UK MILITARY CHIEFS SCREAM FOR MORE MONEY – and plan to curb parliament


UK military chiefs are screaming for more money to be spent on defence, as a desperate imperialism is driven to launch more wars for resources and take on an undefeated working class at home.

‘The security of the United Kingdom is at risk and under threat’, claimed the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) last weekend.

As a justification for proposals for constitutional changes that would put military and intelligence chiefs directly in charge of ‘defence and security’, it added: ‘Security is not only a question for Chiefs of the Defence Staff. It matters to every citizen of the United Kingdom. Security is the primary function of the state, for without it there can be no state, and no rule of law.’

It proceeded to outline a paper by Gwyn Prins, a Professor at the London School of Economics, and Robert Salisbury who is the Marquess of Salisbury and a Privy Councillor.

Titled ‘Risk, Threat and Security The case of the United Kingdom’, the article expresses the consensus of a private seminar series which involved Sir Mark Allen, Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham, Chris Donnelly, Field Marshal the Lord Inge, Tom Kremer, Lord Leach, Baroness Park of Monmouth, Douglas Slater, General Sir Rupert Smith, and Professor Hew Strachan.

Attacking ‘multiculturalism’, the paper states: ‘The country’s lack of self confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its Islamist terrorist enemy, within and without.

‘This is one of the main factors which have precipitated risks into threats. As long as it persists, it will have the power to do so again. Islamist terrorism is where people tend to begin.

‘The United Kingdom presents itself as a target, as a fragmenting, post-Christian society, increasingly divided about interpretations of its history, about its national aims, its values and in its political identity.’

Expressing the drive to imperialist war for resources, the authors note: ‘Competition for energy, water and food is sharpened every day by the demands of the two awakening demographic superpowers, India and China.

‘This competition entails, at the least, tighter markets and, at the worst, real vulnerability to interruption of supply.’

Continuing in an anti-communist vein the paper warns: ‘The problem of Russia is re-emerging.

‘President Putin is showing considerable skill in mixing the old with the new. He has answered, with troubling clarity, the question in Alexandr Blok’s poem: as Russia, the Sphynx, gazes at Europe, sometimes with hatred, sometimes with love; which sentiment predominates?

‘A new Russian nationalism is being promoted.

‘Proud in its wealth of oil and gas, this nationalism revels in its isolation and its contempt for the ‘soft’ West.

‘It is ready to expropriate property, to break contracts, to hint at energy blackmail, and to pursue opponents wherever they are. . .

‘The opportunity to engage Russia in the world economy efficiently (as opposed to colluding with robber baron capitalism) was squandered by those from the West who gave advice in the 1990s. We are yet to see the full bill for these errors.’

It continues to bemoan that the UN, NATO and the EU ‘have lost their way and no longer offer their members the benefits once covenanted’.

Stressing the need for more cash for the armed forces, the generals and intelligence chiefs complain: ‘Public expenditure has been directed in correspondingly perverse ways with clear consequences for our defence and security.’

They insist: ‘Defence and security must be restored as the first duty of government.’

Coming to the point, their paper continues: ‘Moves are needed to take defence and security, as far as possible, back out of the arena of short-term party politics.

‘We have the successful example of the creation of the Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England, which removed control of interest rates from the political arena.

‘The range of threats and risks facing the United Kingdom, together with the experience of the past few years, suggest that measures to achieve that should go beyond changes in policy.

‘Institutional changes are needed.’

The article calls for ‘building political consensus so that public opinion can feel confidence in the political process, without the detailed mediation of the press – for these, of course, are matters that often need to be confidential, if not secret.’

Presenting its demand for constitutional change that will put the generals, police and intelligence chiefs in the driving seat, it says: ‘We propose twin committees: one a Cabinet Committee (of ministers, with service personnel and officials not just formally in attendance, but actually as full members), and the other a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament.

‘A key aspect of the proposal is that, although the Joint Committee would need a very small staff in each House, the two Committees should essentially share a staff within the Cabinet Office.’

The article states: ‘The Cabinet Committee would draw together all the threads of government relating to defence and security, whether at home or abroad. . .

‘Its principal task would be to exercise judgement as to the necessary levels of capability and the overall balance of effort and planning, long term.

‘The Joint Committee would provide a parallel institution within Parliament to monitor Government assessments and strategy, to make available the perspective of politicians from other parties (and none), and to act, in so far as it saw fit, to build consensus in Parliament for Government policy, or to raise awareness in Parliament of gaps in Government policy.’

It adds: ‘The members of the Cabinet Committee would be ministers, defence staff and officials as ordered by the Prime Minister: the normal arrangement for such a Committee.

‘The departments and agencies to be represented would probably include the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development, the Chiefs of Staff, the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Home Office.

‘Others who were not permanent members might need to attend from time to time – for example, the heads of Opposition, possibly but not necessarily with Cabinet experience, should chair the Joint Committee.’

The article concludes that ‘First, the new committees are organs of analysis and overview, not executive organs. They will report to and thus empower the Prime Minister’s executive committees.

‘The best military, political and business experience shows that sound and decisive leadership involves delegation. Leadership can then be quiet, creative and clear.

‘Secondly, we seek by re-engagement to stimulate the sinews, nerves and muscles of the whole parliamentary body politic that is grown flaccid from under use.

‘It is imprudent and counter-productive to overburden a Prime Minister with detailed chairing commitments.

‘Therefore, a senior Cabinet minister would chair the Cabinet Committee.

‘This, together with responsibility for the Cabinet Office staff of the committees, should be a substantial, if not the major, part of his or her remit.

‘One of the sinecure posts, ideally Lord President, would clearly be appropriate for this. The Committee would report, as appropriate, direct to the Cabinet or to the Prime Minister’s own defence and overseas policy committee.’

It is clear that the military chiefs consider the politicians are ‘losing their grip and want to operate above parliament in secret and with unlimited funds.

This is geared to British imperialism’s wars and for civil war against the working class.

To defend living standards and rights, the working class must smash this capitalist state through socialist revolution.