Why? Because Britain’s security depends not on membership of the EU, but on its own defence, intelligence and law enforcement capabilities, its nuclear capabilities, its membership of NATO and the 5 eyes Intelligence community and the bilateral defence alliances it has with, for example, the US and France.
As for Britain’s international influence, this flows from a blend of the fundamental assets of the country and its ability to impact on global events. Those assets are impressive – including the size of the economy, the history, culture, democratic traditions, the rule of law, the Royal Family, the professionalism of the armed forces, diplomatic network and intelligence agencies, the elite universities, the premier league and the English language. These assets existed before the UK joined the EEC in 1973 and still exist in 2021 after we have left. They are the main reason that the UK is still ranked 3rd in the world when it comes to soft power.
As for the UK’s ability to influence events, the importance of being a permanent member of the UN Security Council cannot be overstated. Even after Brexit, the UK is a member of more international organisations than any other country, from the global (such as NATO, G7, G20, Commonwealth) to the small and specialised (such as Nuclear Suppliers Group and International Whaling Commission). Presiding over the G7 summit in June and the Climate Change conference (COP 26) in November offers a valuable opportunity this year to show leadership on a range of global challenges including tackling Covid, raising the bar in combatting climate change and plotting a coordinated western response to greater Chinese and Russian assertiveness.
As Ambassador to the UN at the time of the Scottish referendum in 2014, it was clear to me that Scottish Independence would have been much more damaging to the UK’s global status than Brexit ever could be. Apart from anything else, the break-up of the Union would have reduced the size of our economy and population, required a change in the name of the country and brought into question our permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
But therein lies the biggest risk. If Brexit leads indirectly to the break-up of the Union or to economic decline, then that will impact negatively on the Global Britain agenda. Which is why the Integrated Review focuses so heavily on the importance of the Union and on building a strong economy based on a turbo-charged Science and Technology sector. If the UK’s fundamentals have not significantly changed, how about recent policy decisions, which some commentators have argued undermines the Global Britain ambition?
Defence
A reduction in the overall size of the regular army from an already modest (and historically low) 82,000 to 72,500 certainly looks at odds with the steady increase in Britain’s defence budget (up to 2.2% of GDP in 2020) and has attracted criticism from retired UK and American Generals. But the decision reflects two realities: the first is a pragmatic one. The difficulty of recruitment has meant that the MOD has never been able to reach the 82,000 target of regular troops included in the 2015 strategic defence review that I oversaw as NSA. Indeed, it was the only one of the 89 commitments in that review that was consistently off track. The more strategic reality underpinning the decision is that the changing nature of warfare requires a greater emphasis on Special Forces, drones, ISTAR and other high-tech capability, rather than on infantry numbers.
A more important metric, given the demand for smaller and more varied military operations overseas, is how many soldiers can be deployed overseas at one time. The UK has traditionally been weak in this area, compared to, for example, France. The UK does not need to be able to confront the Russian army, or even, arguably, to mount an operation on the scale of the Falklands task force in the 1980s. But a credible Global Britain, in addition to carrying out the core functions of homeland security and defence diplomacy, does need to be able to station a sizeable force in Eastern Europe as part of deterring Russia, support US counter terrorism operations in the Middle East and French operations in the Sahel and, at the same time, contribute more officers and soldiers to UN peacekeeping missions around the world. That represents a step up from where we are now.
Overseas Aid
From a rather different constituency, there has been much criticism of the Government’s decision to resile, albeit temporarily, from its commitment to spend 0.7% of GNP on overseas development – and of the simultaneous re-merger of DFID and the FCO. Certainly,