The Guardian’s view of defense and foreign policy: An old-fashioned view of the future Editorial | Opinion

Integrated Overview The answer to the challenges of the 21st century – sometimes, even anaerobic – presents old data. His intention is commendable: acknowledging that trying to defend the status quo is not enough, and trying to find a way forward. This poses a number of threats to the UK. From epidemics to cyber attacks in the future – and serious investment in science and technology is needed. But overall, the “global UK” offers a long view of a country re-emerging east of Suez, marrying the symbolic power of an aircraft carrier, and considering. A nuclear reaction To cyber threats.

Policy paper In short, it is the answer to three major changes: the rise of China, the associated but wider decline of the current world order, and Brexit. Two of these democracies around the world. But the last one is a self-inflicted wound, which the government seems determined to deepen. And the need to deal with the first two is not a third solution in itself, as this policy paper sometimes imagines.

The plan essentially recognizes the move, which, under the leadership of George Osborne, is already moving in the wrong direction, far from a “golden age” towards an already tough and serious approach to China, and The fact of the matter is that the parameters will be set for us from the strictest point of view. Especially the United States. It acknowledges that we must engage in issues such as climate change, and that we are not in a new Cold War – we live in a globalized economy – although many are more likely to decline than expected. Is.

But it does not try to explain how the UK can square off the scope of investment while avoiding immovable Chinese influence and promoting regional unity. Australia is at the moment You know what happens When Beijing is angry with the strategic shift.

Leaning toward the Pacific – like Barack Obama’s “Axis of Asia” – may fail to live up to its promise. But it is true that the UK has paid insufficient attention to Asia, and it is wise to pursue strong ties with the five-eyed nations and other democratic parties in the region. These relationships can sometimes get in trouble. India is the largest democracy in the world, but under Narendra Modi it looks less democratic. Achieving a new partnership could be “instead” instead of “.” Yet the UK is holding back old, trustworthy, large-scale like-minded friends with clear common interests. The review is written almost as if the European Union does not exist, preferring to mention individual member states. This sounds particularly childish when he also identifies Russia as an “active threat.” Nor is it likely – even if the UK joins the Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement – that thousands of miles away could fully compensate for the loss of trade with the European Union, which has seen the UK increase its exports by 5.6 per cent. Has recorded a loss of billions of dollars. In January. Matters of geography.

Behind the review statements is a country that has failed to reconcile its words and intentions with its actions. The UK prides itself on its soft power and speaks of upholding the rule of law internationally – yet when it deems it easy, it declares itself happy to break international law. Although the paper promises to restore the commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on aid when “the financial situation allows”, the budget cuts are hurting not only the UK’s position, but also global Security and stability too.

Surprisingly, after 30 years of gradual disarmament after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and despite its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Britain is increasing its grip on its nuclear arsenal. United Nations Elders And others, and Bewildered by analysts. Mr. Johnson Not borrowed to explain Why.

The review asks the right questions. While Biden has led the United States back to multilateralism, his predecessors have shown that the long-term parameters of US policy cannot predict as much as Britain once did. The old beliefs are gone. But new challenges cannot be met by turning to nuclei and aircraft carriers. The government should have looked closer at home and worked more boldly for future solutions.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *