Following the success of Brexit, Johnson has been shaking up foreign and security policy to vy for a ‘global Britain’ i.e. a Britain that is now an independent state seeking to make bold geopolitical power moves. With many experts arguing that the UK has, for a while, needed a more coordinated national security, Brexit has opened opportunities for Johnson to gain grounding in the geopolitical sphere through Britain’s foreign affairs. Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, Johnson revealed a strategy paper named The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy in order to define Britain’s new global role post-EU. If implemented correctly, critics dubbed the strategy as a reminder of British strategic seriousness, giving Britain a new-found grounding in the geopolitical sphere.
Rejection of the National Security Council
As per May’s government, Johnson’s initial approach was to continue to neglect the National Security Council, an independent foreign decision-making body that has been central to dealing with security threats such as terrorism, the risk of cyber and nuclear attacks, and risk of natural and mass destruction hazards. Under Johnson’s leadership, meetings have become less and less frequent. Afterall, the effectiveness of the NSC is entirely dependent on the government’s willingness to work strategically with it. The NSC was originally created in 2010 in response to the disastrous foreign policy decisions made by the Blair administration and Blair’s “sofa governance” (each ministry working on their own corner and Blair making decisions with no coordinated advice) approach to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. With Johnson waging for a more powerful leadership and bringing to the table his previous experience as foreign secretary, we can predict a more centralised decision-making approach, but this may not be the best for defending national security, as learnt from the Blair administration. Without expert advisors playing a key-role, a neglect of the NSC could be extremely costly for the foreign policy coordination that the UK needs to truly gain its ‘Global Britain’ image.
The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.
In light of the UK’s departure from the European Union, Boris Johnson revealed a strategy paper outlining a new security and defence plan for Britain over the next 5 years. As the PM stated himself, the paper comes at a time when the UK needs to begin to level up to more advanced competition in order to outline the UK’s plan to ‘tread their own path’ as a newly independent state. In the paper, the PM acknowledges the rising threat of China, as well as terrorism, climate change and the potential of another pandemic.
In the paper, Johnson has outlined his search beyond the continent for reinforced security partnerships. Johnson has acknowledged the threat of Russia being the ‘biggest’ to UK security and is likely to strengthen the UK’s NATO commitments. The prime minister has also unveiled plans to prioritise diplomatic engagement with the Indo-Pacific region, in order to vy for power in the gravity centre of geopolitical and economic affairs.
In his post-Brexit security talks, Johnson considered the risks posed by a more hegemonic China but assured a positive trade and investment relationship with Beijing. The PM has faced attacks from opposition politicians, such as Keir Starmer, for an inconsistent stance towards China. Johnson openly vowed a positive relationship with China without acknowledging the human rights violations carried out in the country, which seriously questions Johnson’s diplomatic values. Johnson is now even facing pressure from his own party to assert a more combative stance against China in light of Xi Jinping’s genocidal policies against the Uighur minority. Although pressure from the US is requiring Johnson to confront the increasing domination of China, Johnson’s cabinet has made it clear that it would be unwise to return to Cold War hostilities with China. With Johnson also pledging to work with China on green policy, it has come into question which allies and which policy area he will choose to prioritise. Johnson’s U-turn on the Ban of Huawei just 5 months after vowing to allow them may be telling which he chooses, particularly as the move followed Trump’s sanctions. Growing appeal to work closely with the US on a trade deal and Russia, Johnson may be forced to abandon his cabinet and his climate promises, which may be costly to him electorally, in order to take on a stronger global standing.
With regards to NATO operations, Johnson stated an unwavering commitment to NATO and preserving peace and security in Europe and the US. Throughout the previous US Presidential term, Johnson was extremely friendly with Donald Trump. A ‘special relationship’ was due to mirror exactly that of Blair and Bush. The US has always been a key ally to the UK. In terms of foreign and military operations, it appears Johnson is still keen to uphold the UK’s relationship with the US under the Biden administration, perhaps deriving from a fondness for his place of birth, the nationalism the country has always exhibited and most importantly from a strategic keenness for allyship with the world’s leading superpower. Johnson’s rise in geo-politics is nothing but inspired by his allies across the Atlantic. As Johnson competes for international power, we can expect more presidential-style governance in line with his American allies.
With Trump now out of the picture, Johnson knows that he needs Biden’s allyship to enhance his image on the world stage. Particularly in combating the threat of Russia, Johnson is required to use NATO operations to his advantage in order to apply pressure on Putin. Alternatively, Johnson is already seen independently trying to tease Putin. In June, Johnson defended a naval ship sailing through the Black Sea as part of a freedom of navigation operation in respect of international maritime law. Johnson has made it clear that he rejects the annexation of Crimea, in keeping with the international community, and with the Russian military responding with firearms, it is clear that this is just the beginning of Johnson prioritising security strategies to maintain a close relationship with the US in combating the threat of Russia.
UK Arms Industry
Over the past decade, the UK has supplied arms to two-thirds of countries classified as “not free” due to their dire record of human rights and civil liberties. These include countries such as Libya, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. In 2019, investigations into the UK’s involvement in the Yemeni conflict, Johnson was accused of having a central role in supplying £880m of munitions to Riyadh during his two-year tenure in the Foreign Office. As of 2020, a year into Johnson’s time as PM, the UK remains the second-largest arms dealer in the world, and with Johnson’s track record of involving the UK in an arms deal with Saudi Arabia, his time in Whitehall is likely to see advancements to this.
Saudi Arabia and the Yemeni conflict
Johnson’s vow to commit to international development has therefore brought him under particular scrutiny. Upon further analysis of Johnson’s peace talks, the PM’s moral compass has been questioned regarding the dealing of arms to Saudi Arabia and cutting aid to Yemen. Despite sales being halted following a landmark Supreme Court ruling that held the government accountable for the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, the UK-Saudi arms deal has resumed facaded by a “revised methodology”. Johnson’s government has justified their support of arms sales to Saudi Arabia on the basis that the proven attacks on civilians are “isolated”. Whilst Johnson made these excuses, Saudi Arabia’s weapons, despite being precision munitions, have been the cause of attacks on schools, people attending weddings and funerals and those being treated for cholera. Therefore, further analysis indicates that the civilian atrocities are, in no way, isolated from Saudi operations in Yemen. Like Trump, Johnson has made thought-out political and economic calculations about involving the UK in an arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Evidently, international humanitarian development is not a priority to Johnson’s government despite stating such in the post-Brexit strategy.
As per his defence as foreign secretary, Johnson is choosing to continue the weapon sales over human rights considerations, perhaps to mirror the moves from Trump, his good friend and ally in an attempt to match the US’ geo-political standing. Though the moral responsibility does not lie in the hands of the courts, it is clear Johnson will still find legal loopholes to justify his enablement of war crimes abroad to appease his political agenda. Similar to his predecessors, there is also economical will; with the defence industry employing directly and indirectly tens of thousands of Brits, Johnson will be seen taking an institutional approach to the defence industry. His critics would be correct in naming his leadership style as a “vacuum of beliefs”. Johnson is a politician whose morals will wax and wane accordingly.
Johnson has also committed to increasing the UK’s nuclear warheads possession to 260, of which the Foreign Security of Johnson’s cabinet deemed the ultimate insurance policy against the worst threat from hostile states.
Tempest
As part of his vy for dominance on the geo-political stage, Johnson has made bids to create a world-leading fighter pilot, Tempest. He confirmed the £6.5bn 4-year long financial project to invest in “cutting edge” security capabilities. To gain dominance as leader of a post-Europe nation, this will give Johnson a chance to compete for a strategic edge against the likes of Germany and France that are in the process of developing the new Eurofighter.