How do you take part in someone else’s historical moment? Christopher Coker, a sharp observer of world affairs, posed this question last spring, speaking at an event at RUSI. He asked it in the context of the unipolar moment – when the United States “was really the only country in town” – and how we tried to prove ourselves useful to the Americans in order to take part in their Place in the Sun. The question informs a larger one that no one in British politics has yet answered, even though the answer should inform every foreign policy discussion we have in this country: what is the UK’s role in the Pacific Century?
I believe it is more correct to call the 21st Century the ‘Pacific’, rather than the ‘Asian’ century, as the United States will continue to play a dominant role. And the strategy to play that role is relatively simple for them: continue what they’ve been doing in the region since 1945, only with greater resources and more adroitness. The United Kingdom is not blessed with such strategic clarity, however, which poses a challenge to the British political class, as they are used to taking their ideas about foreign policy from America.
We need to come up with an answer to The Question fast because it will influence everything else this country does from its relationship with the United States to its approach towards Europe to the composition of the armed forces.
The Student
October 12, 2011
Aaron,
Given the fiscal situations in most Western governments right now, I think the UK role in the Pacific century will be a bit more assertive than its role in the “American half-century.” NATO has been basically a US defensive umbrella hung over Europe, but going forward I think we can expect it to become a true military alliance as the US cuts defense expenditures (by how much remains to be seen).
The difference is that while many NATO countries have been acting in support of US operations (after all, how do you say no to the friend who keeps watch when you need to take a nap?), strategic decision-making will be a much more collaborative venture under an alliance of equals. The US, Canada, UK, and France would form the backbone of the alliance, and thus the most influence over policy, but it’s not like other NATO countries will give up the pooled resources of a military alliance (especially as they face budget issues) when they don’t get their way.
Ironically, as the UK presumably heads into an era of cutting military capabilities, it will have a larger role in international security via its place in NATO. The Alliance will rely less on overwhelming US military capacity and more on pooled resources, with European forces taking a larger role in deployments while depending on the US to compensate for any missing capabilities or assets (as we saw in Libya). With only about 5 member states meeting the defense spending requirements of the alliance, NATO won’t become an unmanageable mess of competing voices (*cough* US Congress), but rather a US-Canada-UK-France alliance with everyone else as hangers-on.
purpleslog
October 16, 2011
NATO is a non-player in the Pacific. Constricting finances will reduce the freedom of action of NATO members even more so. NATO and the UK will not be a significant player in the Pacific.
Maybe the UK should give the Ark Royal to the India Navy and provide officers and petty officers to train up the Indians.
Dangerous Dave
December 2, 2011
@Purpleslog: Isn’t Canada a NATO member? What happens if it needs aid in response to activity off it’s Pacific Coast, isn’t that a NATO matter? On a broader context, surely the UK’s involvement in the Pacific region is going to revolve around Commonwealth allies, Australia and Canada spring to mind. Of course, the Commonwealth is quiescent at the moment, but if the situation in the South China Sea starts to threaten Australia, they are likely to ask for support. So, if the UK *wants* a role in Pacific affairs – that would be the way into it. Of course if the UK *doesn’t want* a Pacific role, we could just let Canada and Australia and our other Pacific Dominions become US client states instead . . .