Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340-352)
21 APRIL 2009 RT
HON BARONESS
TAYLOR OF
BOLTON, GROUP
CAPTAIN MALCOLM
CRAYFORD, MS
GLORIA CRAIG,
RT HON
CAROLINE FLINT
MP, MR NICK
PICKARD AND
MR JUSTIN
MCKENZIE
SMITH
Q340 Mr Jenkins: I am even more confused
than ever. At the start I trusted that this Rapid Reaction Force
did not have national caveats attached to it and so they would
all be able to go and fight after dark. I thought we were going
back to an older model. I remember the forces of NATO being stationed
across northern Germany with the British Army of the Rhine. That
was the Rapid Reaction Force to deter the Soviets at that time.
I understood this force to be a recreation of the Army of the
Rhine but instead of it being in Germany it would now be at the
new frontline as regards to NATO. So Russia would be more loth
to kill NATO troops than Estonian, Latvian or Georgian troops
because it would fear NATO's reaction itself. Surely, the reason
this was generated was to reassure the States around Russia that
we could deploy smaller detachments and garrison them in their
countries.
Group Captain Crayford: The Allied
Solidarity Force proposal is based on the old ACE Mobile Force
(Land) construct that we had in the 1970s and 1980s.[2]
That was a potential NATO deployment on the flanks of NATO to
reassure NATO Allies. We are adopting an older model, a proposal
for SACEUR to consider. All it is at this stage is a proposal
to reassure Allies from an Article 4/5 perspective.
Q341 Mr Jenkins: I think that puts it
into context much better.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: There
would not be people standing on the border.
Chairman: It would not be a kind of trip-wire.
Q342 Mr Crausby: There is a point
of view that further enlargement simply dilutes our resolve particularly
when it comes to Article 5. Does Georgia's territorial dispute
preclude it from becoming a NATO member in the sense that in their
case they would simply not be prepared to invoke Article 5?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: Certainly,
territorial issues would have to be settled before we could move
forward. We should be clear on NATO enlargement. As I sought to
explain earlier, NATO has not been going out trying countries
to come into NATO. If any country wants to apply for NATO membership,
there are a whole series of hurdles it must surmount and factors
with which it must comply with. These have applied to entrants
over the past few years, and they would apply to any new entrant,
be they Georgia or anyone else. I do not think that NATO is watered
down by having more members. We have a greater level of stability,
in areas which previously were not as stable, and that is in everyone's
interest. Indeed, it is one of the things that perhaps the Russians
have not necessarily considered in the same way as we would. We
would think that having stable countries around us was a good
thing. Some analysis would say that that is not how the Russians
would see things.
Q343 Mr Crausby: But we changed our
position, did we not, as far as Ukraine and Georgia were concerned
in the sense we did not offer them a Membership Action Plan; we
went for something a little more careful? Does that reflect our
feelings?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: We
did not offer a Membership Action Plan because we were not ready
for that. What we offered was a annual national programme which
offered them advice and assistance in terms of some of the reforms
and changes that they need to make if they were to pursue NATO
membership. But they are in any event many of the changes that
they want to make in order to modernise their countries and become
more stable. They are issues about how they professionalise their
armed forces or introduce proper measures of government accountability
for the actions of their armed forces and things of that kind.
Many of the changes and points in their plans represent the direction
in which they would want to go anyway and in respect of which
we would be happy to assist.
Q344 Chairman: Is the Membership
Action Plan called something else?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: There
is a significant way to go in both countries. A Membership Action
Plan might have flagged up a timescale or expectation that would
have been difficult to achieve, so I think it was realistic to
help explain some of the difficult transitions that they would
have to undertake in a whole range of areas.
Mr Pickard: We needed to reach
NATO unity on this position back in December. Our position is
that Ukraine and Georgia is a new situation. Previous enlargements
have used membership action plans but not all; the Czech Republic
did not have it. If Sweden and Finland were to join NATO I do
not think we would expect them to have Membership Action Plans.
Ukraine and Georgia are also different: we have told them that
they will become members of NATO. This is a programme that allows
them to achieve that, but whether in future they have a Membership
Action Plan or this is an entirely new route is still up for grabs.
Q345 Mr Havard: This idea that NATO
does not have a formal policy of enlargement or expansion and
has an open door and people can apply if they like, may well be
true formally. However, realpolitik is that the Russian
President sees it in a different way, does he not? In a recent
speech he said that one of the reasons for the modernisation of
Russian forces was to respond to the threat of "attempts
to expand [NATO] on the borders of our country." That is
what he says domestically. The real position is that Russia is
responding in terms of its armed forces to what it sees as the
expansion, never mind enlargement—I suspect that that has
some pejorative connotations—of NATO, is it not? What signals
are we sending and how are we dealing with that?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: You
will have seen reports or heard commentators who say that the
defence reforms Russia is now undertaking are ones that move them
away from mass mobilisation and conscription to a more professional
army. There is some suggestion that the concept of mass mobilisation
was their response to NATO, so if they are moving away from it
there is a theory that they believe there is a lesser threat.
I do not answer for what the Russians see. Everybody will speculate
in his own way, but I believe that the Russians would regard it
as being in their interests to have a positive relationship with
NATO of the kind that we were working towards for many years prior
to the recent difficulties.
Mr Havard: Fortunately, like you I am
not required to believe everything the Russian President says
and I do not do so most of the time. But the point is real in
the sense that, surely, they have learned from the situation in
Georgia and the very heavily-caveated position on Article 5; it
tells them something about NATO as an organisation, even if Georgia
had been a member of NATO. You made the point earlier that NATO
was not intended to be aggressive and it had reformed. In terms
of the political discussion you are having with Russia what signals
are being sent about whether or not other countries are being
encouraged to come in, as opposed to being allowed to apply?
Q346 Chairman: This may be another
unanswerable question.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: Yes,
because it may involve interpretation of what other people believe.
There is one very basic point in terms of what you say: Georgia
was not a member of NATO when this happened; it still is not.
Had Georgia been a member of NATO would Russia have acted? Who
knows? Everybody can speculate about that.
Q347 Mr Havard: Would Article 5 have
been invoked?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: Who
knows?
Q348 Mrs Moon: The Bush Administration
in 2002 decided to set up its ballistic missile defence scheme,
and in 2008 it came to an agreement with Poland with the support
of the Czech Republic to have 10 missile defence interceptors
stationed in that country. We are now in a different place because
with the new Obama Administration we appear to have almost three
options facing us. Should we go ahead with the ballistic missile
defence scheme, including the proposals in relation to Poland,
against Russian opposition? Should we pursue the diplomatic route,
such as the Obama letter suggesting that perhaps the missiles
would not be needed if there was less of a nuclear threat from
Iran? Should we take up the suggestion of the former Russian President
Putin of a joint missile defence system based in Azerbaijan? What
is your view of the options that face us and which would be the
UK Government's preferred route?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: We
have said we will support the BMD system that will provide early
warning from the radar installation at Fylingdales linked with
Menwith Hill. What happens now is critically dependent on the
discussions that President Obama is having. Having a reset button
and opening up new areas of discussion could be very constructive,
but there must also be an element of reality in that there must
be some security to what might be on offer. If we do not have
ballistic missile defence there is vulnerability. If you remove
that vulnerability by removing the potential of others to threaten
Europe and the United States that is very welcome, but the guarantees
would need to be very significant. The Russians have a role to
play in terms of their relationship with Iran and some of the
reports and speculation about contracts they might be engaged
in to sell missiles to Iran. There are many areas for discussion
but also lots of elements that are not straightforward and will
take some time to work through. Obviously, security is extremely
important and threats can be very real.
Q349 Mr Jenkin: Have we succeeded
in persuading Russia that Iran might be about to acquire a nuclear
weapon? Is this not one of the obstacles to understanding the
importance of missile defence?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: Different
countries make their own analysis of exactly where Iran is in
terms of developing nuclear weapons. We in Britain believe we
must be very cautious because we have seen so many indications
of what their capabilities might be. This is an area where discussions
with the Russians could be useful but we will have to see what
comes of them.
Chairman: The final set of questions
relates to cyber-security. We do not want to go into any classified
area; you would not allow us to do so in any event. We do not
want to put anything at risk in terms of national security, but
with those caveats, it ought to be possible for us to ask at least
a few questions about issues to do with cyber-security which affect
our country and we need to scrutinise them as part of our work.
I know that in that context you will feel free to refuse to answer
particular questions on the grounds of national security, but
I hope you do not need to say that too often.
Q350 Robert Key: We know that the
Government is concerned about this because you told us in an earlier
submission to the Committee: "We judge the likelihood of
a Russian attack on NATO territory to be low but there is more
possibility that Russian interference could involve other destabilising
activity (cutting energy supplies, encouraging civil unrest, cyber-attack)."
When some Members visited the NATO Cyber-Defence Centre of Excellence
in Estonia recently I was surprised that Britain was not involved
in that very important enterprise. Can you explain why Britain
is not involved, does not have any personnel there and is not
providing any money?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: It
is difficult to get all of your approaches right. There is a limit
to what you can do collectively in terms of cyber-security. We
have a lot of work and we believe through the Cabinet Office,
which obviously takes the lead on national security, that we are
doing all we can to support our national infrastructure to make
it as resilient as possible. Resilience is one of the key roles
of the Cabinet Office in terms of working in that way. NATO itself
is working to maintain the security of its own systems. That is
important and is something in which we are obviously all involved.
We were asked if we wanted to contribute to the Cyber-Defence
Centre but we felt that other things we were doing were more important
and we should concentrate on those.
Q351 Robert Key: On the other hand,
on the other side of the Atlantic, President Obama commissioned
his 60-day review, which should have been published around 17
April, and a bill is currently going through the US Senate on
cyber-security. Does the Government have any plans to legislate
on cyber-security in this country?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: Not
that I am aware of. I am not sure whether new legislation would
be required. If there was a need for new legislation I am sure
that the Government would not only put that forward but provide
briefings on an appropriate basis, but I have not heard of any
problems on that. It is more a question of technical matters and
issues of that kind.
Q352 Robert Key: Can you reassure
us that the Government is giving sufficient priority and resources
to the issue of cyber-defence?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: On
behalf of the Cabinet Office I can. It is not our primary responsibility,
but I can say that throughout Government it is an issue that is
taken extremely seriously. A great deal of attention is paid to
it and a considerable amount of work is going on. We acknowledge
the importance of that issue.
Chairman: Minister, I said that if we
asked for classified material you would not give it to us. On
reflection, I meant that if we asked for classified information
in this public session you would not provide it. We have decided
that we do not want to go into private session to discuss this
further, but we are grateful for the answers you have felt able
to give on that and on everything else. We thank you and all of
the witnesses for helping us so fully with our inquiry.
2 Note by witness: That construct was intended to
demonstrate NATO's political will during an Article 4/5 crisis.
It was rapidly deployable to NATO's "flank countries",
and had the aim of putting large numbers of NATO flags on the
ground to show resolve and to underpin the Article 5 commitment.
The decision to deploy was itself a demonstration of NATO unity. Back
| 
