DOCSLIB.ORG

1 1 Contributing to Strategic Influence and Prosperity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 1 Contributing to Strategic Influence and Prosperity The occasional papers of the Centre for Historical Analysis and Conflict Research 1 ARES& ATHENASUMMER 2015 1 CONTRIBUTING TO STRATEGIC INFLUENCE AND PROSPERITY ATTENDANCE R Adml Simon Ancona ACDS Defence Engagement Professor Jeremy Black University of Exeter Col James Bowder CGS’ CIG Maj Gen Mark Carleton-Smith Director Strategy, Army HQ Brig James Carr-Smith Deputy Commander, 1 (UK) Division Lt Col Jason Clark CGS’ CIG Sir Vincent Fean Late FCO Mr Olivier Grouille Contributing to strategic Cambridge Security Analysis Institute Brig Iain Harrison Director Force Development influence and prosperity Col Matthew Jackson This document is a product of the CHACR workshop held to Assistant Director CHACR investigate the links between defence engagement and the Dr Pippa Malmgren national prosperity agenda. Independent economic & policy analyst Mr Hugh Martin It contains summaries of the day’s discussions together with essays submitted CEO, Hawki Worldwide in advance of the event and in some cases subsequently revised. This collection of papers is published on a ‘Chatham House’ basis and as such Miss Harriet Mathews is not attributable to any one individual but is offered as a collection of FCO, Ambassador Designate Somalia ‘individual views’. Mr Tim McDonnell MOD Defence Exports Should authors subsequently wish to use their own papers, attributable to Mrs Jenny McGee themselves, they are of course free to do so. HM Treasury Col John Ogden UKTI DSO Lt Col Dick Ovey Army International Branch CONTENTS Mr Jérôme Paolini 03 CEO, Sovereign Global France Workshop Summary of Discussions Lt Gen Mark Poffley 08 DCGS Essay 1: Prosperity and Strategic Influence: Security, Stability, Prosperity Lt Col Nick Serle and Influence Futures & Horizon Scanning, DFD 10 Maj Gen Andrew Sharpe Essay 2: Primer – Defence Engagement and the Prosperity Agenda Director CHACR Mr Philip Stack 15 Essay 3: A Historical Perspective of the Public-Private Partnership Cambridge Security Analysis Institute 17 Essay 4: Silos, Silent Killers and Strategy Published by: Centre for Historical Analysis 19 Essay 5: Integrated Policy: Melding Our Security with Business? and Conflict Research, Former Army Staff College, Slim Road, Camberley, Surrey GU15 4NP. Tel: 94261 2644 / 01276 412644 21 Essay 6: How can the Army, working alongside other government departments and British businesses operating abroad, contribute to CHACR business partners: NSC, Norwich House, Knoll Road, Camberley, Surrey GU15 Britain’s national prosperity and strategic influence? 3SY. Tel: 01276 678867 23 Photographs: © Crown copyright Essay 7: Closing Observations ares&athena / contributing to strategic influence and prosperity/ 2 WORKSHOP SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS On 28 April 2015 an event was hosted by the Army’s newly- established Centre for Historical Analysis and Conflict Research (CHACR). About 20 high-level delegates drawn from the military, academia, the civil service and the private sector came together in a closed forum to challenge established British Army thinking. The forum was held in the spirit of an objective and critical evaluation of the assumptions the Army makes about its defence engagement activities in support of the nation’s prosperity agenda. What follows is a synthesis of the participants’ discussions in break-out and plenary groups, all held under the Chatham House Rule1. Defence engagement, national strategy and the prosperity of the UK It was recognised by all participants that a role for the Army “” that encompasses security, influence and prosperity has its The Army currently enjoys the British roots in the 2010 National Security Strategy: public’s trust, which is a valuable asset and could be a boon when the Army is used “The National Security Strategy of the United Kingdom is: to use all our national capabilities to build Britain’s prosperity, internationally to support UK businesses extend our nation’s influence in the world and strengthen our security. The networks we use to build our prosperity we will engagement, but as a supplier it should not be the source of also use to build our security.”2 the demand (although it may contribute to the establishing of demand through its own non-prosperity related requirements “” This led to a recognition that for bilateral engagement). One participant described defence One participant defence engagement, which engagement as an “addendum task”, that must always remain described defence takes various forms, is an subservient to the Army’s role as a high-end war-fighting engagement as an overarching activity that builds organisation. This point was supported by an American both security and influence, attendee who reminded the group that along with France, ‘addendum task’, and which in turn contributes the US viewed the UK as its only close ally able and willing that must always to prosperity. However, to employ significant military force overseas in defence of the remain subservient several participants added a current international trade-based system operating under the note of caution, reminding rule of law. to the Army’s role the group that defence as a high-end war- engagement is not wholly One participant underscored the point that the essential fighting organisation synonymous with supporting business of the Army is security, but emphasised that there are the nation’s prosperity agenda linkages between the provision of security and the creation and is designed to achieve a and exploitation of commercial opportunities. The example number of other goals. These include improving the Army’s was given of the Army’s involvement in Kenya: the UK has understanding of foreign countries and societies and assisting invested in transport infrastructure development to support in conflict prevention activities. It was further recognised that military training in the Nanyuki area. This has proved to be of the Army’s understanding of what constitutes ‘operations’ direct benefit to UK-owned exporters growing roses in Kenya needs to evolve to establish defence engagement as a series which need to be cut and transported quickly to the airport. of activities that operates across the spectrum of conflict. However, another participant cautioned against viewing Sometimes Army activity can be characterised as ‘defence security as a necessary precondition for prosperity in a linear engagement with operations nested within it’ and at other causal chain, as economic activity can in and of itself lead to times as ‘operations with aspects of defence engagement security and quite often significant commercial opportunities acting in support’. can be found in conflict-wracked countries. It was observed that the Army is a major supplier of defence It was agreed by the group that current models and practices for conducting defence engagement are not proscribed and that the Army can and must think freely about other ways of 1The Chatham House Rule asserts that: “When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under doing business, summed up by one participant’s observation the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither that “it doesn’t have to be like this”. Other participants the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be concurred but identified the challenge the Army faces in terms revealed.” of finding people to explain the value it brings, both to the 2HM Government, 2010, “A Strong Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The National Treasury and to the wider public. All agreed that soldiers are Security Strategy”, p.9. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ not good at this, and that the message would be conveyed uploads/attachment_data/file/61936/national-security-strategy.pdf [Accessed on 29 April 2015]. more effectively if communicated by outside organisations, ares&athena / contributing to strategic influence and prosperity/ 3 the better to pass the ‘Daily Mail test’ of public opinion. It was Russia were identified as the primary competitor states that observed that the Army currently enjoys the British public’s fell into this category, and that the rules-based international trust, which is a valuable asset and could be a boon when system upon which the West depends should now be seen to the Army is used internationally to support UK businesses. be at risk. Another participant reinforced this argument, with However, it was further observed that it was a fragile asset that the observation that as an open, free-trading nation that had could be quickly lost if the Army is seen to fail on operations embraced globalisation, the UK was more dependent on this or is used for domestic civil disorder or strike-breaking system than most other Western nations. activities at home. It was suggested that the Army must carefully balance what it ‘could’ do with what it ‘should’ do. While this was broadly regarded by the group as a strength, one non-British participant observed that the UK and its Whilst one participant highlighted the need for the Army to allies are seen by other states to be attempting to repair and develop metrics to help it demonstrate its value-for-money reinforce the system of rules that has hitherto served it well, to the Treasury, an American participant cautioned that but that Russia and China are seen to be trying to create a attempts to do so in the US Army, Navy and Air Force had new system of rules and using their military forces to support merely served to reinforce inter-service rivalries. The group such attempts, particularly through the physical protection of underscored the need for the British Army to emphasise and economic and territorial assets. ensure from the outset that its prosperity-supporting defence engagement efforts (and indeed the wider activities associated Participants concurred that the British military was largely with the latter) were robustly and pro-actively integrated into a still seen as a ‘force for good’ (if occasionally prone to flights Joint framework supported by all three UK Single Services.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sierra Leone's Response to the Ebola Outbreak
    Sierra Leone’s Response to the Ebola Outbreak: Management Strategies and Key Responder Experiences Responder and Key Sierra Strategies the Leone’s to Management Ebola Outbreak: Response Research Paper Emma Ross, Gita Honwana Welch and Philip Angelides Centre on Global Health Security | March 2017 Sierra Leone’s Response to the Ebola Outbreak Management Strategies and Key Responder Experiences Emma Ross, Gita Honwana Welch and Philip Angelides Welch Gita Honwana Emma Ross, Chatham House Contents Summary 2 1 Introduction 3 2 Early Response Mechanisms 6 3 Transition to A New Response Architecture 12 4 The NERC 16 5 The DERCS 31 6 Final Transition 37 7 Conclusion 39 Acronyms 41 References 42 About the Authors 47 Acknowledgments 48 1 | Chatham House Sierra Leone’s Response to the Ebola Outbreak: Management Strategies and Key Responder Experiences Summary • The 2014–16 West African Ebola epidemic was unprecedented in both scale and duration. By March 2016, when the World Health Organization (WHO) announced an end to the Public Health Emergency of International Concern declared in August 2014, some 28,616 confirmed, probable and suspected cases, with 11,310 deaths, had been reported in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone – the three worst-affected countries. • The exceptional magnitude and duration of the emergency meant that the response was honed over time, presenting a rare opportunity to study the management of the response as it matured. This paper focuses on Sierra Leone, which experienced the highest number of cases, with 14,124 infections, including 3,956 deaths, reported to WHO, and where the operational architecture of the Ebola response went through three main iterations over a 22-month period.
    [Show full text]
  • King's Research Portal
    King’s Research Portal DOI: 10.1136/jramc-2016-000720 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Bricknell, M. C. M., & Nadin, M. (2017). Lessons from the organisation of the UK medical services deployed in support of Operation TELIC (Iraq) and Operation HERRICK (Afghanistan). Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps, 163(4), 273-279. https://doi.org/10.1136/jramc-2016-000720 Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. •Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. •You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain •You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethical Challenges Experienced by UK Military Medical Personnel Deployed to Sierra Leone (Operation GRITROCK) During the 2014–2015 Ebola Outbreak: a Qualitative Study
    Original citation: Draper, Heather and Jenkins, Simon. (2017) Ethical challenges experienced by UK military medical personnel deployed to Sierra Leone (operation GRITROCK) during the 2014–2015 Ebola outbreak: a qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics, 18 (77) Permanent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/95557 Copyright and reuse: The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work of researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. This article is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0) and may be reused according to the conditions of the license. For more details see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ A note on versions: The version presented in WRAP is the published version, or, version of record, and may be cited as it appears here. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected] warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications Draper and Jenkins BMC Medical Ethics (2017) 18:77 DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0234-5 RESEARCHARTICLE Open Access Ethical challenges experienced by UK military medical personnel deployed to Sierra Leone (operation GRITROCK) during the 2014–2015 Ebola outbreak: a qualitative study Heather Draper* and Simon Jenkins Abstract Background: As part of its response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak in west Africa, the United Kingdom (UK) government established an Ebola treatment unit in Sierra Leone, staffed by military personnel. Little is known about the ethical challenges experienced by military medical staff on humanitarian deployment. We designed a qualitative study to explore this further with those who worked in the treatment unit.
    [Show full text]
  • Biannual UK Armed Forces and UK Civilian Operational
    Biannual UK armed forces and UK entitled civilians operational casualty and fatality statistics 1 January 2006 to 31 March 2021 Published 20 May 2021 This biannual release provides statistical information on the number of UK armed forces personnel and UK entitled civilians who were injured, became ill or died on Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) led operations. This is the first in the series where MOD is reporting casualties on further PJHQ led operations from 1 January 2006, with the time series presented from 1 January 2015 following the cessation of combat operations in Afghanistan (Op HERRICK). Key points and trends Since January 2006 there have been 16,844 UK service personnel who sustained an injury, had an illness or died whilst on operations. Latest trends (1 January 2015 and 31 March 2021): there were 1,448 UK service personnel who sustained an injury, had an illness or died whilst on operations. 1,434 casualties: 14 fatalities: 3 battle injuries 13 died on operations 669 non battle injuries 1 killed in action 762 natural causes (including disease) In the same period 38 UK entitled civilians sustained an injury or illness on operations, of which five were within the latest six-month period (Q3/Q4 2020/21). The majority (82%) of civilian casualties were Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) personnel on Op KIPION. 99 UK armed forces casualties in the last 6 month period (1 Oct 2020 – 31 Mar 2021) 1 Casualties with a severity of ‘serious’ include those with a NOTICAS casualty severity of very seriously or seriously injured/ill (VSI/SI)
    [Show full text]
  • Land Operations
    Land Operations Land Warfare Development Centre Army Doctrine Publication AC 71940 HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS & CONDITIONS OF RELEASE COPYRIGHT This publication is British Ministry of Defence Crown copyright. Material and information contained in this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system and transmitted for MOD use only, except where authority for use by other organisations or individuals has been authorised by a Patent Officer of the Defence Intellectual Property Rights whose details appear below. Crown copyright and Merchandise Licensing, Defence Intellectual Property rights, Central Legal Services, MOD Abbeywood South, Poplar 2 #2214, Bristol BS34 8JH, Email: [email protected] STATUS This publication has been produced under the direction and authority of the Chief of the General Staff by ACOS Warfare branch in his capacity as sponsor of Army Doctrine. It is the individual’s responsibility to ensure that he or she is using the latest version of this publication. If in doubt the individual should contact the Warfare Branch of HQ Field Army (details below). The contents constitute mandatory regulations or an MOD Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) and provide clear military information concerning the most up to date experience and best practice available for commanders and troops to use for operations and training. To avoid criminal liability and prosecution for a breach of health and safety law, you must follow the relevant provisions of the ACOP. Breaches or omissions could result in disciplinary action under the provisions of the Armed Forces Act. DISTRIBUTION As directed by ACOS Warfare. CONTACT DETAILS Suggestions for change or queries are welcomed and should be sent to Warfare Branch Editor, Headquarters Field Army, Land Warfare Development Centre, Imber Road, Warminster BA12 0DJ | i Foreword CGS Foreword to ADP Land Operations ADP Land Operations is the British Army’s core doctrine.
    [Show full text]
  • Download (1001Kb)
    Manuscript version: Author’s Accepted Manuscript The version presented in WRAP is the author’s accepted manuscript and may differ from the published version or Version of Record. Persistent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/90140 How to cite: Please refer to published version for the most recent bibliographic citation information. If a published version is known of, the repository item page linked to above, will contain details on accessing it. Copyright and reuse: The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work by researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright © and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. Publisher’s statement: Please refer to the repository item page, publisher’s statement section, for further information. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected]. warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications Preparing for Operation GRITROCK: military medical ethics challenges encountered in the planning stages
    [Show full text]
  • Whole Day Download the Hansard
    Tuesday Volume 604 19 January 2016 No. 99 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday 19 January 2016 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2016 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1249 19 JANUARY 2016 1250 Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): If the House of Commons Chancellor keeps shrugging off the threat to the very existence of some of Britain’s core strategic industries, such as steel, is there not a danger that when our country Tuesday 19 January 2016 really needs those resources and that extra capacity for our national security no less, they might not be there The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock at all? Mr Osborne: Of course the redundancies that have PRAYERS been announced at Tata Steel and elsewhere in the steel industry are a real matter of regret. We are providing all the support we can to the families who are affected and [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] helping them to get into work. We are backing the steel industry by responding to its requests that we cut energy bill costs—that policy comes into effect today; that we change the rules around procurement so that companies Oral Answers to Questions and the Government buy British steel; and that we take action internationally against cheap imports from China. Not one of those things was done when there was a Labour Government, and during that period the number TREASURY of steel jobs in this country fell by 50%.
    [Show full text]
  • INSIDE DSEI News, Views and Insight from the Award Winning DSEI Issue 8 / June 2015
    INSIDE DSEI News, views and insight from the award winning DSEI Issue 8 / June 2015 www.dsei.co.uk What’s New GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS New theatre launches to host briefings by leading experts INTERNATIONAL PAVILIONS Focus on Turkey, U.S. and Malaysia DEBUT EXHIBITORS Record numbers to showcase capabilites across all disciplines This edition of Inside DSEI is sponsored by: Visit us at Contents stand N2-230 Welcome to the eighth issue of INSIDE DSEI nside DSEI brings you the latest news from the defence and security industry, offering focused feature areas, product Ilaunches and updates. This issue also offers the opportunity to look ahead to September’s DSEI and the importance of such an international event in what is set to be a crossroads year for the global defence and security industry. In this issue we focus on some new additions to the event, Issue 8 / June 2015 including the Global Partnerships Theatre, the Ebola Learning Exploitation Conference, and the SME Showcase. There is a feature exploring some of the International Pavilions, and the DSEI is organised by: Product Focus pages in this issue look at key sectors including: Night Vision & Imaging, Medical & Medivac and Communications. 69-79 Fulham High Street, London, SW6 3JW, UK Welcome 4 Tel: +44 (0)20 7384 7770 Email: [email protected] What’s New - Sector Updates 7 Web: www.dsei.co.uk Global Partnerships Theatre 16 Inside DSEI is published by: SME Showcase 18 EventGuides 10 Treasury Court, Fisher Street, Ebola Learning Exploitation Conference 19 Carlisle, CA3 8RF, UK International Pavilions 20 Tel: +44 (0)1228 541200 Email: [email protected] Web: www.eventguides.co.uk Register Now 27 This edition of Inside DSEI Exhibitor News 29 is sponsored by: Product Focus Night Vision & Imaging 38 Disclaimer: Inside DSEI is published under licence by Medical and Medivac 40 Event Guides Limited.
    [Show full text]
  • DECEMBER 2014 ISSUE No
    MILITARY AVIATION REVIEW DECEMBER 2014 ISSUE No. 325 EDITORIAL TEAM COORDINATING EDITOR - BRIAN PICKERING WESTFIELD LODGE, ASLACKBY, SLEAFORD, LINCS NG34 0HG TEL NO. 01778 440760 E-MAIL”[email protected]” BRITISH REVIEW - MICK BOULANGER 27 Tudor Road, Heath Town, Wolverhampton, West Midlands WV10 0LT TEL NO. 0770 1070537 EMail "[email protected]" FOREIGN FORCES - BRIAN PICKERING (see Co-ordinating Editor above for address details) US FORCES - BRIAN PICKERING (COORDINATING) (see above for address details) STATESIDE: MORAY PICKERING 19 RADFORD MEADOW, CASTLE DONINGTON, DERBY DE74 2NZ E Mail “[email protected]” EUROPE: BRIAN PICKERING OUTSIDE USA: BRIAN PICKERING See address details above OUT OF SERVICE - ANDY MARDEN 6 CAISTOR DRIVE, BRACEBRIDGE HEATH, LINCOLN LN4 2TA E-MAIL "[email protected]" MEMBERSHIP/DISTRIBUTION - BRIAN PICKERING MAP, WESTFIELD LODGE, ASLACKBY, SLEAFORD, LINCS NG34 0HG TEL NO. 01778 440760 E-MAIL.”[email protected]” ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION (Jan-Dec 2015) UK £40 EUROPE £55 ELSEWHERE £60 @MAR £20 (EMail/Internet Only) MAR PDF £20 (EMail/Internet Only) Cheques payable to “MAP” - ALL CARDS ACCEPTED - Subscribe via “www.mar.co.uk” ABBREVIATIONS USED * OVERSHOOT f/n FIRST NOTED l/n LAST NOTED n/n NOT NOTED u/m UNMARKED w/o WRITTEN OFF wfu WITHDRAWN FROM USE n/s NIGHTSTOPPED INFORMATION MAY BE REPRODUCED FROM “MAR” WITH DUE CREDIT EDITORIAL Welcome to the last issue for 2014. It has been quite an eventful year and I hope the Editorial team have provided you with a varied and interesting magazine during 2014. However, we are always interested in your comments and suggestions on ways to improve or expand the magazine’s contents.
    [Show full text]
  • Whole Day Download the Hansard
    Tuesday Volume 605 2 February 2016 No. 109 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday 2 February 2016 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2016 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 757 2 FEBRUARY 2016 758 Sajid Javid: Actually, I can confirm to my hon. Friend House of Commons that not only has foreign investment continued across British industry, including the car industry, but the auto Tuesday 2 February 2016 industry has just had a record year, with more than £64 billion of turnover and 80% of cars being exported. [Interruption.] The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock Mr Speaker: Order. Dr Hunt, you were not taught to behave like that at your very expensive public school. PRAYERS Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): That [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] was a very funny joke, Mr Speaker. The Environmental Protection Agency in America is suing Volkswagen for installing defeat devices that cheat BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS emissions testing in millions of cars. What work is the Secretary of State doing with manufacturers in Britain CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION (OPEN SPACES)BILL to ensure that such devices are not installed, so that we Bill read a Second time and committed. can look forward to a future of greener cars where all cars are properly tested at MOT and the public are safe in the knowledge that more and more people will not Oral Answers to Questions die unnecessarily from pollution? Sajid Javid: That is a good question.
    [Show full text]
  • Crisis Response in a Changing Climate
    Crisis Response in a Changing Climate Implications of Climate Change for UK Defence Logistics in Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) and Military Aid to the Civil Authorities (MACA) Operations Lucia Retter, Anna Knack, Zudik Hernandez, Ruth Harris, Ben Caves, Martin Robson, Neil Adger For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RRA1024-1 The Global Strategic Partnership (GSP), a consortium of research, academic and industry organisations that is led by RAND Europe, provides ongoing analytical support to the UK Ministry of Defence. Cover image: CC BY-NC 2.0 Defence Images Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK © Copyright 2021 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. RAND Europe is a not-for-profit research organisation that helps to improve policy and decision making through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org www.randeurope.org Preface This document represents the final report of a study commissioned by the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC) within the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) to inform development of the MOD’s Climate Change and Sustainability (CC&S) strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethical Challenges Experienced by UK Military Medical Personnel Deployed to Sierra Leone (Operation GRITROCK) During the 2014–
    Draper and Jenkins BMC Medical Ethics (2017) 18:77 DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0234-5 RESEARCHARTICLE Open Access Ethical challenges experienced by UK military medical personnel deployed to Sierra Leone (operation GRITROCK) during the 2014–2015 Ebola outbreak: a qualitative study Heather Draper* and Simon Jenkins Abstract Background: As part of its response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak in west Africa, the United Kingdom (UK) government established an Ebola treatment unit in Sierra Leone, staffed by military personnel. Little is known about the ethical challenges experienced by military medical staff on humanitarian deployment. We designed a qualitative study to explore this further with those who worked in the treatment unit. Method: Semi-structured, face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted with 20 UK military personnel deployed between October 2014 and April 2015 in one of three roles in the Ebola treatment unit: clinician; nursing and nursing assistant; and other medical support work, including infection control and laboratory and mortuary services. Results: Many participants reported feeling ethically motivated to volunteer for deployment, but for some personal interests were also a consideration. A small minority had negative feelings towards the deployment, others felt that this deployment like any other was part of military service. Almost all had initial concerns about personal safety but were reassured by their pre-deployment 'drills and skills', and personal protective equipment. Risk perceptions were related to perceptions about military service. Efforts to minimise infection risk were perceived to have made good patient care more difficult. Significantly, some thought the humanitarian nature of the mission justified tolerating greater risks to staff.
    [Show full text]