After a decade with two asymmetric wars and many lessons learned about new threats, what does Britain's security policy focus on now?
Last October, the Coalition Government published a new National Security Strategy and a Strategic Defence and Security Review, which together set out a comprehensive assessment of the security threats we face and how we will respond to them. In short, our analysis is that the greatest threats we face are from international terrorism - which is something I intend to talk about specifically in Munich - as well as from cyber threats, international military crises, and national disasters such as floods. That assessment informed the choices we made for the future of our military and national security capabilities. Let me be clear: Britain will remain a global power of the first order. We will have armed forces and equipment fit for the twentyfirst century; strong security and intelligence agencies; and diplomats and development aid which can help us prevent threats before they become a reality. We are also increasing our spending on cyber security by around one billion euros. Of course, given the scale of the deficit the Coalition inherited, we've had to make some tough choices too and scale back in some areas. But I am clear that we've made the right decisions for the long term defence and prosperity of the country.
Do we have to live with extremists' threats indefinitely?
The UK, like Germany, has lived with the threat of terrorism and violent extremism for many years. Our police, security and intelligence agencies work tirelessly, and without public recognition, to protect us from it. We have been clear in our new National Security Strategy that we believe that the threat from violent extremists and terrorists is expected to continue over the next five years. No one can tackle this alone. The first step is making sure we succeed in Afghanistan. Second, we must work together wherever terrorists are exploiting ungoverned spaces: Yemen or Somalia, for example. And third, there is an agenda of work here in Europe, in our own societies, to deal with the problem of radicalisation at home. That is something I'll be addressing in a bit more detail in my speech on Saturday.
Is another Afghanistan thinkable in the foreseeable future? What are the lessons learned?
I'm not going to speculate about the future: but I do want to be absolutely clear about the priority I attach to the mission in Afghanistan, and about my approach to it. We must never forget why we are there. Al Qaeda used the country as a launch pad to commit the 9/11 attacks. And national security is still the reason we are there: we must never again allow Al Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a base for terrorism. So the very highest priority for my Coalition Government's new National Security Council has been to set a clear direction for our activities in Afghanistan - something I think we have achieved. Our priorities are to build on the momentum we've achieved in terms of security in the South following the troop surge; to keep up the pace of training the Afghan army and police; and to support the government of Afghanistan in moving forward the political process that in the end will be vital to creating a stable Afghanistan.
What happened to the special relationship?
It is just as strong today as at any time in the last few decades. The United States remains our most important bilateral ally. The relationship between our countries is broadly based and deeply rooted: from our co-operation on defence and intelligence, to our economic and trade relationship, it is vibrant and growing. But we need to ensure that we focus on results, rather than process. In the UK I sometimes feel that as much attention is given to the length of a press conference between a British Prime Minister and a US President as to what they actually agreed upon. We need to keep outcomes front and centre. And there is no better example of the outcomes we are delivering together than the work our troops are doing on the ground in Southern Afghanistan: fighting together, and in some cases dying together, for our national security.
Europe's greatest instability stems from the dangers of the financial markets and the attacks the Euro has to sustain. Is the British Tory government finally vindicated in its criticism of the common currency?
It is no good just blaming the markets. My view has always been that it is difficult to make a single currency work without much more of a single economic policy - and as I do not want that erosion of sovereignty and independence. I do not support the UK joining the single currency. That's why I have been so clear that Britain isn't in the euro, and will not be joining the euro. We will not be dragged into any new arrangements to help support the euro either. Don't get me wrong: I want the eurozone to be strong, I want the eurozone to sort out its problems, and Britain won't stand in the way of eurozone countries if they feel they need to take steps to sort out the recent difficulties. A strong and successful eurozone is in Britain's interests.
"There will not be a European Army"
How much is the British-French model a prototype for a wider European joint defence?
I don't necessarily see the UK-French agreement as a prototype for wider European defence. But I do think it might be useful in setting an example for other Europeans nations who want to work more closely together. Our starting point was straightforward: We live in a world where we face shared threats, whether that is cybercrime, international terrorism or nuclear proliferation. So to defend our national interest, it makes sense to work together with our closest partners. From that flowed some practical, hard-headed areas of co-operation. So we are sharing development and equipment costs, eliminating unnecessary duplication, co-ordinating logistics and aligning research programmes. I believe all this means we can expand our sovereign capability even at a time when resources are tight.
Which assets can never be shared?
Different countries will have different priorities based on political, historical, geographical, cultural factors. In terms of what we agreed with France last year, we put in place two agreements: one about inter-operability of our forces and equipment, and one on co-operation on nuclear safety. So, for example, we will work with France on a joint expeditionary task force and we will be co-operating in the way we operate our aircraft carriers. But in the end, Britain must and will remain sovereign in the choices we make about when to deploy our forces; and although we will work closely together on nuclear safety, we will maintain separate and independent nuclear deterrents.
Will there be a European army one day?
My position on this is clear: there will not be a European Army.
What are the essential first steps in setting up joint defence?
First and foremost, you need political will and trust at the highest level. This must be based on shared values and a shared understanding of the threats that we face. Those factors were essential to the groundbreaking agreements that President Sarkozy and I signed at Lancaster House in London last year.
NATO has reached out for a new chapter in its relations with Russia. Given Britain's experience over the past years, was that premature?
Russia is an important player on a range of international issues, such as Iran, Afghanistan and the Balkans. There are still issues on which we disagree - including the Litvinenko case, which I have personally raised with President Medvedev - but we should work with Russia where it is in our mutual interest to do so. Security is one such area. I support efforts by Secretary General Rasmussen to intensify co-operation with Russia. We had a successful NATO-Russia Summit last year. Challenges still remain in the relationship. We need to balance military engagement with our human rights concerns, for example. But we have a good basis to move forward.
Should the EU open up towards Russia and ease travel restrictions and lower trade barriers?
Building bridges between our citizens is an important element of our engagement with Russia. I know that one of Russia's priorities is the establishment of a visa-free travel regime for Russian citizens to the Schengen zone. While recognising that the UK is not part of Schengen, we welcome this aspiration. I am also supportive of Russian accession to the WTO. This is in all our interests: it would include Russia in an important international framework; ease the path towards early, successful conclusion of the new EU-Russia Agreement with ambitious trade elements; and underpin President Medvedev's modernisation agenda.