National Security Forum - who would you choose?

September 1, 2008 | by Charlie Edwards | More on Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, UK | No comments

Back in July I wrote a post on who I thought would sit on the national security forum. The NSF would likely be a NDPB made up of 12 publicly appointed members reflecting the broad range of subject areas in the national security strategy, chosen on the basis of their expertise and experience. My list (for which I was lightly mocked) included:

Chair: Sir David Veness
1. International terrorism Baroness Manningham-Buller of Northampton
2. Weapons of mass destruction Paul Cornish
3. Conflicts and failed states Clare Lockhart
4. Pandemics - Professor Lindsey Davies
5. Trans-national crime - Misha Glenny
6. Climate change - Nick Stern
7. Competition for energy - Nick Butler
8. Poverty & Governance - Paul Collier
9. Defence & Armed forces - General Sir Rupert Smith
10. Demographics - Adair Turner
11. Globalisation David Held

This afternoon we received a letter regarding the make up of the National Security Forum. The letter, sent to think tanks and academic institutions, requests nominations to the NSF and states that the Government is aiming for membership as follows:

1. Chair: a senior figure with a background in international affairs or security.
2. A member drawn from an academic body with a specialism in international/ security affairs
3. A scientist
4. An economist
5. An industrialist
6. A retired senior diplomat
7. A retired senior military officer
8. A retired senior police officer
9. A member with an intelligence/ security background
10. An international development expert.
11. A current or former member of local government
12. At least one ‘lay’ member without specific portfolio.

The Government also wants a list of up to 100 hundred experts who could be called on to advise the forum.

Before the outcry and onslaught of cynical comment offered forth I want to state for the record I think this is one of the most progressive initiatives a British Government has come up with on national security. Of course there are some concerns regarding the organisation, its structure and processes but for now I think we should sit back, mull it over and contemplate the huge potential of the NSF.

Related posts

1. The UK’s national security forum: Progress update
2. National Security Top Trumps
3. National Security ‘09: On your marks, get set…
4. The Conservative Party’s Achilles’ Heel: National Security and Defence
5. Blueprint for a Tory National Security Reform

Comments are closed.