK."

Canada's new non-combat role will focus on four key areas: investing in the future of Afghan children and youth through education and health; advancing security, the rule of law and human rights; promoting regional diplomacy; and delivering humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people.

Announcing the continuation of military deployments to Afghanistan, Lawrence Cannon, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, said:

"Building on strengths and accomplishments over the past years, Canada is committed to helping build a more secure, stable and self-sufficient Afghanistan that is no longer a safe haven for terrorists.

"The combat mission will end in 2011. As we continue to work alongside the Afghan people and the international community, Canada will continue to play an important role in supporting efforts toward a better future for all Afghans".<ref>'[http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/DefenceSecretaryWelcomesCanadianCommitmentToAfghanMission.htm]', ''MoD Website'', 17th November 2010, accessed 17th November 2010<ref>

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:Rt. Hon Liam Fox

2010-11-18T17:31:05Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

==About Liam Fox==

Liam has been a Conservative MP for 18 years and lives in Tickenham. He holds regular surgeries for constituents in Clevedon, Nailsea, Portishead and Yatton and has a reputation as a hard-working constituency MP.

He worked as a GP in Nailsea before becoming a member of Parliament and has held high office in both opposition and government. He has the experience inside and outside Parliament we need for good government.

Liam has been at the centre of local campaigns such as the defence of the green belt, especially around Long Ashton, Dundry and Failand. He has been a leading figure in the local battles such as the electricity pylons affecting Blackwell, Nailsea and Yatton. In Parliament he has campaigned for a Portishead railway link and famously described Portishead as the biggest cul-de-sac in Britain .

He is patron of a large number of local organisations and charities including Mencap, Children's Hospice South West, Clevedon Pier, Portishead lifeboat, the Jessie May Trust, the Curzon Cinema and numerous sports clubs.

==Political Experience==

Liam contested Roxburgh and Berwickshire in the 1987 General Election, and was elected as the Member of Parliament for Woodspring (renamed North Somerset for the 2010 General Election) in April 1992.

In June 1993, Liam was appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to Michael Howard, then Home Secretary. In July 1994, he was appointed an Assistant Government Whip, and promoted to the position of Senior Government Whip the following year. He was a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1996 until the 1997 General Election.

In June 1997, Liam was appointed Opposition Front Bench Spokesman on Constitutional Affairs. For four years from May 1999 to November 2003 he served as Shadow Secretary of State for Heath before being appointed Co-Chairman of the Party in 2003. Subsequently, from May 2005 to December 2005, he served as Shadow Foreign Secretary. He then served as Shadow Secretary of State for Defence from December 2005 to May 2010.

Liam was appointed Secretary of State for Defence by Prime Minister David Cameron on 12th May 2010.<ref>'[http://www.liamfox.co.uk/text.aspx?id=4]', ''Liam Fox Website'' accessed 16th November 2010</ref>

==Recent Articles==

This article is a Defence Policy and Business news article, from November 2010.

Secretary of State for Defence Dr Liam Fox has welcomed the news that 950 Canadian troops will remain in Afghanistan in a training capacity when their combat mission comes to an end in 2011.

Constable Lorant 'Junior' Hegedus, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team, supervises an Afghan National Police Officer on the Camp Nathan Smith pistol firing range

They, along with their NATO allies, have been building on the significant progress in the areas of security, diplomacy and development in Afghanistan; specifically building the capability and capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces. The 950 troops will be part of the NATO Training Mission - Afghanistan until 2014 and will be contributing to the goal of preparing the Afghans to take responsibility for their own security.

Ahead of the Lisbon Summit, where NATO will launch the transition process which will see Afghans begin to steadily take the lead for their own security, the Secretary of State for Defence said:

"We, along with our NATO colleagues, welcome the decision by the Canadian Government to continue their deployment of troops in Afghanistan. They will be fundamental in the ongoing efforts to develop the Afghan National Security Forces [ANSF].

"Having a capable and credible ANSF will be key in helping the Afghans to continue to bring security to their own country and guard against terrorism - and this in turn will reduce the threat to people at home in the UK."

Canada's new non-combat role will focus on four key areas: investing in the future of Afghan children and youth through education and health; advancing security, the rule of law and human rights; promoting regional diplomacy; and delivering humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people.

Announcing the continuation of military deployments to Afghanistan, Lawrence Cannon, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, said:

"Building on strengths and accomplishments over the past years, Canada is committed to helping build a more secure, stable and self-sufficient Afghanistan that is no longer a safe haven for terrorists.

"The combat mission will end in 2011. As we continue to work alongside the Afghan people and the international community, Canada will continue to play an important role in supporting efforts toward a better future for all Afghans".<ref>'[http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/DefenceSecretaryWelcomesCanadianCommitmentToAfghanMission.htm]', ''MoD Website'', 17th November 2010, accessed 17th November 2010<ref>

==Notes==
==References==

<references/>

Globalisation:Rt. Hon Liam Fox

2010-11-18T17:29:21Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

==About Liam==

Liam has been a Conservative MP for 18 years and lives in Tickenham. He holds regular surgeries for constituents in Clevedon, Nailsea, Portishead and Yatton and has a reputation as a hard-working constituency MP.

He worked as a GP in Nailsea before becoming a member of Parliament and has held high office in both opposition and government. He has the experience inside and outside Parliament we need for good government.

Liam has been at the centre of local campaigns such as the defence of the green belt, especially around Long Ashton, Dundry and Failand. He has been a leading figure in the local battles such as the electricity pylons affecting Blackwell, Nailsea and Yatton. In Parliament he has campaigned for a Portishead railway link and famously described Portishead as the biggest cul-de-sac in Britain .

He is patron of a large number of local organisations and charities including Mencap, Children's Hospice South West, Clevedon Pier, Portishead lifeboat, the Jessie May Trust, the Curzon Cinema and numerous sports clubs.

==Political Experience==

Liam contested Roxburgh and Berwickshire in the 1987 General Election, and was elected as the Member of Parliament for Woodspring (renamed North Somerset for the 2010 General Election) in April 1992.

In June 1993, Liam was appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to Michael Howard, then Home Secretary. In July 1994, he was appointed an Assistant Government Whip, and promoted to the position of Senior Government Whip the following year. He was a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1996 until the 1997 General Election.

In June 1997, Liam was appointed Opposition Front Bench Spokesman on Constitutional Affairs. For four years from May 1999 to November 2003 he served as Shadow Secretary of State for Heath before being appointed Co-Chairman of the Party in 2003. Subsequently, from May 2005 to December 2005, he served as Shadow Foreign Secretary. He then served as Shadow Secretary of State for Defence from December 2005 to May 2010.

Liam was appointed Secretary of State for Defence by Prime Minister David Cameron on 12th May 2010.<ref>'[http://www.liamfox.co.uk/text.aspx?id=4]', ''Liam Fox Website'' accessed 16th November 2010</ref>

==Recent Articles==

This article is a Defence Policy and Business news article, from November 2010.

Secretary of State for Defence Dr Liam Fox has welcomed the news that 950 Canadian troops will remain in Afghanistan in a training capacity when their combat mission comes to an end in 2011.

Constable Lorant 'Junior' Hegedus, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team, supervises an Afghan National Police Officer on the Camp Nathan Smith pistol firing range

They, along with their NATO allies, have been building on the significant progress in the areas of security, diplomacy and development in Afghanistan; specifically building the capability and capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces. The 950 troops will be part of the NATO Training Mission - Afghanistan until 2014 and will be contributing to the goal of preparing the Afghans to take responsibility for their own security.

Ahead of the Lisbon Summit, where NATO will launch the transition process which will see Afghans begin to steadily take the lead for their own security, the Secretary of State for Defence said:

"We, along with our NATO colleagues, welcome the decision by the Canadian Government to continue their deployment of troops in Afghanistan. They will be fundamental in the ongoing efforts to develop the Afghan National Security Forces [ANSF].

"Having a capable and credible ANSF will be key in helping the Afghans to continue to bring security to their own country and guard against terrorism - and this in turn will reduce the threat to people at home in the UK."

Canada's new non-combat role will focus on four key areas: investing in the future of Afghan children and youth through education and health; advancing security, the rule of law and human rights; promoting regional diplomacy; and delivering humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people.

Announcing the continuation of military deployments to Afghanistan, Lawrence Cannon, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, said:

"Building on strengths and accomplishments over the past years, Canada is committed to helping build a more secure, stable and self-sufficient Afghanistan that is no longer a safe haven for terrorists.

"The combat mission will end in 2011. As we continue to work alongside the Afghan people and the international community, Canada will continue to play an important role in supporting efforts toward a better future for all Afghans".<ref>'[http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/DefenceSecretaryWelcomesCanadianCommitmentToAfghanMission.htm]', ''MoD Website'', 17th November 2010, accessed 17th November 2010<ref>

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:Rt. Hon Liam Fox

2010-11-18T17:28:26Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

==About Liam==

Liam has been a Conservative MP for 18 years and lives in Tickenham. He holds regular surgeries for constituents in Clevedon, Nailsea, Portishead and Yatton and has a reputation as a hard-working constituency MP.

He worked as a GP in Nailsea before becoming a member of Parliament and has held high office in both opposition and government. He has the experience inside and outside Parliament we need for good government.

Liam has been at the centre of local campaigns such as the defence of the green belt, especially around Long Ashton, Dundry and Failand. He has been a leading figure in the local battles such as the electricity pylons affecting Blackwell, Nailsea and Yatton. In Parliament he has campaigned for a Portishead railway link and famously described Portishead as the biggest cul-de-sac in Britain .

He is patron of a large number of local organisations and charities including Mencap, Children's Hospice South West, Clevedon Pier, Portishead lifeboat, the Jessie May Trust, the Curzon Cinema and numerous sports clubs.

==Political Experience==

Liam contested Roxburgh and Berwickshire in the 1987 General Election, and was elected as the Member of Parliament for Woodspring (renamed North Somerset for the 2010 General Election) in April 1992.

In June 1993, Liam was appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to Michael Howard, then Home Secretary. In July 1994, he was appointed an Assistant Government Whip, and promoted to the position of Senior Government Whip the following year. He was a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1996 until the 1997 General Election.

In June 1997, Liam was appointed Opposition Front Bench Spokesman on Constitutional Affairs. For four years from May 1999 to November 2003 he served as Shadow Secretary of State for Heath before being appointed Co-Chairman of the Party in 2003. Subsequently, from May 2005 to December 2005, he served as Shadow Foreign Secretary. He then served as Shadow Secretary of State for Defence from December 2005 to May 2010.

Liam was appointed Secretary of State for Defence by Prime Minister David Cameron on 12th May 2010.<ref>'[http://www.liamfox.co.uk/text.aspx?id=4]', ''Liam Fox Website'' accessed 16th November 2010</ref>

==Recent Articles==

This article is a Defence Policy and Business news article, from November 2010.

Secretary of State for Defence Dr Liam Fox has welcomed the news that 950 Canadian troops will remain in Afghanistan in a training capacity when their combat mission comes to an end in 2011.

Constable Lorant 'Junior' Hegedus, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team, supervises an Afghan National Police Officer on the Camp Nathan Smith pistol firing range

They, along with their NATO allies, have been building on the significant progress in the areas of security, diplomacy and development in Afghanistan; specifically building the capability and capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces. The 950 troops will be part of the NATO Training Mission - Afghanistan until 2014 and will be contributing to the goal of preparing the Afghans to take responsibility for their own security.

Ahead of the Lisbon Summit, where NATO will launch the transition process which will see Afghans begin to steadily take the lead for their own security, the Secretary of State for Defence said:

"We, along with our NATO colleagues, welcome the decision by the Canadian Government to continue their deployment of troops in Afghanistan. They will be fundamental in the ongoing efforts to develop the Afghan National Security Forces [ANSF].

"Having a capable and credible ANSF will be key in helping the Afghans to continue to bring security to their own country and guard against terrorism - and this in turn will reduce the threat to people at home in the UK."

Canada's new non-combat role will focus on four key areas: investing in the future of Afghan children and youth through education and health; advancing security, the rule of law and human rights; promoting regional diplomacy; and delivering humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people.

Announcing the continuation of military deployments to Afghanistan, Lawrence Cannon, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, said:

"Building on strengths and accomplishments over the past years, Canada is committed to helping build a more secure, stable and self-sufficient Afghanistan that is no longer a safe haven for terrorists.

"The combat mission will end in 2011. As we continue to work alongside the Afghan people and the international community, Canada will continue to play an important role in supporting efforts toward a better future for all Afghans".<ref>'[http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/DefenceSecretaryWelcomesCanadianCommitmentToAfghanMission.htm]', ''MoD Website'', 17th November 2010, accessed 17th November 2010<ref>

==Notes==
<ref>'[http://www.liamfox.co.uk/text.aspx?id=4]', ''Liam Fox Website'' accessed 16th November 2010</ref>

<ref>'[http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/DefenceSecretaryWelcomesCanadianCommitmentToAfghanMission.htm]', ''MoD Website'', 17th November 2010, accessed 17th November 2010<ref>

<references/>

Globalisation:First Defence Documents

2010-11-18T15:36:32Z

Leigh McDiarmid:

First Defence Documents

2010-11-18T15:21:56Z

Leigh McDiarmid: First Defence Documents moved to Globalisation:First Defence Documents

#REDIRECT [[Globalisation:First Defence Documents]]