Ellwood: Britain faces most dangerous threats since Cold War as PM pursues strategic ambiguity on China
The world has experienced a few revolutions since the last comprehensive review of our defence and security capabilities was published in 2015. These are certainly worrying times, tainted with a 1930’s feel to the challenges we face: rising authoritarianism, global recession, weak international institutions unable to hold errant states to account and an absence of western leadership.
So, the government’s long-awaited publication is a welcome confirmation of the modern threats we face, our ambitions on the international stage and necessary commitment to upgrade our hard power credentials.
The review covers a lot of ground and is broadly welcomed, giving clarity to our post-Brexit economic vision including an ambition to become an emerging technology global leader, a pioneer in green technology and explore new trading opportunities in the Indo-pacific.
There is significant emphasis on protecting our complex digital world as our growing reliance on the internet has opened up a new dimension of threat. And a wider commitment work with allies to rebuild alliances and repair the dated international rules-based order, leveraging our leading role in the G7 presidency and hosting the COP 26 climate change conference.
In welcoming the broad thrust of the Integrated Review, I have three fundamental concerns: Increase in our nuclear arsenal, the demise of our conventional hard power and finally our strategy towards China.
Taking those in order; firstly, it is unclear why we need to purchase more nuclear warheads. Our current nuclear submarine-based deterrent is being upgraded but the Government must explain why we required 40 per cent more missiles. Has the threat changed? If so how? And the major strategic shift of responding to non-nuclear threats such as mass Chemical, Bio or Cyber-attacks warrants a wide public debate.
Secondly, the Ministry of Defence’s tilt towards the digital domain and the pursuit of unmanned aerial vehicles, such as drones, robots and autonomous platforms to counter emerging threats is welcomed but this should not be at the cost of conventional capability.
As the nature of conflict changes of course we must adapt. But the arrival of new threats does not mean old ones have disappeared.
Post conflict stabilisation, training commonwealth allies or delivering humanitarian relief cannot be delivered by drones. None of the planned untested military equipment will come on line for years.
In the meantime, we are cutting troop numbers, tanks, fighting vehicles, typhoons, F35’s and frigates to pay for it. The world has never been more dangerous than since the Cold War. With threats diversifying and becoming more complex, we must not drop our guard.
If the pandemic has taught us anything it’s the need for military resilience and versatility. And if we are to protect our new trading interests that requires force presence and upstream engagement.
Finally, China. The West’s assumption, over the last decade was that China would mature into an internationally responsible citizen embracing global standards of transparency, democracy and rule of law. We now realise this will not happen.
China continues to leverage its own interpretation of international rules to further its authoritarian influence. Ever more countries are ensnared into China’s technological and economic programmes which they can ill afford. Left unchecked we slide inexorably towards a competing bi-polar world. I was hoping for a “Fulton Missouri” moment from the Prime Minister, a reference to Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech where warned the world of the Soviet ideological threat to the West.
Instead strategic ambiguity will continue. It seems China is too big to challenge.