Storbritannien er ofte et forbillede i dansk offentlig administration; i forhold til strategiprocesser er der også noget at lære. Som del af forberedelserne til det kommende Strategic Defence Review (SDR) har det britiske forsvarsministerium i dag udsendt et Defence Green Paper. Dokumentet følger den eksisterende trend med offentlig inddragelse i forbindelse med større, overordnede strategiudviklinger, såsom i forbindelse med det franske white paper i 2008 og den nuværende proces med NATOs strategiske koncept. Paper indeholder således ministeriets “emerging thinking”, som er udarbejdet efter en bred inddragelse af akademikere, oppositionen og på tværs af ministerierne. Hensigten er, at paperet skal indlede diskussionen om SDR og således “begyndne at bygge konsensus”:
To respond to these challenges, I have said that the Government would hold a Strategic Defence Review immediately after the next election. The Review must contribute to decisions about the role we want the United Kingdom to play in the world and how much the nation is prepared to pay for security and defence. This Green Paper does not attempt to answer that fundamental question. Rather it opens discussion and sets out our emerging thinking on this and other key issues for Defence. Where possible it seeks to begin to build consensus; and in writing the Paper, I have consulted widely with academics, opposition parties and across government.
Essensen af dokumentet er seks “strategiske spørgsmål” plus spørgsmålet om Afghanistan, som SDR må komme til at forholde sig til:
● Given that domestic security cannot be separated from international security, where should we set the balance between focusing on our territory and region and engaging threats at a distance? International terrorist networks demonstrate the indivisibility of our security at home and abroad. The 1998 SDR argued that we should address threats at range before they are able to directly endanger the UK. Some countries, including a number of our allies and partners, have taken a different view, prioritising their efforts on their national territory or region, and making smaller contributions to operations overseas.
● What approach should we take if we employ the Armed Forces to address threats at distance? We have argued that we should, where possible, address the underlying drivers of insecurity – as we are currently doing in Afghanistan. We have therefore committed our forces to enduring and complex stabilisation operations. Some argue that such operations will in the future share many of the characteristics of the Afghanistan conflict. But we recognise there are other approaches focused on deterring, containing or disrupting threats.
● What contribution should the Armed Forces make in ensuring security and contributing to resilience within the UK? Recent events, including the floods in Cumbria and heavy snowfall across the UK, have demonstrated the utility of the Armed Forces in domestic resilience. All three Services also play a distinctive role in domestic counter-terrorism. We have to strike the right balance between forces available for domestic tasks and those available for deployment abroad.
● How could we more effectively employ the Armed Forces in support of wider efforts to prevent conflict and strengthen international stability? The Armed Forces and civilian defence experts play an important role in long-term Security Sector Reform and capacity building programmes with partner countries. They also provide significant support for wider government efforts on counterproliferation. But resources for these activities must be balanced against support to current and preparation for future operations.
● Do our current international defence and security relationships require rebalancing in the longer term? Some have argued that our current relationships need to be adapted – or that additional relationships are needed – to reflect the changing world and our increasingly global security concerns.
● Should we further integrate our forces with those of key allies and partners? We are likely to undertake all operations – other than evacuation operations and defence of the Overseas Territories – alongside allies and partners. We are already dependent on allies in some key areas, such as space. Further integrating our capabilities with those of our key partners and allies, through role specialisation, joint capabilities or additional dependence, would place limits on our ability to act nationally. But it could deliver a more effective contribution to international security.
Given our current major commitment in Afghanistan, the Review will also have to decide:
● To what extent and in what areas should we continue to refocus our current efforts on Afghanistan? We have already made significant adjustments to our planning in order to prioritise the operation in Afghanistan. Most recently, in December 2009, the Secretary of State for Defence announced a package designed to enhance the support to our personnel on operations, made affordable by reductions elsewhere in the Defence programme.
Disse spørgsmål er direkte relevante også i en dansk kontekst.
