The cost of standing up for Western values
THE battle of Waterloo, the Duke of Wellington is popularly supposed to have said, was won on the playing fields of Eton – where grit and determination learned in games and sports transferred to victory on the battlefield. The Second World War was won, many historians believe, in the factories that built the Allied war machine, creating the planes, the tanks and the guns that were able to crush the Nazis.
Yesterday, as the Government unveiled its Defence and Foreign Policy review, it looked as if the next global conflict will be fought in the science labs and on the computer screens of our universities and technological institutions. And winning it will come down to Britain’s ability to innovate more successfully than her enemies.
There will be some today suggesting that £16.5 billion extra investment over four years – the sum the Government plans to add to the defence budget – would build a lot of hospitals and provide a sizeable pay rise for our nurses. They might also say that technology, from the indus
trial revolution of the 18th century right up to today, has a lot to answer for and is one reason our biggest global challenge is climate change.
But listening yesterday to the former head of the Secret Intelligence Service, Sir Alex Younger, it is impossible not to conclude that, while we do need to invest in our NHS, improve the care of the elderly and find the funding for many other public services, none of it means anything without strong defence.
Sir Alex was ‘C’ in MI6 from 2014 until September last year. He turned up on Radio 4’s Today programme yesterday in advance of the unveiling of the strategic review into defence and foreign policy to make the case for Britain and her allies fighting to stay ahead in the innovation game.
He’s right. Not so long ago, as China emerged from the dark ages of
Communism to build what looks, superficially, like a market economy, we might have been able to kid ourselves the most populous nation on earth was on the road to adopting western democratic values. The opposite has been the case.
“There’s no doubt that China represents the generational threat,” Sir Alex told the BBC’s Nick Robinson. He went on: “The reason for that is that the idea that China would become more like us as it got richer or as its economy matured is clearly for the birds. That’s not going to happen. On the contrary, I expect the Chinese Communist Party to double down on its ideology.”
In a similar way – partly in order to justify its repressive regime to its citizens – Russia has to keep on poking the West, whether through the buildup and modernisation of weapons capable of devastating the planet or through guerilla missions, such as the attempt to take out a Russian dissident in Salisbury with the deadly nerve agent, Novichok.
Sceptics – and dreamers – will say that it is time to give up ideological differences or at least to accept them and work together to tackle the bigger problems affecting all of mankind, like global pandemics and the warming of the planet. That clearly makes sense, up to a point.
But we have, as Sir Alex reminded Radio 4 listeners yesterday morning, “one planet, but two systems.” Most of us here in Britain, in Europe, in the US and in the rest of the democratic and largely free world, know which system works best for its citizens. And it is not the one practised in China and Russia. Just ask the supporters of Alexander Navalany; just ask the Uighur Muslims of North West China, whose persecution by the Chinese government is recognised officially as a crime against humanity.
To hold out against the threat posed by the ideologies of Russia and China, Britain and her allies need to rebuild the superiority they once had in technological innovation, to keep one step ahead of those states that would undermine us and who respect strength and exploit weakness. That’s why an extra £16.5 billion on defence is worth spending. For now and for the future.
‘We need to invest in public services. But none of it means anything without strong defence’