There is a perpetual battle being fought across Whitehall between those for whom foreign policy stops at Dover and those who understand the global nature of trade and alliances and the requirement to secure them. Not surprisingly, most naval officers are in the latter group. We tend to think that the UK should be able to project power far away for many reasons.
To begin with, foreign trade in goods and services represents more than 60 per cent of our GDP. Nearly all those goods move by ship or seabed connections, and nearly all those services are nowadays dependent on undersea connections too. Without maritime power, most of our economy is hostage to fortune – it can only function with the consent of others.
Then there is the matter of alliances. It’s best, of course, to deter enemies and not have wars. Strong alliances make for strong deterrence: but this means that allies must be able to defend each other, not just themselves. The ability to take action away from home is necessary here. And we belong to other alliances than just Nato: we have just signed a new defence treaty with Australia, for example. There are others in the Indo-Pacific who should be able to rely on our assistance, as we have been able to rely on theirs. We should not forget Michael Joseph Savage, New Zealand’s prime minister in 1939, who made this statement when Britain declared war on Germany:
“Both with gratitude for the past and confidence in the future, we range ourselves without fear beside Britain. Where she goes, we go. Where she stands, we stand.”
Friends like that are worth defending when it’s their turn to be in trouble. Australia and New Zealand are also both part of the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance along with us, the US and Canada. If you don’t think the Five Eyes alliance is important to the UK’s security, I can only put it like this: you are wrong.
There is a perpetual battle being fought across Whitehall between those for whom foreign policy stops at Dover and those who understand the global nature of trade and alliances and the requirement to secure them. Not surprisingly, most naval officers are in the latter group. We tend to think that the UK should be able to project power far away for many reasons.
To begin with, foreign trade in goods and services represents more than 60 per cent of our GDP. Nearly all those goods move by ship or seabed connections, and nearly all those services are nowadays dependent on undersea connections too. Without maritime power, most of our economy is hostage to fortune – it can only function with the consent of others.
Then there is the matter of alliances. It’s best, of course, to deter enemies and not have wars. Strong alliances make for strong deterrence: but this means that allies must be able to defend each other, not just themselves. The ability to take action away from home is necessary here. And we belong to other alliances than just Nato: we have just signed a new defence treaty with Australia, for example. There are others in the Indo-Pacific who should be able to rely on our assistance, as we have been able to rely on theirs. We should not forget Michael Joseph Savage, New Zealand’s prime minister in 1939, who made this statement when Britain declared war on Germany:
“Both with gratitude for the past and confidence in the future, we range ourselves without fear beside Britain. Where she goes, we go. Where she stands, we stand.”
Friends like that are worth defending when it’s their turn to be in trouble. Australia and New Zealand are also both part of the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance along with us, the US and Canada. If you don’t think the Five Eyes alliance is important to the UK’s security, I can only put it like this: you are wrong.