London witnessed in a short time two major events, the first occurred after Boris Johnson resigned as Prime Minister, there was a change of leadership in the “Conservative Party”, where he was replaced by new PM Liz Truss, and the second was after Queen Elizabeth II died and the throne was taken over by her son, Charles.
Of course, the direct impact of this ceremonial handing over of the torch over British politics is very limited. The Queen, who was keen to keep Buckingham Palace out of daily politics, the most important issue for her was the “Commonwealth” based on a voluntary basis. The “Commonwealth” is made up of 56 countries that were formerly under British colonial rule. For England, the new king as his mother will try to preserve the symbolic power of the royal family.
Britain’s exit from the European Union significantly reduced Britain’s exports as well as weakened Britain’s influence in European politics. Washington used to hasten to discuss with London, Berlin, and Paris when any issue related to Europe arises, but at the present time, we find London at the bottom of the list for Washington, due to the weak British influence in European politics. But this limited influence on European politics will continue through NATO.
Now an attempt is made to bridge the gap created by Brexit in the United Kingdom with the slogan “Global Britain”. The UK appears to be trying to fill the void left by the USA in the Middle East due to Washington’s focus on “Asia and the Pacific” to counter China. This is what we find in campaigns aimed at improving economic and political relations with the Arab Gulf regimes.
Britain’s global power had greatly diminished in the fifties of the last century, after the Suez Canal crisis in 1956, the features of the special relationship between the United States of America and Britain changed, and this change was at the expense of Britain, which became revolving in the American orbit.
Britain has been cautious in its relations with China, as despite the dissatisfaction of the United States of America, it has tended to participate in the “Belt and Road Initiative” project in China. One of the prime ministers at the time, David Cameron, called for a “golden age” in bilateral relations with Britain and China, and in the current situation, the UK is trying to stay closer to US policy towards China.
When Boris Johnson became prime minister, he said, “It is time to restore our natural and historic role as global Britain,” referring to the tension caused by the problems caused by Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. Known for his experience in history and foreign policy for illustrating the UK’s global standing in 10 years, the 114-page study Integrated Security, Defense, Development and Foreign Policy, titled “Global Britain in a Competitive Age” led by Pew, as is understood from the suggestions in the text that the UK prefers to adapt its policy The foreign policy with the US policy towards the Indo-Pacific, and the “Akos” agreement signed by the United Kingdom with the United States of America and Australia was a reflection of this policy.
The Integrated Study also highlights the need for increased British military deterrence, including “nuclear security” and “cyber security”. The review classifies Russia as an active threat while calling China a “systemic competitor.” Although a softer language is used towards China compared to Russia, analysts point to the proximity of the “integrated study” to the Biden administration’s security and defense strategy documents that focus on the Indo-Pacific region.
British Prime Minister Liz Truss, when she was Foreign Secretary, stated that NATO should cover the Indo-Pacific region – in the context of defending Taiwan – and wanted the G7 to act as the “economic NATO”, and when Truss became prime minister she promised to increase military expenditures. 3% of GDP in 10 years.
There are Britons who call for expanding the “Group of Seven Industrial Nations” into ten countries by including India, Australia, and South Korea. So it appears that the “Global Britain” emphasized in the “integral study” intends to frame London’s special relationship with the United States under the terms of “great-power competition” or a “new Cold War” – as the United States desires.