which the Review indicates will be the UK’s international priority through the Glasgow climate summit and beyond.
Does the Integrated Review succeed in turning the Global Britain slogan into a new national strategy? A good test is to apply the definition of a good strategy given by the Yale Professor John Lewis Gaddis: ‘the alignment of potentially unlimited aspirations with necessarily limited capabilities’. Measured against that yardstick, the Integrated Review marks an important first step, but falls well short of a fully-rounded strategy for post-Brexit Britain. The 2010 process was far from perfect, but I believe it can shed light on two areas of weakness which I see in the Integrated Review.
First, the issue of setting priorities and making choices. In 2010, we based the NSS on a systematic risk assessment process, which enabled us to prioritise national security risks into three tiers based on a matrix measuring both the likelihood and the impact of each risk. In the top tier, we identified two risks which were already in the spotlight: a further international military intervention, and countering the terrorist threat. The other two top tier risks were new: major cyber attacks, and natural hazards including floods and pandemics (which had not previously been considered as part of national security). The NSS and SDSR were also published on the same day as the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review setting budgets for all government departments. This gave us the opportunity to ensure that the top national security risks we had identified received extra funding in the spending review. I would argue that we succeeded in combining ends, ways and means which is a necessary if not sufficient component of making good strategy.
The 2021 Integrated Review sets out bold aspirations for Britain to play a leadership role in almost every area of international cooperation, and to increase engagement in the Indo-Pacific, Africa and the Gulf, at a time when it is also pledged to be the leading European nation in NATO. Nowhere is there a recognition that resources – whether of people, budgets or ministerial energies – are finite. In the end,