Dear Keir, be realistic | Patrick Porter

This article is from the May 2024 issue of The Critic. To receive the full magazine, why not subscribe? We're currently offering five issues for just £10..

---

WWith a landslide election victory in sight, here are some tips for steering UK foreign policy. As a newly elected Labor Prime Minister, you will want to focus on domestic issues. After all, they are pressuring. You swore to confront them. You will want to win the next election. Labor governments are rare, so it is essential to stay there. But even a new Jerusalem must look beyond the city walls.

International crises have destroyed some of your predecessors, from Suez to Iraq to Brexit. And, domestically, your position is not particularly strong, which affects your ability to pursue foreign policy. The room for investment is limited, given the strained national finances. Depressed budgets and depleted resources are not your fault. This is what you inherited. But your capacity to act is limited, your political capital limited.

You may be headed for a landslide. But it will be the least enthusiastic landslide in history. Many people, including your own voters, are already fed up with you, bluntly. And within your own ranks, government compromises and betrayals mean the knives will soon be sharpened.

With knives out, cash registers low, and international dangers around every corner, it's important that you think about foreign policy now. When crises arise, as they surely will, you won't have time to think much. I advise you to govern realistically. In other words, accept the world as it is, as we can discern it. It's a harsh place that only rewards jealous mutual aid.

The era when the United States tolerated the out-armament of its European allies is coming to an end.

There is no international community. The world is mainly populated by calculating and self-conscious states. There is no harmless Leviathan to come to the rescue or keep the peace. The moralistic wings of the Labor Party – and the opposition – will not accept this. They speak of a “rules-based” world, organized around human rights, cooperation and human solidarity, under Western leadership. So does a certain type of Whitehall mind, with foreign policy attitudes both apologetic and narcissistic.

Other countries – including those that some call “the Global South” – are not primarily aggrieved former colonies yearning for British atonement but yearning to be ruled by our enlightened leaders. They are mostly ruthlessly selfish states. Recall that countries like South Africa, Brazil, India and China protected themselves after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, putting their energy and commercial interests ahead of denouncing the brutal colonial project of Moscow. Likewise, note that the Gulf powers do not sacrifice their interests for the benefit of the Palestinians, about whom they claim to care. They stand apart from Israel, have not recalled their ambassadors or repudiated the Abraham Accords, even as Israel responds to a pogrom with a massacre. Like most states, their principles and loyalties are selective.

Tip: When negotiating with the “Remainers,” don’t let discussions of past crimes and historical grievances dominate. Don't boast or grovel at Britain's historic record. It is part of their repertoire and constitutes an instrument of their policy. Deal them around cold interests here and now and you will get more business.

Local populations will need to lead NATO more: the days when our main security provider, the United States, footed the bill, did the heavy lifting reliably, and put up with the underarming of its European allies are coming to an end. END. In short, the superpower across the Atlantic faces the largest and richest adversary in its history. This adversary aims to dominate the most important center of power and wealth, centered in Northeast Asia.

It will be a winding path with enormous struggles ahead, but Asia's pull on America's increasingly scarce resources, attention and resources will be almost gravitational. Something will have to “give,” and that thing will be America’s willingness to shoulder the primary burden “here.” It probably won't completely abandon the neighborhood. But we, along with Europe's leading military states, from Poland to Finland, are in for a shock, the shock of having to do most of the work ourselves.

It is above all a structural question. Even if the Europhile Democrats win every election in the next 20 years, this shock will be tomorrow. As things stand, America clearly can barely manage the simultaneous crises in Ukraine, Gaza, the energy transition, the climate crisis or on its southern border. During their recent meeting with China, their officials admitted that they had to calm down the Asian front, lest their bandwidth be saturated. They cannot “bear any burden” or “pay any price.”

Tip: There are two main options. We can prepare for this dire hour by building an informal coalition within NATO to coordinate our military planning, industrial base, and nuclear deterrence posture. This carries risks. This will encourage the trend we fear and ruffle the feathers of Americans. But it's manageable. Alternatively, we can hope that it never happens, assume continued integration under an American banner, hope that our “tilt” toward the Indo-Pacific will make Washington feel like it owes us something in return, and wish that Americans are not voting for Trump. Getting by is overrated. I recommend door number one.

America is an ally, not a friend: this simple point is difficult for many in Whitehall to understand. The idea that America thinks we are “special,” or that we are pitting Greece against its Rome, makes us feel important. Wanting to feel important is a natural instinct, but must be controlled.

The most lenient ruling state in history is outwardly sentimental but also ruthless, with varying effectiveness and often ambivalent or worse toward our country. After all, it gained international prominence in part by weakening our economic strength and making our global position unaffordable.

At night, American leaders and officials marvel about Winston Churchill, the Atlantic Charter, our common language and the brave Britain that is there when the shooting begins. But in the cold day of the Oval Office, they do what they want. They have to take care of 300 million people.

Remember the end of Lend-Lease and Atomic Cooperation, or Sinn Féin, Grenada, the ICC, Palestine, the Paris Accords and the steel tariffs. Note that we barely influenced the way George W. Bush conducted his adventure in Iraq and recall France's rapid reconciliation with America after the “split” of the Iraq War.

Advice: Don't assume that America will do us a favor or risk its interests for us, as a friend would. Don't participate in military campaigns because you hope it will give Britain influence in Washington. Do not assume that this or that concession or policy will gain us credit in the future. It's not personal. This is about how great powers tend to behave. As Al Pacino's gangster says in Carlito's Way: “There ain't no friends in this shit.” »

Prepare for war, but don't be fatalistic: there is a lot of talk these days about how we have moved from a “pre-war” era to a “war” era. This is only half true. A major war is raging in Europe and, from Ukraine to Taiwan, the world is entering a new iron age. All this is true, and Britain must reaffirm its commitment to nuclear deterrence and look to its own capabilities and infrastructure to survive in such a world.

But we are not yet “at war”, and we will not necessarily be. To assume that war is approaching is dangerous fatalism. This encourages reckless and escalating risk-taking, such as no-fly zones against adversaries with greater stakes in a fight or attempts to sponsor “regime change.” We do not arm ourselves primarily to fight but to deter.

If the emergency is already there, it is probably irreversible

Anyone who attacks us will have to pay hell. But deterrence requires careful diplomacy as well as the ability to strike. And prudent diplomacy requires a mix of firmness and restraint. Our nuclear deterrent system, like our conventional deterrent, is not automatic. It depends on reciprocity: our rivals must trust that we will retaliate if they are attacked, but that we will not try to destroy them if they do not. Also be wary of “domino” thinking. We helped create NATO for good reason: not to defend everything, but to defend the North Atlantic region. We can strengthen its deterrence. To prevent war, we must take it more seriously.

Tip: Speak softly while carrying our big stick.

Mitigating climate extremes. Don't try to reform them: we are not going to persuade the awakened giants of Asia, India and China to abandon their industrial revolutions. You inherit at least a profound climate change. You must decide how Britain will respond with its scarce resources. If the emergency is already there, it is probably irreversible. The best we can do is slow this rise, while helping ourselves and others guard against it.

Tip: Rather than attempting a ruinous net zero overhaul, we should do things that reduce disruption and help the most vulnerable. Think flood defenses, hardened infrastructure and nuclear power plants, not low-traffic networks, driving or flying sanctions, meat bans or over-reliance on energy renewables, which will not meet our energy needs. We must prioritize what is achievable; for example, helping vulnerable island populations to relocate, rather than falsely promising to lower tides.

Instead of announcing grandiose new doctrines designed to make Britons feel important, it is time to demonstrate quiet but firm resolve, balancing our power and our commitments. This follows the best Labor tradition of Attlee and Bevan. This would indeed be very British realism.