DEFENCE: Thinking of our French Friends
Just under two years to get Trafalgar right
In this Coronation anniversary year, full of memories of the ceremonial splendour of 1953, one facet of those celebrations has been forgotten. Fifty years ago at Spithead, Britain thrilled to the spectacle of one of the great naval reviews that accompanies every coronation.
True, today we couldn't quite stretch to eight aircraft carriers and a battleship — but last year, the sad thing was that the government didn't even try.
For the Silver Jubilee in 1977 the Callaghan government arranged a fine Spithead review. Mr Blair, however, shirked this golden opportunity in 2002, claiming the cost would be too great. As every warship which could have taken part would still have been in commission, and at anchor or at sea somewhere, this wasn't exactly a credible excuse. The sad truth is that despite all the wars over which Tony Blair has presided (Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia and Sierra Leone), there still are too many bits of Britain's military history that new Labour doesn't like celebrating. But as there wasn't a Golden Jubilee Spithead review, and as there won't be an Iraq war commemoration — far too 'triumphalist', apparently — I have a suggestion for the government. Come 2005, Mr Blair should see to it that there is a great naval celebration marking the 200th anniversary of Nelson's victory at the Battle of Trafalgar.
Yet although no one ought to have any objection to celebrating our saving the world from Napoleonic tyranny, I dare say that the government isn't going to jump at the chance. Just consider some of the assaults on our collective memory that Labour have waged since 1997. To begin with, they abolished the Royal Tournament on the grounds that the numbers attending had fallen. (The fact that the Tournament had been reduced in its last years from three weeks' length to just a fortnight was conveniently forgotten.) But at a time when recruitment levels are falling, was it really sensible to cancel such a high-profile and popular event?
Then there was the business of Britain's birthday. The Act of Union brought the United Kingdom into being on the 1st of January, 1801. But where were the bicentennial celebrations? My Unionist colleague, Lord Rogan, led a noble rearguard action in the House of Lords to draw attention to this anniversary, and without the upper house's constant criticism, it's doubtful whether even the meagre celebrations that occurred would have taken place. With our superabundance of history, we probably don't need to get as excited about our bicentennial as, say, our Australia or or American cousins did about theirs — but at the same time, how can we expect our young people, for instance, to care about our nation's history when we show so little respect for it ourselves?
One fundamental sign of this has been the attitude of the present government towards the physical expressions of Britain's military glory. For while it might have seemed a good idea to Gordon Brown and the Treasury to sell off every 'spare' barracks, family accomodation and naval dockyard going, I'm not so sure.
The penny-pinching wisdom that said, for example, that the historic Peninsular barracks at Winchester are better off as luxury flats is doubtless all well and good for its fortunate new inhabitants, but is it the right thing to have done in terms of the national interest? Was it, aesthetically or practically, the wisest course of action to transfer the Royal Naval College at Greenwich to the University of Greenwich? Are the highest traditions of the state upheld by filling Admiralty Arch, once the preserve of the Royal Navy, with open-plan offices for John Prescott?
It might seem that most of these examples are, at worst, symbolic failings, but there is a very practical problem too, and one that goes to the heart of Britain's foreign and defence policy.
Sir John Keegan, in the Telegraph a few months ago, rightly pointed out that this government has one key outstanding defence commitment: a promise to build two 60,000 tonne aircraft carriers. Never mind though the wheres and the whys of the dubious procurement policy, and who's actually going to build the ships — where exactly are they to be based? Too many naval dockyards in the last decade have given way to maritime-themed museums, or luxury sea-front apartment blocks, for the answer to be a simple one. Wait and see: after the billions are spent building these thousand foot vessels, there's going to be an awful lot of head scratching done at Portsmouth, or wherever their home port eventually turns out to be.
Casually throwing away the land bank built up from the Napoleonic wars onwards was neither a sensible nor a dignified thing for Britain to do. Some buildings really are, hateful as this must sound to modernisers everywhere, best employed still doing today just what they were originally built to do - no matter how many centuries ago that was.
On 15th June 1953, Her Majesty the Queen reviewed the armada assembled at Spithead from the then royal yacht, HMY Surprise. Today there isn't even a royal yacht in service. But by 2005 the fleet will have several powerful additions, like the assault ships Albion and Bulwark, in service. So a review would be well justified, and the cause — the Battle of Trafalgar — is great indeed.
In July of this year, the Queen will present the fleet with a new colour. No one doubts her close relationship with the Navy, given a personal quality by the brave service of the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duke of York. Once again, though, the importance of this event is far more than merely symbolic. The wise words of Charles II — 'it is on the Navy under the Providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend' — are as true today as they were in the seventeenth century. An independent British foreign policy will ultimately rest on those large aircraft carriers the Prime Minister has committed the country to building. And what better centrepiece could there be to the Diamond Jubilee review at Spithead that there must be come 2012?
Yet when I asked the defence minister in the House of Commons what plans were in progress to celebrate Trafalgar, he replied that, "at this stage, it is too early to be precise". Thus we have two years between now and then to help Labour acquire some precision.
Jeffrey Donaldson is the member of parliament for Lagan Valley
Jeffrey Donaldson, June 30, 2003 08:54 PM