Global Role of Post-Brexit Britain: the Integrated Review
Many commentators have questioned how Britain will position itself globally after leaving the European Union. Now that the deal has been done and Britain has officially left, how the nation views itself will be key to understanding what role it will seek to play and what resources it can marshal to fulfill that role.
Its recent defence review is a key document for highlighting Britain’s strategic interests for the next decade. Titled Global Britain in a Competitive Age, the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy already harks to a key point for Brexiteers – creating a ‘Global Britain’. Prime Minister Boris Johnson emphasised the theme of the review in his foreword, arguing that Britain will prioritise “agility and speed of action,” in responding to international issues and further emphasised “enhancing (Britain’s) prosperity and security”.
Indo-Pacific Tilt
Three key features stand out from the review. A major one is entitled “The Indo-Pacific tilt: a framework,” which identifies the Indo-Pacific region as a key area for strategic and economic development. Historically a domain more dominated by the US, India and China, and other regional powers such as Australia, Japan and the Philippines, the ‘tilt’ recognises that this geographical region will become vitally important over the next century. As many observers argue, the demographic advantage that Asia holds over the West may soon be joined by a financial and military advantage.
For Britain, developing strong alliances and infrastructures in the region will be key to establishing favorable post-Brexit trade agreements and economic opportunities. Furthermore, by seeking to be “the European partner with the broadest and most integrated presence in the Indo-Pacific,” Britain will try and position itself as separate from Europe, solidifying a role for itself in the region, post-Brexit — one that, while working with partners such as France and Germany, will be uniquely British directed and controlled. A major concern will be Britain’s ability to respond to crises in the European and Middle Eastern theatres. Within the review, there are a number of changes to Britain’s defence structure, including a reduction in the number of soldiers, tanks, fighter jets and tanks – leading to the potential for overstretching.
Science, Technology and Cyber Warfare
A second key feature is the recognition of the importance of developing science and technology, especially in regard to defence. Recognising the wide range of asymmetric threats, from Russian hacking campaigns to the increasing prevalence of unmanned drones, the review acknowledges the need to rapidly modernise the armed forces so that they can respond better to these asymmetric threats and the future ones that are yet to exist. This ties in with a wider desire to ensure Britain’s standing as a “Science and Technology Superpower”.
The combination of greater investment in science and technology, particularly in the realm of cyber offence and defence, in the form of the proposed National Cyber Force, combined with a decrease in traditional armed force capabilities is a recognition of the nature of modern threats facing Britain. This will require funding and establishing a working infrastructure, from universities to private companies, that can research and develop new ways for Britain to fight and defend itself, ideally contributing to a modernisation of the economy and an improvement in Britain’s strategic position. Increasing demand for cybersecurity experts, risk analysts and top researchers should make Britain a highly attractive place for top global minds to come and contribute.
China
A third key feature is China. Although Russia is recognised as “the most acute direct threat to the UK,” it is China that is singled out as a systemic threat to Britain’s position. By calling China a “systemic competitor,” the review follows a distinctly US-led line, acknowledging the threat China potentially poses to Britain, and the wider West’s, economic and military superiority. However, a combination of this designation with the “Indo-Pacific tilt” may lead to a great power competition in a region Britain is less equipped to deal with immediately. Key to both the Indo-Pacific tilt and Britain’s wider global interests will be how Britain treats China and how China responds to an increasingly crowded region. Recent tit-for-tat sanctions between Britain and China highlight the fine line Britain must take in standing up for human rights and democracy globally and acknowledging the growing influence and power China holds on the world stage.
Conclusion
The Integrated Review is Britain’s strategic plan for a future where traditional powers have subsided, be it both diplomatically and militarily. Planning for unknown future asymmetric threats and growing great powers will be key for Britain to maintain its already world-class diplomatic and military apparatus and solidify its role going forward after Brexit. It will also provide a road map for individuals and businesses globally to understand where Britain’s future interests lie and how they can be of use.
Bibliography
https://www.rusi.org/commentary/integrated-review-how-does-it-stack
https://bfpg.co.uk/2021/03/integrated-review-10-things/
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/asia-pacific/why-the-future-is-asian#
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56477900
Data Sources:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.TOTL.P1?locations=GB https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/business/businessinnovation/datasets/foreigndirectinvestmentinvolvingukcompaniesoutwardtables

 
     
    