Wise Up Journal
By Gabriel O’Hara

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) commission/think-tank have published a report that has received international media coverage. Details of this report are listed below this Press Association article (republish by mainstream news hubs worldwide): “The Government is facing renewed pressure to re-think its decision to update the Trident nuclear deterrent in the face of growing cost pressures on the defence budget. A report by a high-level commission for the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) urges ministers to consider whether the submarine-based system is the most cost-effective way of maintaining Britain’s “minimum” deterrent capability. The recommendation is one of a raft of proposals, covering the whole spectrum of Britain’s national security, made by the commission chaired by former defence secretary Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon.”

Does your local grassroots public think-tank/group get international media attention? Why does this one? It’s not a representation of the common public, it’s a big players group, that’s why. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) analyses are made up of lords, barons, baronesses, and other individuals with lofty titles elitist so do love to possess. A lot of the members held positions such as the president of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, United Nations consultant, General Secretary of the Fabian Society, consultant to the World Bank, bank board member,  member of the House of Lords etc. The groups that do get media attention and put “pressure” on the government are the ones with their buddies running them pushing agenda’s the other individuals in government want to push and when they in government “give in” it looks like democracy from the public. This think-tank has branches worldwide so it can not represent national interests. How can a genuine local group with compete for changes in such a system?


“Shared Responsibilities A National Security Strategy for the United Kingdom”

“The United States may well remain the worlds most powerful nation for a decade or so to come. But the context in which the US holds that position will no longer be one in which it is the only superpower in a unipolar world. For the new world order we see emerging is going to be multipolar to a far higher degree than we have been used to in the last half century.” – Shared Responsibilities, IPPR, page 4

Quotes from the report continued after this Harold newspaper extract:

The Harold

Other members include former chief of the defence staff Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, former UK ambassador to the United Nations Sir Jeremy Greenstock, and former Association of Chief Police Officers president Sir Chris Fox.

In its report, the commission called for major innovations in defence policy to adapt to the “post 9/11 and post recession world”, with investment in cyber-warfare, command and control, and the creation of a joint civilian-military stabilisation and reconstruction taskforce.

It said that there should also be strengthening of the special forces in order to deal with a Mumbai-style terror attack in the UK.

On Trident, the commission said that while it believes that Britain does still need a minimum UK deterrent, this should be reviewed as part of a wider strategic review of UK security going beyond just defence.

More broadly, the commission called for a major overhaul of the Whitehall policy-making machinery, with the introduction of a single, cross-departmental, security budget, and a new national security council.

It urged the development of a greater European role in Nato defence, with the UK taking the lead in creating “permanent structured defence co-operation” among a pioneer group of EU countries”


Shared Responsibilities A National Security Strategy for the United Kingdom

“We believe that the recommended changes (along with the recommendation that the UK create a joint civilian-military Stabilisation and Reconstruction Force, put forward in Chapter 5), when coupled to DfID’s [the Department for International Development] ongoing efforts to improve its role and contribution on issues like justice and security sector reform in-country, would improve DfID’s contribution to meeting both development challenges in dangerous places and national, regional or global security threats. ” – page 23

” If we do not strengthen NATO by reinforcing its European pillar, not just on defence but on wider security issues too, the result will be neither the status quo nor some other fantasy of wider collective security cooperation. There will be a future crisis that leaves us vulnerable to shifting American interests and opinion, relative US decline and European disunity and weakness, when NATO’s political glue fails to hold and Europe is left more exposed than at any time since the Second World War.” – page 11

“The future defence investment programme should pursue
greater UK defence capability specialisation within the context of a deepening of European defence integration and the wider NATO alliance of which we are a part. We need a focus on command and control assets, tactical ground-air support, heavy lift aircraft, cyber warfare capability, and Special Forces.” – page 13

“Chapter 6: Deepening alliance cooperation: NATO, the EU and the transatlantic partnership

“Regardless of the outcome of future deliberations on the EU’s
Treaty of Lisbon, the UK government should support, fully engage in and if necessary lead moves to create permanent structured defence cooperation among a pioneer group of European Union countries.” – page 15

“The Government should plan for and advocate a truly global
forum for energy cooperation ” – page 17

“The UK government should increase its political and financial
support for global action to enhance ‘cybersecurity’, recognising the high priority also being placed on this by the Obama Administration in the US. As a first step, concerted action at a European level is required through supporting and building on the good work
of European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA).” – page 18

A rules-based international system

“That approach is needed for the management of international
relations as a whole and must be underpinned by the UN, but its long-term development will require partnerships that extend well beyond our traditional alliances in the West. The G20 is highly relevant here and we may need to look for partners even beyond that.

“If the use of military force is deemed necessary, it should be
based on the principles of the United Nations Charter or the specific approval of the Security Council.

“A rules-based order must not only protect the rights of individuals but also lay responsibility at their door. For this reason, the Commission supports the application of
international law to individuals, and believes developments such as the creation of an International Criminal Court should be welcomed and strengthened.” – page 24

Deepening alliance cooperation: NATO, the EU and the transatlantic partnership

“In the developing new world order, we need to be alert to the possibility of finding shared interests with new allies beyond the Euro-Atlantic region. At the same time, however, the Commission believes a close relationship with the United States and other NATO allies remains fundamental to the United Kingdom’s national security.

“both inside the UK and across Europe, take the transatlantic relationship for granted, believing that minor, politically painless, change will be sufficient to see it survive. This is a fundamental mistake. Our comments here are part warning and part charter for a renewed and strengthened transatlantic partnership between Europe and North America for the 21st

“As the former Chief Executive of the European Defence Agency recently noted in relation to European defence capabilities:
‘European defence resources still pay for a total of 10,000 tanks, 2,500 combat aircraft, and nearly two million men and women in uniform – more than half a million more than the US hyperpower. Yet 70 per cent of Europe’s land forces are simply unable to operate outside national territory – and transport aircraft, communications, surveillance drones and helicopters (not to mention policemen and experts in civil administration) remain in chronically short supply. This failure to modernise means that much of the 200 billion Euros that Europe spends on defence is simply wasted.’ (Witney 2008: 1)

“It is necessary to invest more time, political capital, money and energy to make the relationships relevant and valued on both sides of the Atlantic. This means continuing to reform NATO, but it also means much deeper, more cost-effective and more strategically coordinated

“Deepening alliance cooperation: NATO, the EU and the transatlantic partnership targeted collaboration within Europe.

“At the strategic level, there is an urgent need for an agreed
European Union external crisis management doctrine and structures, which would cover the range of issues from preventive engagement and intervention in hostile environments to peacekeeping, conflict stabilisation and post-conflict reconstruction.

“EU countries should increase the number of Battlegroups on standby at any one time, while expanding the size of
support units such as logisticians, engineers, helicopter squadrons, medics and intelligence teams that may be relevant not only to short-term Battlegroup interventions but also to longer-term stabilisation operations. Individual countries should also invest more in building deployable gendarmerie, policing and civilian capabilities needed for post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction operations.” – page 56 to 59

Some members the IPPR group

Baroness Shirley Williams

Bio from IIPR

“Shirley Williams, Co-Founder of the Liberal Democratic Party and its first President 1982-88, served as Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords from 2001 until retiring from that position in 2004.  She is Professor Emeritus of Elective Politics at the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and advises the Prime Minister on issues of nuclear proliferation.

“Shirley Williams started her career as a journalist with the Daily Mirror (1952-54) and Financial Times (1954-58) and was General Secretary of the Fabian Society until her election as Labour MP for Hitchin (later Hertford and Stevenage) in 1964. Paymaster General and Secretary of State for Education and Science.

“She became Baroness Williams of Crosby in 1993

“She was a member of the Advisory Council to the UN Secretary-General on the Fourth World Women’s Conference, and a member of the European Commission’s Comite de Sages […] She was also a President of Chatham House (Royal Institute of International affairs) 2002 – 2006.

“Shirley Williams is a Governor of the Ditchley Foundation, a Board Member of the Nuclear Threat Initiative in Washington DC and a Trustee of the Century Foundation in New York. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations International Advisory Committee”

Lord George Robertson

Co-Chair, former Secretary of State for Defence and former Secretary General of NATO.

Ha-Joon Chang

Ha-Joon Chang was a consultant to the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the European Investment Bank and United Nations agencies.

Lord Colin Sharman

32nd on the Times Power 100 list. Member of the ABN AMRO Supervisory Board.

Martin Rees

“Professor Martin Rees is President of the Royal Society and a member of the UK’s House of Lords. He is currently on the Board of Trustees of the Science Museum,  the Institute for Public Policy Research, the Gates Cambridge Trust and the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study and has served on many bodies connected with education, space research, arms control and international collaboration in science.”

Clive Brooke, Baron Brooke of Alverthorpe

“From 1964 to 1982, he worked as Assistant Secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation, from 1982 to 1988 as Deputy General Secretary and as General Secretary from 1988 to 1995.”