Britain's strategic priorities have changed. Australia must take note

The Age

2 days ago

Last Monday, the British government formally launched its new National Security Strategy. Publication of the much-anticipated document came on the heels of the NATO summit a fortnight earlier, at which Britain, along with all other NATO members (except Spain) pledged to lift their defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP by 2034. Given domestic pressures on the budget in Britain and other NATO countries, that is probably unachievable. Nevertheless, there is now bipartisan agreement in the UK on an urgent need to significantly elevate defence spending over the coming decade. The National Security Strategy is premised on that expectation.
With Anthony Albanese visiting China this week, and as we await the outcome of the Colby review of AUKUS, Australian eyes are rightly focused on Beijing and Washington. Why should strategic decisions made in London matter to Australia?
The United Kingdom has long been, second only to the United States, our most important strategic partner: through the Five Eyes security network, the Five Power Defence arrangements, and now through AUKUS itself. This has also been our most longstanding military and intelligence relationship and – at a time of American unpredictability – our most reliable one.
A significant reorientation of the foreign policy of such an important ally – particularly when it involves a change of its approach to our region – matters a great deal.
The launch of the National Security Strategy coincided with the first anniversary of the election of Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government. Starmer's landslide victory, after a campaign in which he made himself the smallest possible target, was overwhelmingly driven by public contempt for what had become a comically dysfunctional Conservative government. Starmer's one-word slogan 'Change' captured the public mood but, in its very vacuousness, also demonstrated how anaemic Labour's offering was. The only message: 'We're not them.'
Domestically, Starmer has had a miserable first year. The economy is in an even worse condition than it was when he was elected; capital is fleeing in the face of punitive taxes; the number of illegal arrivals across the English Channel has exploded to 44,000 on Labour's watch. As his government marked its first anniversary, a backbench revolt forced it to abandon reforms to the welfare system, leading to a £5 billion fiscal hole which will undoubtedly be filled with yet higher taxes, accelerating the capital flight. It all has a very retro, 1970s feel.
The abysmal state of the nation is, naturally, reflected in opinion polls: Labour's support has collapsed to 23.9 per cent, nearly five points behind Nigel Farage's insurgent Reform Party. While the Tories remain a joke, Labour is already being seen as a failed experiment.
Yet amidst the domestic gloom, foreign policy has, to the surprise of many, emerged as Starmer's strong suit. What has stood out, in particular, has been his deft handling of Donald Trump – a feat that has eluded most world leaders. On Friday, it was announced that Trump will visit Scotland next month, where he will combine the opening of a new golf course with a bilateral meeting with Starmer. Then, later in the year, he will be flattered by the panoply of a full State visit, at the invitation of King Charles. Two visits in six months (plus an early and successful visit by Starmer to the White House) is pretty effective diplomacy. Some prime ministers can't even get a meeting.