Nick Timothy

With Aukus, ‘Global Britain’ is taking shape

As the French make fools of themselves, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh. The Aukus treaty, President Macron insists, is a humiliation because France was not invited to join. But in signing the treaty, his ministers say, Britain is becoming a “vassal” of the United States.

The country that demands a European army to counter American power, declares Nato “brain-dead”, and seeks European “strategic autonomy”, has recalled its US ambassador because America and Britain agreed to share secret nuclear submarine technology with Australia.

French histrionics reflect commercial frustration, the proximity of a presidential election, and geopolitical anxiety. The EU wants to avoid choosing sides between America and China. France wants to secure its future as a Pacific Ocean power.

Paris, long paranoid about British perfidy and exclusive “Anglo-saxon” alliances, has lost a submarine contract with Australia worth tens of billions. Macron faces embarrassment before an independence referendum in New Caledonia, the French Pacific territory with vast nickel reserves.

More important than the strop is the substance. Aukus is a partnership between allies who have, for over a century, sent soldiers to fight and die together, and, through the Five Eyes intelligence relationship, trusted one another with valuable secrets. Now, the three countries will share knowledge not only about submarines, but the future of warfare itself: cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence and quantum technology.

The spectre of China looms over the deal, of course, but the agreement reveals further details about Britain’s foreign policy after Brexit. With Aukus, the application to join the trans-pacific free trade area known as CPTPP, the deployment of the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier in the Pacific, and the response, co-ordinated with Canada and Australia, to China’s assault on the rights of Hong Kongers, the future is becoming clearer.

Most obvious is the recognition that Asia and the Pacific are now central to world affairs: economic strength, international trade and raw political power are shifting eastward. The recent Integrated Security Review promised “by 2030, we will be deeply engaged in the Indo-pacific as the European partner with the broadest, most integrated presence in support of trade, security and values”.

The region, in the words of the Integrated Review, is “the world’s growth engine”. It is home to half the world’s people, 40 per cent of its GDP, and some of its fastest-growing populations. It accounts for 17.5 per cent of UK global trade and 10 per cent of foreign investment here: numbers that will grow, and grow faster when accession to CPTPP is agreed. And the region is vital to our supply chains’ resilience, a challenge made clearer by the pandemic.

But the Indo-pacific is not simply home to opportunity and prosperity. It is also home to challenge and danger, most obviously in the form of an increasingly aggressive China. Many Indo-pacific countries seek partners to counter the danger.

Such is the size of China, and the scope of its economic challenge, geopolitical reach and military threat, a security guarantee from the United States is no longer enough for Pacific countries, nor is it necessarily on offer. In military exercises conducted by the Pentagon, China would defeat the US in every simulation of a Pacific war. So America is looking for allies to contain the threat while anxious Pacific powers invest in defence and security.

There is no getting away from the fact that trade and security are linked. It takes hard power to defend international trading routes and rules, and countries keen for a bigger role in Pacific trade might have to do more to guarantee peace. Correspondingly, countries prepared to contribute to the security of the region – as Britain is through Aukus – will grow closer to important trading partners there.

It is important to note, however, that Aukus is not a “new Nato”. There is no collective security clause, tying Britain into conflict in particular circumstances. The treaty is about capabilities, and pooling expertise that would otherwise have remained secret. If China attacks Taiwan, the treaty would not force Britain to become a belligerent in a subsequent conflict, as Theresa May worried in Parliament last week, although it is surely sensible for allied powers to give China reason to check itself before launching an attack.

Neither is Aukus the whole story of a counter-china policy. There are already overlapping alliances – like the Five Eyes and the Quad, the alliance between the US, India, Japan and Australia – and Britain and others will need further such agreements. The cultural commonality of the Anglosphere countries can help, but alliances rest on shared interests and, sometimes, shared values. Britain will do more with the US and Australia, and Canada, too, and it will seek alliances with powers such as India, Japan and Indonesia.

We will still work closely with European allies. We face common threats, from Russia and China to Islamist terrorism. But it will take leadership, and the passage of time, for Britain and France to restore their relationship.

Paris cannot be surprised it was excluded from the Aukus treaty. It has persistently sought to challenge US leadership while lacking the power to do so. It is not trusted as the Five Eyes partners trust one another. Brussels reached an investment agreement with China, and pressed ahead with the Nord Stream 2 project with Russia, despite opposition from America. It excluded Britain from the Galileo satellite project and boasted it would partition Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. Even now, in its humiliation, France taunts Britain and claims we are irrelevant.

The truth is the opposite. Britain is making itself a bigger player in the Pacific. It is set to become a member of the region’s fast-growing free trade area. It is creating and deepening alliances beyond Nato and the EU. It is showing agility and versatility in its post-brexit foreign policy. It is putting itself at the forefront of the development of new military technologies. The sceptics asked what Global Britain meant, and we are beginning to see the answer.

Paris cannot be surprised it was excluded from the treaty. It has persistently sought to challenge US leadership