Intelligence for National Security Decision Making
National security has become a national concern since time in memorial, however, over the last past years, national security intelligence has been enhance through reforms their security sector. These reforms require strategic decision-making mechanism in order to safeguard the citizens and national resources. This essay evaluates the Westminster intelligence model in relation to the Australian national security intelligence decision making. Prior to making any decision, the national security intelligence must address a number of issues, among those issues include:
Identifying the functions of the national security,
Developing the possible option available to improve the national security,
Involving all the concerned stakeholders who include the private sector, government agencies and the citizens, and Identifying the role of national security intelligence in security sector
In efforts to enhance decision-making concerns in the national security, the Webminster intelligence model is employed by most countries. the Westminster model, which is independent advisory model has been largely adopted by Governments in particular that adhere to the Westminster principles of the separation of powers and the institutionalization of checks and balances that are intended to safeguard against one organ of state acquiring excessive power. The post-war conceptualization of the intelligence process/cycle encapsulates the relationship between the state (as the client and decision-maker) and an independent advisory function. In order for decision making in national security intelligence, there are number of structures that the decision-making must encompass. Among those structures, include joint assessment, resource allocation, giving priority to the security concerns, and coordinating emergency security measures. All those security structures require optimal security intelligence1.
The Westminster model requires a country to be unitary state that must practice parliamentary sovereignty, institutionalized opposition, most popular party controlling the executive, electoral accountability, and an effective cabinet. Most countries do not exclusively employ the Webminster model. For example, the UK parliament is not fully sovereign since it has relinquished some of its powers to the European Union while the US and Australia governments are not unitary but federal governments. Westminster intelligence model has a number of characteristics. Among them is the requirement to have a democratic parliamentary system whereby the head of state has limited powers besides being a ceremonial president. Other characteristics include national security acting independently without interference from the government, having a dedicated national social organization while adhering to the social contract theory that focuses on the state of government rather than a state of nature. More so, the government is headed by the prime minister. This makes the Australian mode of government to differ from the US. In US, the president is the head of government whereas the Australian government is headed by the prime minister. Despite the differences, the Australian form of government is greatly influenced by the Westminster model and the US constitution.
Unlike the case of US, Australian government mostly relies on the senate to approve the government policies despite the government being formed by the House of Representatives. This makes the Australian senate to be powerful like the US senate (Heffernan, 2003).
In efforts to enhance decision making in national security intelligence, the Australian government employs a number of agencies that include office of national intelligence (ONA), defense signals directorate (DSD), defense intelligence organization (DIO), and the secret service intelligence (SSI). Those agencies are employed in efforts to link Australia national security to the Westminster model. In addition, the government must establish connection between the Australia intelligence organization and other organizations. A number of strategies have been employed to enhance decision making in the Australian national security intelligence. The government realizes the importance of having self-regulating and vigorous intelligence assessment and collection ability. The importance of having national intelligence evaluation being separated from the policy formulation has been noted. To achieve that objective, the office of national assessment has the responsibility of evaluating the foreign intelligence and is fully independent. While the intelligence decision-making process must comply with the Australian legal framework, the ministers and other policy makers must play a crucial role in guiding and evaluating the national intelligence community2. The Australian national intelligence encompasses three areas; these include collecting data from the people, intelligence from electronic media, and intelligence collected by photography. Though the Australian national security intelligence is fully independent, the US intelligence agency, CIA, is meshed in with policy and does not have the independent separation from government. This means that the Australian national intelligence is closely linked to the Westminster model. One criticism for the model is that, it is too strong and does not wholly highlight separation of powers3.
The national intelligence decision making plays a paramount role in enhancing the safety of Australia citizens and the resources. Through the Westminster model employed, the national security agency can warm the government about anticipated attacks, data about regional and international security environment, data about disaster preparedness and important areas to be checked, offer support to the military through the collected data. The data collected should have high precision. The importance of national intelligence decision making is crucial since failures by such agencies have resulted to a number of attacks globally4. Among the historical failures by national security intelligence resulted to the 2001 world trade center terrorist attack, Kuwait invasion by Iraq 1990, and 1989 collapse of the Berlin wall, among others. Despite the failures, the Australian national intelligence is credited for highlighting the Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, Jemaah Islamiyah terrorist threat, among others. This indicates that national security intelligence decision making is a critical tool for national security as indicated by Westminster intelligence model.
Bibliography
Australian Government (2004) ‘Report of the Inquiry into Australian Intelligence Agencies’ 2004, viewed 18 May 2012, http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/intelligence_inquiry/index.htm
Heffernan R., ‘Prime ministerial predominance? Core executive politics in the UK’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations Vol. 5 no.3, 2003, pp.347-72.
Intelligence and Security Committee of the House of Commons. ‘Annual Report’ 2003-04, June, 2004
Gamble A., ‘Theories of British Politics’, Political Studies Journal, vol. 38, 1990, pp.404-20
O’Brien, K. A., ‘South Africa’s Evolving Intelligence and Security Structures’. International. Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence vol. 9, no. 2, 1996, pp.1-6
