Tag: 2008

Below is the text of the speech made by the then Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, to the Community Security Trust on 4th March 2008.

I’d like to thank the Community Security Trust for inviting me to share this evening with you.

It’s great to be among friends and to see some familiar faces.

WHY THE CST MATTERS

But tonight isn’t just about enjoyment.

We are here for a profoundly serious reason.

To raise money to protect the Jewish community.

A community that comes under attack to a greater degree than any other faith or ethnic group in Britain.

All minorities are to some degree at risk from bullies, thugs and racists.

But Catholics can stand outside churches after Sunday mass…

…Hindus and Sikhs and Buddhists can chat outside temples…

…even Muslims, who certainly suffer from abuse and discrimination, can gather outside mosques after Friday prayers.

It is only Jews who are advised not to linger outside synagogues before or after services.

This is not paranoia.

It is a precaution against very real threats.

There is the dreadful hooliganism we saw in Brick Lane on Holocaust Memorial Day…

….when a group of Jewish visitors to the area was attacked with bricks by local youths.

And there is the blood-chilling revelation, during a recent terrorist trial, that the same cell that was plotting to blow up Bluewater shopping centre also had in its possession a list of London synagogues.

This dinner has a very clear purpose: to ensure that the CST can carry on protecting the people and events that we know are potential targets.

Carry on monitoring those who would harm this community.

Carry on raising awareness about the cancer of anti-semitism.

The CST is highly regarded because it is combines vigilance with responsibility and performs its duty with dignity and restraint.

It is seen by the police as integral to their work with the Jewish community.

Britain is still a relatively safe place but, as the CST’s latest report shows, Jews in this country are coming under increasing attack.

The police and security services do a great job but, inevitably, they have many priorities and limited resources.

That’s why the Community Security Trust is so vital – in providing that extra layer of vigilance that could, in certain circumstances, make the difference between life and death.

The young men and women who you see outside synagogues and community events – including those here tonight – do a fantastic job and they need your help so please support the CST as much as you possibly can.

AUSCHWITZ

Let me make one thing absolutely clear.

I support school visits to Auschwitz. Always have. Always will.

The point I was making is that the government press release about funding should make it clear that schools themselves have to make a contribution to the cost.

It didn’t. It should have done.

And let no-one be in any doubt – these visits will continue under a Conservative Government.

BUILDING A SAFER AND STRONGER SOCIETY

But tonight I want to talk more generally about how we can build a safer and stronger Britain…

…and how we should deal with the very real threat posed by those who seek to undermine our society.

I intend to examine three linked elements of that threat.

The first is terrorism which is the most obvious and horrific manifestation.

It demands an effective and unyielding security response.

The second element is the extremist mindset that gives succour to terrorists.

It requires a clear-headed and principled political response.

And the third element is the fostering of community divisions which push people into mutually antagonistic blocs rather than treating them as part of a greater whole.

It requires a generous and inclusive social response.

FIGHTING TERRORISM

Let me deal first with terrorism.

Britain has learned since 9/11, and especially since 7/7, that it’s not just the Jewish community that is under threat from Islamic extremists.

Every man, woman and child is a target for terrorists who are actively plotting indiscriminate slaughter on a massive scale.

We should be frank about the nature of the threat we face.

There are some people who still do not appreciate the new realities.

They believe that the threat is no different from that posed to Britain by terrorism in the past, for example by the IRA.

But in reaching that conclusion they are ignoring the evidence that is piling up from court case after court case.

This terrorist threat is clearly different from those we have faced before.

We are dealing with people who are prepared to do anything, kill any number, and use suicide attacks to further their aims.

These people include a number of our own citizens.

They are driven by an extreme perversion of Islam which holds that mass murder and terror are not only acceptable, but necessary.

As a society our response to terrorism must be robust and unyielding.

It must also be practical.

We must invest in our own police and security services to ensure we are doing all we can to prevent any future atrocities.

We must enforce our existing laws and strengthen them where necessary, so suspected terrorists, and those that incite them, are prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned – or when appropriate, deported.

I would go further.

We have got to stop thinking of foreign, defence and security policy as separate issues.

That is why I have appointed Pauline Neville-Jones to my Shadow Cabinet.

As a former Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, she brings here formidable experience in this field.

She has proposed the establishment of a National Security Council – and her idea has already been copied by the Government.

In the coming weeks she will be visiting Israel to learn first-hand how it tackles terrorism.

There’s more we should do.

With the huge number of asylum seekers and extensive people trafficking into the UK we need a dedicated border police.

With some of the perverse judgements in our courts that seem to bend over backwards to accommodate terror suspects…

…we need a new Bill of Rights, so that we can replace the Human Rights Act and better defend our security and our freedoms.

I don’t believe in knee-jerk responses to the threat of terrorism.

There’s nothing to be gained from enacting laws that are authoritarian and ineffective.

But a future Conservative government will not hesitate to take whatever measures are necessary to protect British citizens from harm.

DEFEATING THE EXTREMIST MINDSET

The direct threat from terrorism is very real and very deadly but it is at least straightforward.

There is a general consensus about the need to combat it and a raft of practical steps that can be taken.

The second element of the threat we face is much harder to tackle.

That is the extremist mindset that gives succour to terrorists by excusing their actions.

The historian Michael Burleigh has written a brilliant new book I would urge you all to read.

It’s called Blood and Rage: A Cultural History of Terrorism.

In it, Professor Burleigh demonstrates how, time and time again, people who have resorted to terrorism have been assisted and sustained by apologists who seek to make excuses for them.

In some cases, even to glorify them.

We saw it in the 1970s when the Red Brigades were hailed as liberators by some Italian university professors.

We saw it in the 1980s when parts of the Labour Party were prepared to appear on platforms with IRA front men.

And we see it today when some people attempt to justify suicide bombers and call them ‘martyrs’.

To us, it seems self-evident that there is a clear dividing line between those who set out to kill and maim innocent civilians and those who do not.

But the extremist mindset constantly seeks to muddy the water, to blur the distinction and even to invert the reality.

Last year I visited Birmingham Central Mosque.

While there, I was told that the 7/7 bombers were innocent and that, in fact, MI5 may have carried out the atrocities.

I was particularly shocked because the person who said this was not some teenage hothead…

…he was the chairman of the Mosque.

Conspiracy theories are a convenient way for those who sympathise with terrorist aims to dodge moral responsibility for terrorist acts.

The same people claim that the twin towers were brought down by the CIA or Mossad.

Let’s also be clear.

Extremism is not confined to any particular religious or ethnic group.

During protests against the conflict in Lebanon, we witnessed the nauseating sight of well-scrubbed, middle class English people…

…marching through central London holding placards that read ‘We are all Hizbollah’.

That is the extremist mindset in action.

These are the same people who urge a boycott of Israeli goods and academics…

…while saying nothing about China, Iran or Zimbabwe.

Unless we challenge such attitudes and expose them for the morally-bankrupt nonsense they are…

…they will spread through the body politic and become the received wisdom of millions.

The task of fighting ignorance and injustice should not be left to organisations like the Community Security Trust alone.

It is the job of government to provide leadership by taking a clear, unequivocal stand.

Gordon Brown recently banned Yusef al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and a notorious preacher of hate, from Britain.

A man who justifies suicide bombing and calls for homosexuals to be murdered has no place here.

That’s why I asked raised the matter in the House of Commons and asked the Prime Minister to keep him out

But at the same time I also called for him to exclude the head of Hezbollah’s notoriously anti-semitic TV station, Ibrahim Moussawi.

Moussawi was recently banned by the Irish government but for some reason he has now been allowed into Britain.

He’s here at the moment, on a speaking tour, spreading his vile message.

The government cannot afford to split the difference with the extremists – excluding Qaradawi, letting in Moussawi.

Terrorist apologists should be kept out. Full stop. Period.

We also have to deal with our home-grown merchants of hate.

Here again, the government has questions to answer.

Hizb-ut-Tahrir is an extremist organisation that poisons the minds of young Muslims against Jews, Christians and other unbelievers.

Some of those who have been through its ranks have ended up in Al Qaeda.

In short, it is a conveyor belt to terrorism.

Tony Blair declared in 2005 that it would be banned.

That didn’t happen.

Instead it is still active, recruiting on campuses and from London street gangs.

There’s only one responsible course of action.

It’s time to close down Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

Another area of concern is the way that public money that is meant to be used to combat extremism has ended up in the hands of extremists.

The government has allocated hundreds of thousands of pounds to local authorities to improve community cohesion.

But there are worrying signs that ministers have taken their eyes off the ball.

Tower Hamlets council has received extensive funding for such projects.

But it has now been revealed that one of the organisations it has given thousands of pounds to is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood called the Cordoba Foundation.

And what was the first thing this organisation did with the money?

It organised a public debate with the title ‘Has Political Participation Failed British Muslims?’

And who did they invite to speak?

The leader of Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

Even the most basic research would reveal that the Cordoba Foundation has close connections to people with extremist views, including Azzam Tamimi, the UK representative of Hamas.

There are indications that this problem is more widespread.

In the weeks ahead I will be making proposals to isolate extremists and make certain they cannot obtain public grants or get invited to sit on public bodies.

That won’t just apply to Islamic extremists.

We will be equally vigilant in ensuring that groups linked to the BNP or animal rights militants are excluded too.

The message should be clear:

To those who reject democracy.

To those who preach hate.

To those who encourage violence.

You are not part of the mainstream.

You will not get public funding.

You are not welcome as part of our society.

We will only defeat the extremist mindset if we understand and confront it.

ENDING COMMUNITY DIVISION

The third element of the threat we must overcome is divided communities.

I believe that we need to place a renewed emphasis on social cohesion and the things that unite people rather than the things that divide them.

Let’s be clear: there is no more contradiction between being a good Muslim and a proud Briton than there is in being a good Jew or a good Christian and loving your country.

But we have to work at finding what we have in common and making this a home for all of us.

It is this context that I’ve been saying for a long time that we’ve been handing a victory to our enemies – to those who want to divide and those who oppose liberal values – through the doctrine we have applied to community relations.

Some call it group rights.

Some call it state multiculturalism.

We know what we’re talking about.

It’s the idea that we should respect different cultures within Britain to the point of allowing them – indeed encouraging them – to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream.

It involves setting ethnic groups against each other in a competition for public money and lavishing vast sums on translation services which could be better spent on teaching people how to speak English.

It means treating groups of people as monolithic blocs rather than individual citizens.

It means turning a blind eye to, or at least failing to intervene in, atrocious crimes like forced marriage.

Of course we should respect different cultures.

But we shouldn’t encourage them to live apart.

As the Chief Rabbi has put it, state multiculturalism is best understood in the idea of Britain as a hotel…

…with separate private spaces so separate cultures can live behind locked doors and be merely ‘serviced’ by the hotel management – in this case, the state.

It is a wrong-headed doctrine that has fostered division and stopped us from strengthening our collective identity.

The modern alternative to the ‘hotel’ of multiculturalism is not a castle of traditional patriotism – pulling up the drawbridge and forcing everyone into a parody of late Victorian Englishness.

Instead, we need to think of our country, and again the Chief Rabbi has described it best, as a house we build together…

…with the common foundation of the values of a liberal society, but perfectly capable of alterations and additions…

…so long as these changes are compatible with the existing architecture.

The problems of community cohesion are real and, in some places, deep-seated.

They cannot be solved simply through top-down, quick-fix government action.

State action is certainly necessary today, but it is not sufficient.

It must also be the right kind of action, expressed in a calm, thoughtful and reasonable way.

And it must respect the distinction between integration and assimilation.

British people have always been more willing than most to accept difference.

The principle we must promote is the right to equal treatment despite difference – that’s a unifying concept.

It creates an atmosphere in which minorities can feel secure and respected…

…which, in turn, creates confidence and willingness to extend respect to others.

That is how we will banish division and build a united society.

LIVINGSTONE

I know this a non-political event.

And, rightly, all parties back the CST.

But I am the first Conservative in 10 years to address this dinner…

…and as it is 2008, I hope you will allow me this one plea.

There is one politician in Britain who not only does not “get” any of what I have said…

…he has repeatedly acted in a completely arrogant, dangerous and divisive way.

In the 1980s he invited IRA apologists to County Hall.

Today he not only plays host to Qaradawi but publicly embraces him.

And through all of this his attitude to British Jews has bordered on the dismissive and insulting.

He’s not a minor politician.

In fact, he is a rather powerful one.

He is the mayor of this great city.

And I hope that on May 1st people of all parties and none.

Of all faiths and none.

People who always vote and those who never vote.

Will rise up as one, go to the polling station and throw Ken Livingstone out of office.

CONCLUSION

I think the Jewish community understands very well the importance of the matters I’ve raised tonight.

You have set a magnificent example of how it is possible to participate fully in national life while honouring and conserving your own traditions.

And, as a part of that, the Community Security Trust plays a key role in underpinning your security and peace of mind.

This is a dangerous and difficult world.

It contains very real threats.

But I am determined that we will face those threats together.

We’ll take them on and defeat them.

And emerge a safer, stronger and more united society because of it.

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the then Leader of the Opposition, at Chatham House on 1st April 2008.

Tomorrow, NATO Heads of Government will meet in Bucharest for the NATO Summit. When I first entered politics in 1988, this would have been almost unthinkable. Then, Bucharest lay behind the Iron Curtain. President Ceausescu was preparing to host what would turn out to be the Warsaw Pact’s final summit. NATO’s armies faced East to deter invasion. In Afghanistan, the Soviet Army was fighting the Mujahadeen, nearly a decade after their invasion. Months later, everything changed, as freedom rolled East across Europe, the threat of invasion disappeared and a brave new world was born that the experts predicted would be safer and more ordered than the old.

I learned some powerful lessons from those heady days about our national security: how rapidly the global scene can change; never to take the conventional wisdom for granted; and to dare to hope that apparently immoveable structures and forces can change.

As NATO’s leaders begin their summit tomorrow, they will have plenty on their agenda: the vital missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo, NATO’s enlargement, Its relations with Russia and with key institutions like the European Union, and the pressing need to fill gaps in Allies’ military capability.

But underlying those important items lies a much bigger question: what is NATO for in the modern world? Next year, NATO will be sixty years old. This is a key opportunity.

The opportunity, working with the United States, and a more Atlanticist President in France, for our generation – which grew up in freedom under NATO’s shield – to renew our Alliance for the twenty-first century. The opportunity to modernise it to protect us as effectively now as it did in the past. The opportunity to come together as Allies, to renew our commitment to defending, together, our values and way of life, and to championing that task with our peoples.

That is the challenge and the responsibility that falls to Western leaders tomorrow at Bucharest – to set out the big vision for the Atlantic Alliance in today’s world.

The case for NATO

Let me make my position clear right at the outset. What I stand for, and what I believe. I am a liberal Conservative: liberal – because I believe civil rights, democracy, pluralism and the rule of law are the source of progress and a key component of lasting security. But Conservative too: because I recognize the complexities of human nature, am sceptical of grand utopian schemes to remake the world, and understand that you have to be hard-headed and practical in the pursuit of your values. And a crucial part of that liberal Conservative tradition is recognizing the importance of NATO.

I believe that NATO remains as essential to Britain’s security, and to Western security, in the age of global terrorism as it was in the era of Soviet expansionism. The Conservative Party has always been a staunch supporter of NATO. We remain a NATO-first party. We believe in the primacy of NATO.

Not for reasons of nostalgia or sentimentality. But because defending our nation’s security must come before everything else, and NATO remains the best guarantor of our safety, even though the circumstances which led to its formation have altered dramatically. Atlanticism is in my DNA and in the DNA of the Conservative Party.We have always believed in the cardinal importance of the relationship between Britain and the United States, a relationship which, in the security context, is anchored in NATO.

The next Conservative Government will be a Government that makes the case strongly for NATO. A NATO that binds together the US, Canada and Europe. A NATO that is a key institutional bridge between the two sides of the Atlantic and provides a framework of stability in the historically troubled Balkans and in central and eastern Europe. A NATO that helps guard the liberal values of our societies. And a NATO whose continuing relevance can be seen in the queue of countries wishing to join. But we will also be the champion of a NATO that is fit for purpose today.

A changed world

The world has changed almost beyond recognition since NATO came into being. It now includes most members of the former Warsaw Pact, and finds itself engaged in the biggest combat operation in its history in, who could have imagined it, Afghanistan.

We are living in a different age, in which – as the US Ambassador to NATO put it – ‘every school-kid on each side of the Atlantic can tell you what Al Qaeda is but few remember the Soviet Union. And one where we are once again asking ourselves whether the structures we built to take us through the Cold War – our NATO Alliance, the EU, the World Bank, the UN – are up to the 21st century challenges we face today.’

NATO’s evolving role

During the Cold War, NATO’s basic purpose was straightforward: to contain and counter the threat posed by the Soviet Union and its allies and to deter Soviet aggression against Western Europe. As the House of Commons Defence Select Committee put it in their recent report, this common threat ‘served as a glue, binding the Alliance together.’

But when the Soviet Union collapsed, that single overarching purpose disappeared with it. In 1962, the former American Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, famously described Britain as a country that had lost an Empire but had yet to find a role.

Some argue that NATO, with the welcome demise of the Soviet Empire, is in a similar predicament today. I think that’s unfair. I think that NATO does have a role today – a vital one. But I don’t think it’s been sufficiently clear about what that role is.

This lack of clarity has brought two unwelcome consequences. First, a weakening in the solidity of the Alliance. And second, a decline in its popular support. The challenge for NATO leaders today is to articulate clearly the Alliance’s twenty-first century role, thereby both strengthening NATO and building support for its operations.

The post 9/11 world – new threats, old principles

So what is that new role for NATO?

In recent years, the Alliance has transformed itself from a reactive defence alliance into one which, with the EU, has exported stability across central and eastern Europe. It has proved ready to use its military power to enforce peace in Bosnia and halt ethnic cleansing of European muslims in Kosovo.

But it is true that September 11th 2001, although long in gestation, awoke the world to a new kind of threat. Just as the shot fired by Gavrilo Princip ushered in a new and dreadful era at the start of the last century, so this one was marked by its own brutal equivalent of Sarajevo 1914.

Having emerged unscathed from the era of Mutually Assured Destruction, now we were entering a new age in which a fanatic in a cave in Afghanistan – far beyond the North Atlantic area – could orchestrate destruction and mass casualties on the streets of Western cities. NATO responded by invoking its mutual defence clause – Article 5, in which an attack on one is regarded as an attack on all – in a powerful symbolic gesture of solidarity with the United States.

But it was not immediately obvious what practical contribution NATO could make in responding to this new kind of threat, and many predicted that NATO’s days as a valuable defence alliance were over.

And yet with the passage of time, it has become clearer on both sides of the Atlantic that although the threats may be new, the principles we need to apply in responding to them are not.

I would argue that there are four in particular: First, just as transatlantic unity was vital in defeating Nazism and then Soviet Communism, so we must stand together today in protecting our societies and the values we hold dear. Second, just as Europe needed a strong America engaged in the world then, so we need strong American involvement today. Third, just as we needed to make our European voice heard in Washington in those days, so we must help shape American policy today. And fourth, just as the US was entitled to look to its Allies to make a meaningful contribution then, so it is entitled to expect them to carry their fair share of the burden today, especially if they want to be listened to.

Afghanistan

All of these issues are evident in microcosm in NATO’s operation today in Afghanistan. Many criticisms are made of NATO’s efforts in Afghanistan. I have expressed for many months my serious concern about how that mission is progressing. But we should acknowledge up front how far NATO has had to come. In the Cold War, it never had to fight a war or operate out of its area. Now it is doing both.

NATO is having to learn fast.

The campaign in Afghanistan is teaching some hard lessons about what it takes to wage a 21st century counter-insurgency – a combined civil military effort in which soldiers operate alongside development workers, diplomats and police trainers.

As the US Ambassador to NATO put it: ‘Whether flying helicopters across the desert, embedding trainers with the Afghans, conducting tribal shuras with village elders or running joint civil military Provincial Reconstruction Teams, most of our Allies are reinventing the way they do business.’

It is often said that if NATO fails in Afghanistan, that is the end of NATO.

To my mind, the danger is not that NATO would collapse. It is that the US would no longer regard it as having any utility. To echo General Macarthur – the Alliance would not die; it would gradually fade away. The threats and the dangers would remain: but we would have lost our framework for managing them.

The blunt truth is that the NATO mission in Afghanistan has thrown up some fundamental problems which NATO leaders simply must face up to in Bucharest.

These range from:

– uncertainty about the Alliance’s objectives there and how these relate to its raison d’etre;

– a dangerously unequal sharing of the burden in the dangerous south of the country;

– the corrosive effect of national caveats on fighting ability and unity within the Alliance;

– a chronic lack of key pieces of equipment such as helicopters, despite the hundreds that NATO has available on paper;

– competing and un-coordinated chains of command, which Senator McCain and I spoke about when he was here;

– and difficulty in working with other organisations such as the UN and EU, essential to delivering a comprehensive approach, a point I have discussed with Chancellor Merkel.

NATO needs to tackle these problems not just to succeed in Afghanistan, but if it is to be an effective military Alliance in the years to come. Afghanistan is not the only state in danger of failing – not the only state which could provide a haven from which terrorists could plot and strike.

We must hope that in such cases we shall be able to avert by other means the need for military action. But the reality is that future NATO operations are more likely to involve defending ourselves, as in Afghanistan, against extremist violence, than checking an onrush of tanks across the plains of Europe.

When President Truman inaugurated the Alliance in 59 years ago tomorrow, he declared:

‘What we are about to do here is a neighbourly act. We are like a group of householders, living in the same locality, who decide to express their community of interests by entering into a formal association for their mutual self-protection’.

That is as true today as it was then. NATO membership remains an insurance policy in an uncertain world, a world that is constantly changing and where, as we have seen, new dangers can emerge as suddenly as old ones can pass.

So we must stay vigilant; and we must be ready to adapt to tackle these new threats.

Let me set out some practical steps we might take.

Modernising NATO

If NATO is to be effective in the digital age we need to bring its bureaucratic machinery up to date. It needs to be able to take decisions more quickly. This is far from easy in an Alliance of 26 members where political decisions are rightly taken by unanimity, and whose cumbersome political structure is ill-suited to swift political military requirements of today. It is time for change.

For example, we should look at devolving operational command to the NATO Commander on the ground. A number of former Defence Chiefs – including our own former Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Inge, General Shalikashvili, the ex-Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs and NATO Supreme Allied Commander, and General Naumann, the former head of NATO’s Military Committee – have suggested this. This would allow more decisions about military requirements to be made in the field.

It could also be combined with a streamlining of the NATO chain of command. The aim should be to make it easier for the NATO Commander in the theatre of operations, like in Afghanistan, to deal directly with the Supreme Allied Commander without having to go through an intermediate headquarters.

National Caveats

Another issue requiring urgent attention is the abundance of national caveats, under which national governments impose restrictions on how their forces can be used on operations. National caveats are causing immense damage in Afghanistan – complicating the task of theatre commanders and breeding resentment amongst those Allies that are bearing the brunt of the fighting.

As General McNeill, the US Commander of ISAF has said, national caveats ‘are frustrating in how they impinge on my ability to properly plan, resource and prosecute effective military operations’.

The problem is not with a national caveat per se. The decision to deploy troops in combat is the most important decision a sovereign government can take, and it is inevitable that they should wish – and are sometimes constitutionally obliged – to be able to retain an ultimate say in how their troops are deployed.

The problem is with the proliferation of national caveats that started in NATO’s Balkan operations and has got completely out of hand in Afghanistan. Last month the Times reported that examples of national caveats currently range from a ban on deploying out of area, to no night flying, to no flying in poor weather, no involvement in riot control and no venturing from bases without the maximum force protection or too far from the nearest hospital.

This is no way to fight a war. Decisions in NATO are unanimous. No enterprise can be undertaken unless every member agrees. But once a government has agreed to send troops on an agreed enterprise, there has got to be a basic doctrine, that if you’re in, you’re in.

The more flexible a country can be in the tasks its troops may perform, the greater their value to the operational commander – or, as the Polish Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, has said: ‘He who gives without caveats, gives twice’.

A common operational fund

But we have to be frank: the problems are not only about structure and process. We have to improve NATO’s military capability. The fact that of the 2.4 millions soldiers Europe has under arms, only 3-4% are deployable in expeditionary operations. The dramatic disparity on defence spending not just between the US and Europe, but within Europe itself. 80 % of defence research spending is by Britain and France.

As President Sarkozy has said: ‘European security cannot rest on the shoulders of 3-4 countries’.Some of our NATO allies certainly need to spend more. The benefits of common defence imply that every ally carries a fair share of the burden. How could this be done better, beyond the familiar appeals and exhortation? I have two proposals.

Under current arrangements, those who do the fighting also do the funding – bearing both the risks of casualties and the financial strain. This is neither fair nor sustainable in the long term. We have seen how it has led to large disparities in the funding of the current mission in Afghanistan.

When Article 5 was invoked in the wake of 9/11, all NATO members agreed that international terrorism did not just threaten some of us, but all of us. And we all agreed to stand together in confronting that threat. Can it be right in an alliance which is underpinned by the principle of collective defence – all for one and one for all – that there can be such wide differences in how the costs for the funding of that protection fall?

Or that those nations that make the biggest investment in modernising their capabilities and as a result deploy most frequently should end up carrying the greatest financial load? We need to look, as Lord Inge and others have argued, to abandon the current arrangement – known as ‘costs lie where they fall’ – and replace it with a common cost sharing formula for operations, to which all Allies contribute.

Surely the time has come to set up a Common Operational Fund for expeditionary operations.

Not only would this help offset the costs of those who are making a substantial military contribution to operations. It would also provide a way in which allies who wanted to participate but currently lack the funding to do so would be able to take part in missions. It would give everyone a chance to make a contribution.

But money is only part of the answer. We also need to find ways of making more of NATO’s stock of equipment available for our common defence. For example, as Robert Kaplan has suggested, one area NATO could do more is at sea. Navies make port visits, police sea lanes and provide humanitarian access. The Norwegians, the Germans, the Spanish and others have been investing heavily in new ships, especially frigates. Kaplan argues that, with the US Navy concentrating increasingly on the Pacific, NATO could become the primary naval force to patrol the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

That is the sort of imaginative proposal we should be looking at, as is the potential for NATO to become a ‘global enabler’ offering its command and control arrangements for future multilateral operations alongside friendly countries like Australia, Japan or Singapore.

EU/NATO

Which brings me to two related issues: the relationship between the EU, and specifically European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), and NATO; and the question of how much further NATO should be ready to include new members.

I warmly welcome both President Sarkozy’s intention to send a further 1000 French troops to Afghanistan, as I told him last week. I welcome too as his readiness for France to re-enter NATO’s integrated military structure.

France is one of the Allies that can put real military capability on the table, and the more France is in a position to contribute to our joint endeavours the better. In the case of Afghanistan, I very much hope that Paris will remove outstanding French caveats and place the forces under NATO command.

As far as the development of ESDP is concerned, I think we need to look very hard at what has actually occurred in the last 10 years since St Malo, and apply the lessons as we go forward from here.

A Conservative Government would have three key principles that would govern our approach.

First, what matters is that European nations that are members of NATO should make a greater military contribution to European and global security. That requires greater military capability, not new pillars or elaborate wiring diagrams in Brussels.

Second, we must at all costs avoid the development of separate chains of command. But there is a real danger of that happening.

Third, what we need in Brussels and in theatre is good and close working relations between the EU and NATO, and indeed between NATO and other players like the UN.

ESDP to date has not produced a close and harmonious relationship between the two organisations. It has not delivered greater military capability.

Part of the reason for that is a pre-occupation with process over substance, which has contributed to a feeling that the EU is more interested in bureaucratic empire building and less in making the hard choices – like spending more money – that would actually deliver greater military clout.

At the same time, the friction it has engendered has made it more difficult for the EU and NATO to work together in those areas where the EU can deliver crucial contributions to operations on the ground, through the provision of development aid, police trainers, and so on.

A Conservative Government would focus relentlessly on the practical things that need to change.

NATO should be honing its fighting capabilities for future conflicts which are inevitable though unpredictable, and more likely to be outside Europe than in.

The EU for its part should be concentrating on how to deliver more effectively on the ground the police trainers, the development workers, the customs officers and so on that are such a vital to the success of these modern missions.

And the two institutions must work out how they can work seamlessly together in common cause, both in Brussels and in the field. If that is to happen, we need to resolve the dispute between Turkey and Greece and the Republic of Cyprus which is paralysing relations between NATO and the EU. That is something on which a Conservative Government would take a lead, just as we would argue powerfully for Turkey’s eventual membership of the EU.

My basic position is clear: defence is too important to waste resources on politically inspired duplication of effort – doubling up on institutions while doubling down on capabilities.

Enlargement, and the relationship with Russia

The other subject that will occupy leaders’ attention at Bucharest is the question of NATO enlargement.

As I indicated, the enlargement of NATO has helped to entrench European stability.

It was far from certain that the collapse of the Soviet Union would result in great swathes of Europe making the transition from oppression to democracy with – on the whole – relative ease.

The gradual incorporation of the new democracies into NATO underpinned that process, and paved the way for their later membership of the European Union. And, as with the EU, the process of qualifying to join NATO acted as a motor for reform.

The forthcoming entry into the Alliance of Croatia, Albania and Macedonia is further evidence of that, and will help anchor the Western Balkans to modern Europe.

I hope that other countries, such as Sweden, which could bring a lot to the Alliance and which already works closely with it will in due course feel able to join it as a member. Further afield, Georgia and Ukraine have expressed a wish to join NATO. Their mere aspiration has provoked outrage in Moscow, and threats that nuclear missiles will be re-targeted in their direction. I hope that the arrival of President Medvedev will make it possible to move on from this sort of bellicosity, and towards a more productive relationship between Russia and NATO, and Russia and the West more generally.

Russia wants to be treated with respect. But bullying does not earn respect. If Ukraine and Georgia decide that they wish to join NATO, as democratic, sovereign governments, and if they meet NATO’s standards, then we should support them.

Russia cannot have a veto over their decisions, any more than it can over NATO’s. Equally, Russia should understand – and be re-assured – that NATO and the West pose no threat to Russia. We understand Russia’s historic concern about its security.

We must persuade Russia of our shared interests – in a stable Europe to which Russia can export her energy, in a stable world in which we confront shared threats – such as the threat of a nuclear armed Iran – together.

Russia may be big. But she needs allies too. So we should be clear with Russia that if she wishes, the offer of a co-operative relationship is there, as President Bush has made clear on missile defence.

That choice is Russia’s, not ours, to make.

In the meantime, it is inevitable that the more strongly the chill wind of autocracy blows across the Russian steppe, the more those in its path will seek shelter in the Alliance’s protective embrace.

Conclusion

When President Truman inaugurated the Alliance in 1949, little could anyone have imagined the world that it would inhabit six decades later.

A world of unparalleled opportunity, in which people are being lifted out of poverty faster than at any time in human history.

A world in which the global balance is shifting Eastwards, and we must work together to persuade China that the higher her star rises, the greater her stake in global stability.

A world in which the threats we face today range from terrorism to weapons of mass destruction, from climate change to our dependence on fossil fuels, from cyber-attack to nuclear proliferation.

A world in which our protection no longer depends on static barracks in Hanover, but often on our ability to deploy the right mix of forces – military and political – to tackle extremism on the Hindu Kush.

But Truman would surely recognise that the fundamental tenet on which the Alliance was founded – the belief that we are much stronger together than alone – is as valid today as it has ever been.

So what are the tests for this summit at Bucharest?

It must deliver what is needed in Afghanistan, including a clear expression of our strategy there that the public can understand.

It must start to resolve the relationship between NATO and the EU.

But as the Alliance approaches its 60th birthday, its nations are looking for more than that: they are looking for leadership.

Leadership to fashion a modern mission statement for the Alliance for the 21st century, rooted in the mutual defence pact with which it began.

Leadership to modernise the way the Alliance operates.

Leadership to make the case for the Alliance to the new generation on both sides of the Atlantic.

Below is the text of a speech made by David Cameron on June 24th 2008 at the Royal College of Surgeons.

“A few weeks ago, I said the aim of a Conservative Government is to be as radical in social reform as Margaret Thatcher was in economic reform. That’s why, in office, our reform plans will focus on three particular things.

“The first is radical school reform – so our kids get the best education and learn the skills that will help them compete in the globalised economy. The second is welfare reform, so people move from long-term poverty to long-term employment. And the third is to strengthen families and make Britain the most family-friendly place in the world.

“But I also said, in that same speech, that the NHS must come first. There’s a simple reason for this. It’s because health – be it that of your own or your loved ones – is everyone’s priority and so it should be for politics too. And as we celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the NHS this summer, let me make it one hundred percent clear:

“The fact we have a health service that takes care of everyone- whatever their needs, backgrounds and circumstances – is one of the greatest gifts we enjoy as British citizens and the Conservative Party will never – ever – take that for granted. We back the NHS. We will build it. And we will improve it for everyone.

GREEN PAPER

“And that’s what this Green Paper we’re launching today is all about. It sets out our ambition for the NHS – to improve our health outcomes, like cancer survival rates, so they are among the best in Europe. And it sets out how we will do that – by scrapping Labour’s bureaucratic, top-down process targets and replacing them with outcome measures , so that the professions can focus on the result itself, not how it is achieved. The ambition – the means. Let me briefly take each in turn.

IMPROVING OUTCOMES

“First, the ambition – to improve health outcomes so they are among the best in Europe. Now this may seem obvious – but it actually signals a major shift in the focus of the NHS. To understand that, we need to go back eight years.

“Back then, Tony Blair sat on Sir David Frost’s sofa and committed the Labour government to matching European levels of health spending. Today, that pledge has been delivered. But despite all this extra money – all that extra spending – we still have some of the worst health outcomes in the whole of Europe. Right now, England’s near the bottom of the table when it comes to five-year cancer survival rates – far below countries like Sweden and Germany, and on a par with Slovenia and Poland. We have one of the worst records of diabetic control – especially among children. And it’s awful that you’re more likely to die from a stroke in England than you are in any other country in Western Europe.

“So we’ve got a situation where we pump the same money into our health system as other countries, but on the thing that actually matters – a patient’s health and the results of their actual treatment – we’re doing worse. Seriously, if the NHS isn’t about improving the health of people – making them live longer, happier and more fulfilling lives – then what is it about?

“This is so typical of Labour. So obsessed with the process that they’ve lost sight of the bigger, and more important, picture – making people better. We’ve made clear our commitment to increase spending on the NHS, year on year, so it gets the investment it needs.

“But what this Green Paper sets out is how we’ll make sure that money delivers – by making our health outcomes among the best in Europe. And be in no doubt about what this will mean. If we improve the NHS so it meets the international average, we could save an extra 38,000 lives a year. If we improve the NHS so our results are comparable to the best countries in the world, we could save over 100,000 lives a year. That’s thousands of more people surviving cancer, surviving strokes and surviving lung disease. There really is no greater ambition for the NHS as it approaches its sixtieth birthday.

HOW WE’LL DO IT

“I know what you’re thinking – great ambition, but how are you going to deliver it? One thing I’m sure of: we won’t get there through yet another massive structural reorganisation. The past decade has witnessed a series of restless changes which, to the NHS itself, have felt like a series of frontal assaults – the latest of which is a national network of polyclinics imposed on local communities – and GPs – that don’t want them. Instead, we’ll offer steady, purposeful change with a clear direction.

“So we will build on and improve the NHS we inherit. Foundation hospitals won’t go, they’ll stay – and we’ll improve them. Commissioning by GPs is right – and we’ll make it really mean something. Not Labour’s phoney – and imaginary – budget-holding, but actually giving GPs real control over their budgets so they can re-invest savings and negotiate contracts with service providers to get best deal for their patients.

“Patient choice is essential – and we’ll make it actually work. Referral management centres were brought in to manage referrals between primary and secondary care. But too often they’ve overturned a patient’s choice of hospital and ordered them to get treatment elsewhere. Patient choice must really mean just that – so we’ll let patients choose any provider that meets NHS standards at delivers at NHS costs. Progressively, patiently, carefully, we will usher in a new era of quality and care.

NEW ACCOUNTABILITY

“But what this Green Paper is all about is how we can improve our health outcomes by ushering in a new era of patient-doctor accountability through an information revolution. If the last ten years has taught us anything, it’s that Labour has tested to destruction the idea that the NHS can be improved by more bureaucracy, more central control and more initiatives from the Department of Health.

“This approach is embodied no better than in the endless top-down process targets they impose on doctors and hospitals. Superficially, some of these targets may look sensible. After all, no one wants to wait a long time to be seen in A&E. But because they push healthcare professionals to make decisions purely to ‘tick boxes’ rather than because they’re beneficial to the health of their patient, too often the result is worse patient care and a worse health outcome. So we get the perverse situation where patients are kept in ambulances or in trolley waiting areas just so hospitals can say they’ve meet the centrally-directed four-hour A&E waiting time limit.

“This is crazy. Labour’s targets are all about chasing good headlines – and nothing to do with the clinical needs and the health of patients. So yes, to make sure our health outcomes are among the best in Europe, a Conservative Government will scrap all centrally-imposed process targets. But don’t for one minute believe the Labour lie that we’re giving up on quality – that we’re going to leave a vacuum of accountability.

“We’ve got a new approach. In fact, it’s an approach so obvious – and so simple – you’ll be astonished it doesn’t already happen. In place of Labour’s self-defeating top-down targets, we will harness the power of information and publish the details of healthcare outcomes. So we’ll measure cancer survival rates, instead of recording the number of radiotherapy courses delivered per month in a particular oncology unit. We’ll measure how well patients are after treatment, instead of timing how long someone’s in an A&E bed. And we’ll measure how many people lead active lives whilst suffering from chronic lung disease, instead of recording how many records GPs have updated into information systems.

“This is about concentrating not the ‘how’, but the ‘what’ about concentrating not on what politicians care about, but on those things that people really care about. How long will my Dad survive if he gets cancer? What are my chances of a good life if I have a stroke? What are my chances of surviving from heart disease? This is the kind of information people want and need. And this is the kind of information that will replace Labour’s bureaucratic, top-down and centralised idea of accountability – between minister and doctor with a post-bureaucratic, bottom-up and de-centralised one – between patient and doctor.

“Just think about the change this will bring. No more five-minute chats in your GP’s surgery picking a hospital based on its waiting times and availability. But the power – the ability – to really compare and contrast different care providers on the things that really matter to you and are easily understandable – survival rates, after care service, patient satisfaction.

“And with that patient choice and patient accountability, the rest will follow. For a start, we’ll start to get real value for money in the NHS. That’s because those who commission care – like primary care trusts and GPs – will be better able to decide how to get the best for their patients from the money available. And instead of sinking money into meeting top-down, politically motivated targets, care providers can actually focus on innovative approaches to getting the right outcomes for their patients and giving real value for money to the taxpayer. But more importantly than anything else, the quality of service will go up and we will achieve the sort of health outcomes enjoyed in the rest of Europe.

“It goes without saying that by making outcome information readily available, we will introduce an element of healthy competition between different care providers. They’ll be able to see what works and what doesn’t – what different practices are doing to achieve result and how they can learn from them. This isn’t about creating a cut-throat business environment. It’s about understanding that everyone who works in the NHS is rightly proud of where they work and will do everything and anything to provide the best possible care.

CONCLUSION

“I’m now going to hand over to Andrew Lansley who will explain in greater detail the changes we are proposing. But let me end by saying this.

“Few things matter more to our country than the NHS. I know the fear that all families feel when they think they won’t get the care they need. And I know the relief they feel when a kind, competent nurse or doctor is there for them. And in this, the NHS’s sixtieth year, I’m proud that people now look at the Conservative Party as the party of the NHS.

“But I don’t just want us to be the party of the NHS – I want us to be the party of a better NHS. And that means being clear about our ambition – to save thousands of more lives a year. And it means being clear about how we’ll get there. No more pointless re-organisations – just building and improving. No more top-down process targets – but an information revolution to measure outcomes. No more talking about patient power – but actually giving it to them, through greater accountability. That’s the way we can create a health service that is truly the envy of the world.”