27 Jun The Election Debate on…International Partnerships

When the Integrated Review was released in 2021, it ‘tilted’ the UK’s official international focus towards the Indo-Pacific, under the premise that the region was increasingly central to global security and prosperity. Since then, a slew of announcements – from the establishment of the AUKUS partnership, to the UK joining the CPTPP and securing dialogue partner status in ASEAN – have seen the UK cement the region as a priority for its military, economic and diplomatic resources. But will this focus endure post-election? What other regions might emerge as a priority under the next administration? And what might a shift mean for our international partners?

Even while the Integrated Review Refresh, published in 2023, placed renewed emphasis back on Europe, the Indo-Pacific has remained a firm priority for the Conservatives. In their manifesto too, not only do the Conservatives look to celebrate their achievements in the Indo-Pacific, but they also commit to a continued focus on the region – activities include strengthening ties with Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam and Singapore, as well as finalising a free trade agreement with India. 

For Labour, however, the Indo-Pacific is less firmly embedded in its psyche. Indeed, while Labour has pledged to ‘build on (the Conservatives’) commitment to the Indo-Pacific’, it is clear that the Indo-Pacific is a more of a cursory focus. A 44-page pamphlet produced in 2023 by Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy, for example, mentioned the Indo-Pacific just four times and critiqued the ‘Indo-Pacific tilt’ as ‘more rhetoric than substance’. When it comes to defence too, Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey has repeatedly emphasised that the UK’s ‘first obligations and most acute threats lie in Europe’, while also acknowledging that the UK can’t be a strong fighting force in the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific simultaneously. It is Europe, then, which is the firm foreign policy priority for Labour, and, given finite resources, this will ultimately limit the UK’s ambition in the Indo-Pacific.

This is not to say that Labour would backtrack on the UK’s existing commitments in the Indo-Pacific. AUKUS in particular is seen as increasingly important to the UK’s national security, and will become even more so if Trump wins the US Presidency and US-China relations rapidly deteriorate. Labour has also made significant efforts in recent months to build relationships with India, with multiple Shadow Cabinet Ministers taking the time to visit, and including a pledge to seek a new strategic partnership with India – including finalising the UK-India Free Trade Agreement – in its manifesto.

In part this is likely strategic, given support for Labour has waned among British Indians in recent years. However, it also reflects Labour’s mantra of so-called ‘progressive realism’ – a belief that in an increasingly turbulent geopolitical context the UK can’t afford to only work with nations who always think and act like us. This mantra for Labour’s approach to partnerships is, for example, reflected in Labour’s willingness to engage with Gulf nations, and particularly in Labour’s approach to the Israel-Hamas conflict, which places significant emphasis on Labour’s commitment to ‘shake the hands we need for peace’. Indeed, for Labour, the Indo-Pacific is not a firm priority in and of itself, in the way that it is for the Conservatives, but individual nations may become strategically important in its pursuit of this ‘progressive realism’.

While certainly more values-focused, ‘progressive realism’ has its similarities with the Conservatives’ strategic approach to such powers, which was termed ‘patient diplomacy’ by former Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, and called for the UK to prioritise long-term, strategic engagement with non-traditional so-called ‘middle ground powers’. In the Conservative manifesto we can indeed see a commitment to strengthening relations with the Gulf and Middle East, ‘based on an appreciation of regional perspectives and shared interests’. For both parties, the recognition of cultural differences and realism about the current geopolitical environment are therefore a key part of their foreign policy, and their approach to international partnerships. 

Notably, both parties also place a growing emphasis on the Commonwealth as a network of value. The Conservative manifesto includes a commitment to strengthen the Commonwealth by enhancing the benefits of membership, strengthening intra-Commonwealth trade, and strengthening members’ climate resilience. Labour’s manifesto provides less detail on its plans for the Commonwealth, but Lammy has repeatedly asserted his ambitions to strengthen relations with the Commonwealth based on a principle of mutual respect. Similarly, both parties have taken similar approaches to emphasising their desire to continue to collaborate through multilateral institutions, in particular the G7, UN and NATO.

However, when it comes to other regional approaches, neither party has provided a huge amount of detail. Labour’s manifesto commits to delivering a ‘new approach to the (African) continent’, based on mutual benefit and reflective of a desire to alter the inequitable power dynamics on which Labour believes the UK has previously engaged with Africa. Meanwhile, the Conservative manifesto provides some detail (more so than Labour’s) on its approach to the British Overseas Territories, and includes plans to sign partnership agreements with each of the British Overseas Territories.

Broadly however, the lack of detail on wider ambitions for the UK’s international partnerships will no doubt be disappointing to many of our allies, who are eager to understand what the general election might mean for their relationship with the UK. But it also isn’t hugely surprising – bilateral relations are hardly top of the public’s concerns, and with war raging on the European continent, it is hard, particularly for opposition parties who don’t have access to the full suite of civil service expertise, to look much beyond existing key partnerships. Inevitably, these will be ironed out with time, and the next government, of whatever stripe, will no doubt strive to secure a wide range of partnerships for the UK. How concentrated these may be in either the Indo-Pacific or European region will, however, depend on the election result.