What is britain’s place in the world? | thearticle

It is commonplace during election campaigns for plaintive articles to appear bemoaning the fact that foreign policy has been ignored by political leaders. Since voters aren’t particularly

exercised by foreign policy questions, this is understandable. But Boris Johnson’s remarkable election victory — combined with the sudden and dramatic downturn in the state of international

situation — makes it all the more important that we start to take this seriously as a country. We know now that Britain will be leaving the European Union. But we still don’t seem to know

what we will be doing next. The fact that this issue was barely discussed in the run-up to polling day is all the more remarkable given that the Nato summit took place during the election

campaign. At his end-of-summit press conference, Johnson was plied with inane questions about whether or not he had been laughing at President Trump at a reception in Buckingham Palace, and

whether the NHS was “for sale”. But the fundamental question that was barely touched on was Britain’s role in a volatile world, and a world in which America no longer chooses to lead the

western alliance, but is happy to commit acts that put that alliance under strain. The Nato summit took place in the shadow of President Macron’s statement that “we are currently

experiencing […] the brain death of Nato”. Macron succeeded in enraging many of Nato’s leaders with this line, although the question he was pushing seems important: is Nato prepared to

consider seismic shifts in international geopolitics? The alliance is facing a renewed Russian threat and deep instability in the Middle East, at the same time as its key member, the United

States, appears to be losing interest. President Trump is obsessed with the idea that European members are not “paying their share” of defence costs; he has a point, although not as good a

point as he thinks it is. Meanwhile, Turkey’s President Erdogan reached a private agreement with President Trump that involved US troops leaving Syria, clearing the way for the Turks to

invade, indirectly offering a lifeline to ISIS. (The death of General Soleimani will no doubt be welcomed by ISIS.) None of this was discussed with Nato allies, laying bare Trump’s contempt

for America’s traditional partners and the crisis at the heart of the Atlantic alliance. However, an even bigger global policy shift is underway. It is the return of great-power politics and

the transfer of global hegemony from the US to China. Very rarely in history has one hegemonic power ceded to another without armed conflict taking place. The one notable exception may be

the shift from Britain to the United States at the end of the First World War. In that case, Britain and America had close cultural and institutional links. No such comparable connections

appear to exist between the United States and China. Britain is entering a new decade in which a fundamentally different set of global rules are likely to apply. And yet this crucial issue

was hardly discussed in the election campaign. A fundamental change in the security posture of Europe; the return of great power politics; a transfer of global hegemonic power from the

United States to China and deep unrest across the Middle East — in addition, Britain has decided to leave the European Union to chart its own way in the world. The government’s response to

all of this turbulence is to trumpet the merits of “Global Britain”. This is, to put it generously, a rather flimsy concept. According to the GOV.UK website, “Global Britain is about

reinvesting in our relationships, championing the rules-based international order and demonstrating that the UK is open, outward-looking and confident on the world stage.” It seems that

“Global Britain” does not involve asking any of the serious questions about Britain’s future. Questions such as, will we invest in enhancing Europe’s defensive capabilities, accepting that

the United States is no longer prepared to be the guarantor? How will we manage our relations with a rising China? Can Britain act as a moderating influence in relations between the US and

Iran? Will we work with European partners to confront the Russian threat, for example by continuing to support EU sanctions after we have left the bloc? How will we relate to Turkey? To

answer these questions we would need an idea of Britain’s grand strategy. What is it we are trying to be? The argument for leaving the EU seems to be based on free trade, but this is a phase

in which the WTO is fatally weakened and protectionism is on the rise all over the world. Our military is facing budget crises and the future of major projects such as the aircraft carriers

is in doubt, just as the prospect of a hot war arises. In a world of great-power rivalry, pious talk about the “rules-based international order” without a clear plan for sustaining it is

mere posturing. Medium-sized countries with similar values may be able to work together but Britain will have to demonstrate what it is we hope to achieve by doing so. Rather than pursuing

the meaningless fantasy of ‘Global Britain’, we would do well to invest in meaningful strategic alliances with Europe and beyond. Nato might be the cornerstone, but we should be seeking

similarly deep relations with democracies further afield, including Japan, Australia and in the global South. As we enter a new decade of uncertainty and great-power rivalry, we must embrace

deep integration of our security and strategic interests with like-minded partners and be prepared to go much further than we have done previously, which means pooling military resources.

Above all, we must not let the lure of improbable trade deals in an era of increasing protectionism get in the way of our urgent strategic interests.