Over ten years I have watched energy policy go from being a relatively quiet backwater to something taking on a strategic importance that could be as crucial to our country’s future as defence. – Tony Blair

In today’s Times, the Prime Minister argues the case for a new energy plan. It is a persuasive case. What is clear is that Britain’s future energy security has become a major issue. Indeed, I believe that energy security has become the single most important strategic challenge for the British government. Get it wrong, and we can all kiss goodbye to long-term prosperity and influence in the world.

Putting the debate on climate change to one side, for me the key question is how Britain can move towards energy independence. If one looks at a table of ownership of known oil reserves, only one country in the top ten is a stable democracy – Canada. Gas reserve ownership is little better, with only the USA featuring. Clearly, Britain needs to start now to make plans for more energy independence as The Middle East and the former Soviet Union are hardly showing signs of imminent stable democracy. In particular, Russia has recently shown an intent to use energy supply as an instrument to bully its neighbours (and the rest of the world). Britain needs to build immunity to such intimidatory tactics.

Building nuclear power station should be part of our plan for energy independence. In contrast to hydrococarbons, uranium supplies come predominantly from stable democracies that are close friends of Britain. Canada is the world’s leading uranium producer, accounting for a third of global production and 15% of global reserves. Australia is the next largest producer, with one quarter of global production and 27% of global reserves. Our relationships with both countries are strong. We once lead the way in nuclear energy technology and hence I see no reason why we cannot do so again.

It is a tough decision to commission more nuclear power stations. Hard choices are what being in government is all about. There are undeniably issues regards cost and the disposal of nuclear waste. I believe, however, that these understandable concerns are more than outweighed by the strategic benefits of ‘owning’ our own power supplies. Clearly, we must concentrate on renewable energy resources and furthermore, address the amount of energy that each Briton uses. However, to rely on those two approaches alone would still leave Britain exposed to the vagaries of global politics. I would rather have nuclear power stations than ‘go cap in hand’ to despots and autocrats.

In the next week or so, there will be political changes on both sides of the Channel. One change will be achieved by popular vote, the other by succession. Opinion polls in France over recent weeks have consistently pointed towards a victory for Nicolas Sarkozy, in front of Segolene Royal, the glamorous Socialist candidate. The former Finance Minister has made no secret of his desire to liberalise the French economy, and it would appear that the French populace have belatedly realised that their economy is in dire need of such up-dating. For Conservatives in this country, the decision on who to support in the French Presidential election is easy. For the Labour Party, it is less straight forward. Blairites will no doubt voice their support for Sarkozy. Brownites, however, may be less enthusiastic, maybe feeling that they should show more solidarity with their French comrades.

Even though Gordon and Nicolas have shared dinner in the company of their partners, it is less easy for the Chancellor to be allies with a man who welcomes favourable comparisons with Margaret Thatcher, hardly a darling of the British Left. The problem for the Chancellor is that Sarkozy promises economic liberalisation and a simplified EU constitution, two policies that Brown claims to support. He is, however, against Turkey’s membership of the EU and publicly more Atlanticist than his Socialist rival. Being seen to be pro-American is not electorally popular at present in Britain, particularly amongst the Labour grassroot membership.

Brown will probably fudge his position. Centre-Left politicians in this country now appear rudderless when it comes to foreign policy. The Iraq debacle has bruised Labour confidence in the field of foreign affairs. Indeed, the elevation of Margaret Beckett suggested that it was an area that Labour policy-makers felt was less important in the short to medium term. Having trumpeted an ethical foreign policy on their arrival in Downing Street, the Labour administration have since been left to lick their wounds. The dilemma over the French Presidency is just the first that the future British Prime Minister will have to deal with. What happens if he gets another Republican President in the White House next year? It would appear that foreign policy may become Mr Brown’s Achilles’ Heel during his hopefully short premiership.

Dealing with dictators has become more difficult in recent times. In the past, democratic governments could go to war more easily, secure in the knowledge that they had public support, safe in the knowledge that distressing imagery from ‘the front’ would not make it on to screens back home. With the advent of 24-hour news media, those images of warfare are now spread quickly around the globe, often eliciting a negative response from the viewing public.

Recently, the BBC ran a series of programmes on BBC Parliament illustrating how the media’s coverage of war has changed in just the last 25 years. During the Falklands Conflict, British journalists were embedded with our forces and technically unable to broadcast live from the Islands. Furthermore, the MOD censored the footage and reports that did make it back to Britain, often causing a significant delay in the reporting of incidents. For example, footage of the May 4th attack on HMS Sheffield was not shown until over fortnight after the Exocet was launched against it. I could not imagine that type of delay being acceptable today.

This change in the way the media handles warfare has been widely welcomed. Commentators have argued that seeing the realities of war on our screens makes us all less inclined to support the use of force. That may very well be true. My concern is, however, that whether we like it or not, the world remains an unstable place, and as the pictures above highlight, there are still countries around the globe controlled by aggressive and violent dictators. What with the spread of nuclear technology and the apparent acceptability of state-financed terrorism (e.g. Hezbollah and Iran), the democracies of the world need to be on guard to defend freedoms that we all now take for granted.

But it is not just the defence of our freedoms, and indeed, the freedom of all peoples, which will require Britain and its fellow democratic countries to resort to force throughout the next century. It is also the defence of human rights, and the prevention of crimes against humanity, that should concern us all. What if the very media that provides daily reports of the loss of civilian life in Iraq, also brought us regular footage of barbarity in the Sudan and Zimbabwe, and detailed coverage of the recent famine in North Korea? Would there be a call for military intervention to save African and Korean lives? And if not, why not?

For being inconsistent on these matters elicits derision from the developing world. Displaying such double standards does nothing for our moral standing in the world. The situations in Zimbabwe and Darfur are an international disgrace, a shame on all of our houses. We should not be weak in the face of these issues, for it only serves to provoke further transgressions against humanity. Britain and its Allies should be prepared to intervene to protect any innocent life. And if it came to it, we should also be prepared to accept the awful face of the realities of war on our TV screens, if the ends justify the means. It would be a sad irony of the 21st century if the modern media’s detailed coverage of warfare inadvertently ended up costing more lives.

The sorry spectacle of a British serviceman and woman selling “their stories” to the highest bidder leaves a bitter taste. One can, and should, have sympathy for their recent ordeal. They are, however, members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, and consequently, should behave in a way that respects the traditions of the army, air force and navy. The front-page of The Sun today is cheap, and certainly does not help Britain maintain the moral high ground in the eyes of the world.

One must remember that the former captives are professional soldiers, not volunteers, whose training and salaries have been, and are, paid for by the taxpayer. No one made them choose their profession, a job that I am sure they knew had inherent risks. To be profiteering from active service in the defence of this country is wrong. Where have the military values of personal discipline, honour and tradition gone?

Some commentators are suggesting that the captives’ disclosures are all part of the media war with the Iranian regime. I hope not. Those in the MOD who decided to allow the former captives to talk to the media should be subjected to heavy criticism. Not only for bringing our proud armed forces into disrepute, but for also portraying Britain in such a poor light. Until today, I am sure that most people around the world believed our story, and respected our servicemen for the manner in which they had behaved under significant duress.

The Defence Secretary, Des Browne, not a man of impressive stature, should be asked which member(s) of the government authorised this media approach. New Labour has a long track-record of media manipulation. Getting the ‘right’ story out ‘front and centre’ has always appeared more important to this government than protecting the hard-fought, outstanding, international reputation of our armed forces. Shame on those involved in this decision who thought that British soldiers selling ther stories to the tabloids was an appropriate way for them to behave.

It would appear that this Labour government is happy to continue damaging our international reputation. The unfortunate headlines from today’s papers will have undermined our standing in the whole Iran affair. We must, I feel, endeavour to maintain a prinicipled stand against the Iranian regime. For it is the regime that is the problem, not the Iranian people. It will be ideas and principles that will win over the quiet majority in Iran, not weapons and media manipulation.

The twenty-fifth anniversary of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands should remind us all of the importance of principle in foreign affairs. Margaret Thatcher’s brave decision to send a task force to reclaim the islands was based upon the principles that unprovoked military aggression should not be rewarded and that the British islanders had a right to self-determination. The invasion was an illegal act and hence warranted a forceful response. Despite being given a ’50/50′ chance of the task force’s success by her military commanders, and the expression of some doubts both within and without government, the then Prime Minister stood firmly, arguing the case to stand up to the intimidation of the Argentine military junta. She was proven to be right.

The loss of 255 British lives was a high cost to pay to defend Britons on the other side of the world, however, I truly believe that they died for a cause worth defending. Britain should never shirk from defending its people, its territory and its interests. To do so, would be to invite another conflict similar to that which we witnessed in 1982.