PRACTICAL AND PRINCIPLED DEFENCE

Published in House Magazine - party conference special on Sat 13th Sep 2008

What defines the Lib Dem approach to defence? And how would a Liberal Democrat government differ from the Tories or Labour in its approach to the armed forces?

The Liberal Democrats' approach to defence aims to be both practical and principled. Britain is no longer a world power, but because we are willing to join in international efforts to improve global security and to "get our hands dirty" we are still able to punch somewhat above our weight on the world stage. We must use this influence to help achieve a safer and more peaceful world, and not just to pursue our own economic interests, nor to act as little Sir Echo to whatever American regime is in power at the time.

Lib Dem policy on Iraq is sharply different to the other parties' and - in the event of action against Iran - will prove very different there too. We opposed the war in Iraq as it was wrong in principle and practice. It was illegal as it had no UN sanction, and tore up the UN's authority. Saddam posed the west no immediate or realistic threat. At a practical level it was also untimely as Hans Blix's search was not complete, and more time could have seen an agreement with France, China and Russia and a genuine international coalition. And the complete lack of a plan for the aftermath was a disgrace, which has visited upon most of the Iraqi population more misery even than Saddam's brutal dictatorship.

However, our support for the intervention in Afghanistan is based on its robust legal foundation and genuinely international support. The international presence also continues to enjoy the support of a majority of Afghans. We could not turn a blind eye to the instability and insecurity of a country which has provided a haven for international terrorism and the illegal drugs trade, not to mention human rights abuses and social iniquities.

Another clear contrast with the other parties is the Lib Dems' sustained campaigning for international disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. We were alone in voting against making a totally premature commitment to another generation of nuclear weapons after Trident. We argue for greater transparency and openness in the arms trade. We opposed the use of landmines and cluster munitions before other parties, and are now leading the way again on thermobaric weapons.

Both Labour and Conservative governments have a legacy of ineptitude and mismanagement in defence. We would certainly try to do things differently to successive governments which have failed to meet their obligations to our Armed Forces. The last Conservative Government disastrously privatised military housing, and went much too far in contracting the Armed Forces while cashing in the so-called "peace dividend" that immediately followed the Cold War. And the Labour Government sent us into the unlawful Iraq war, diverting our attention from Afghanistan and resulting in an era of overstretch and inefficient defence spending that has failed to meet the requirements of our current operations. This is not a great track record.

Any defence policy should reinforce a clear idea of our place in the world and the role we, as a country, wish to play in the international community. To this end, Lib Dems' believe Britain should look afresh at our national defence policy in a new Strategic Defence Review, and consider the national approach in light of the events and changes of the last decade. A new defence stance should respond to new realities and be prepared for future eventualities.

A new approach to defence should put our personnel at the heart of defence policy. We must live up to the covenant that when we send our service men and women to fight and risk the ultimate sacrifice they deserve a high level of care and support - both on the frontline for themselves and back home for their families. Moreover, not only should we honour the 'duty of care' owed to our armed forces but we should also consider all those affected by our policies and interventions overseas.

Combating the critical overstretch we are currently facing has to be the priority. Although withdrawing forces from Iraq would alleviate the situation slightly, we must be sure in future operations to match our commitments to our capabilities and to maintain a flexible, rapidly deployable and effective military force to meet any operational demands. More importantly, we should promise our service personnel that we would not engage in conflict or operations abroad unless we know that we are able to fund and resource the mission, and that we have a clear and considered objective. We must avoid the desperate levels of overstretch that we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With the current state of defence, a change of policy will not be achieved in a few simple steps and must be accompanied by a more reasoned and responsible foreign policy and a clear idea of what role we wish our forces to play in the world. Robin Cook identified the need for our policy to be ethical - but no one said this was going to be easy.