It is clearly obvious that the next UK government will take office in a highly difficult foreign policy context given the impending general election. Concerns about climate change, China’s strong global agenda, wars in Gaza and Ukraine, and the longevity of US commitment to European security are just a few of the pressing issues that the next UK government will have to deal with. This study looks at the best ways for the incoming government to use its foreign policy tools in the face of capacity constraints, including budgetary ones, regardless of the party that wins the election.
“Realistic ambition” ought to serve as the cornerstone, with the UK acknowledging its limitations but continuing to be proactive and adaptable in its foreign policy. In particular, the paper outlines three long-term foreign policy priorities: navigating unpredictable great power dynamics complicated by growing Sino-US tensions; strengthening UK-EU relations, partly to mitigate the risk of diminished US engagement in Europe and partly to address policy gaps following Brexit; and reviving the UK’s historically strong role in global governance and international development.
In brief
1.] The future government in the UK will face difficult foreign policy decisions, regardless of the winning party in the general election. Due to the tremendous strain on public services, large debt interest payments, and low predicted economic growth, there won’t be much support for international relations. In addition, the UK must contend with challenging international issues such as an aggressive China, strained relations between China and the US, uncertainties regarding US commitment to European security, the conflict in Ukraine and the Russian threat, and a developing Middle East problem. Climate change, the dangers of emerging technologies, increasingly fragmented international trade, and deficiencies in arms control and pandemic preparedness are just a few of the ongoing issues.
2.] This research paper lays out three long-term goals for UK foreign policy, instead of offering recommendations in each of these areas. The first is managing unstable great power dynamics, as growing tensions between the US and China impede the UK’s diplomatic efforts globally and its relations with both nations. Enhancing the United Kingdom’s ties with Europe is the second priority. This is to tackle the possibility of the United States withdrawing from internationalism, protect against common threats like Russia, and bridge policy gaps resulting from Brexit.The third is making the UK more influential in international development and global governance. This entails forming alliances with a wide range of nations, including emerging economies, mid-sized powers, and several nations in the region commonly referred to as the “Global South,” in order to further British interests and offer the UK’s reputation and experience in solving global issues.
3.] This strategy is known as “realistic ambition”; the UK should be realistic about its resources and limitations, but it should also not minimize its clear advantages or withdraw from international affairs, which are vital to its own interests, values, and prosperity. In addition to offering substantial defense, diplomatic, cultural, and scientific resources, the UK has taken a leading role in maintaining European security. The multiplicity of issues abroad and their effects on the UK’s fortunes make an active and flexible foreign policy all the more necessary.
4.] First and foremost, the incoming UK administration will have to cooperate with a US that remains an important ally but is hesitant to take the lead in European security as it once did. Although the “special relationship” will continue, the US is growing less of a reliable partner as it becomes increasingly focused on other regions of the world and vulnerable to party differences. If Donald Trump wins the 2024 US presidential election, this will be evident right away, but even if he doesn’t, the trend is probably going to continue.More than ever, both of the main US political parties are leaning toward protectionism. Instead of pursuing an all-encompassing free-trade agreement that is unlikely to come to pass, the UK would be better served by concentrating on sector-specific agreements and ongoing collaborations on vital military and technological alliances. It must also strengthen its ties with Europe and other middle-sized nations around the world in order to protect itself from the unpredictable US.
5.] The incoming administration will also have to deal with a more assertive China. Trade relations with Beijing will continue to be crucial, and cooperation on international issues like debt from emerging nations, technology governance, and climate change will be preferred. However, striking a balance between safeguarding the UK and engaging in trade with China will be a challenge for the incoming administration. The UK will have to improve its ability to deal with economic pressure, intervention, and cyberattacks. It ought to hire or educate more experts on China and foster more cogent China-related decision-making amongst government agencies.It should also be pragmatic in regards to its larger Indo-Pacific plan. Previous aspirations for a “Indo-Pacific tilt” have been scaled back in recognition of the limitations imposed on the UK military. However, the UK would still be better off concentrating on strengthening ties with Australia, India, Japan, and South Korea in terms of commerce, security, and diplomacy, as well as executing agreed-upon defense programs like the AUKUS effort with the US and Australia.
6.] The upcoming UK government has the opportunity to improve the relationship with the European Union, which is the second priority. The UK has a significant voice in the defense of Europe thanks to the Conservative government’s strong backing of Ukraine, which has been upheld by three prime ministers since Russia’s invasion in 2022 and is repeated by the Labour opposition. This backing has enhanced the UK’s dialogue with other EU nations over shared dangers, hence creating an opportunity for a more positive exchange of ideas regarding relations after Brexit.Though the benefits to the economy and strategy would be relatively small, the UK has a few alternatives to strengthen the current Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), which is scheduled for review in 2026. It should be possible to work with the EU more closely on energy security and emissions trading programs. Above all, though, the UK would be well to recast its relationship with the EU in terms of greater cooperation in geopolitics and security.
7.] In these unstable times, the UK should continue to strive to play a significant role in global governance by supporting international order. The third priority is this. Despite being a medium-sized state, the UK is known for its skill and reputation in security, defense, and diplomacy. It has influence on foreign policy because of its partnerships and membership in multilateral organizations. With these advantages, the UK ought to take a consistent stance on international problems where it can be trusted, especially those pertaining to technological governance, international development, arms control, and climate change. In a broader sense, it ought to promote international law and order principles.The United Kingdom’s global standing has frequently been linked to these ideals, demonstrating the nation’s influence in molding global institutions and order since 1945. However, until the UK aligns its own domestic and international behavior more closely with the ideals it promotes, it will discover that this sphere of influence is out of reach due to a growing global constituency that challenges the supposed double standards of Western democracies.
8.] This proactive involvement in global governance may have other diplomatic advantages. The next UK government will face a more aggressive Global South, which includes some nations more likely to support China or Russia in opposing the international order, as well as a more powerful and engaged group of other mid-sized powers. Establishing common objectives is crucial for the UK to progress its global alliances and ties, particularly with regards to the substantive reform of multilateral and international financial institutions.
9.] Making the necessary financial decisions will be difficult. It is encouraging that the current administration plans to reach its goal of allocating 2.5 percent of GDP on defense by 2030. However, there is a chance that this pledge, made just before a close election and without a budget or other fiscal event that clarifies the trade-offs with other urgent issues, will push off making tough decisions about how to pay for expenditures and what to prioritize.Given the threats the UK confronts, especially from Russian aggression in Europe, and the holes in the country’s defense budget, it would be preferable to set a minimum objective of 3% of GDP for defense spending. The UK should, at the very least, keep an army that is capable of legitimately fulfilling its operational obligations to NATO in times of crisis. It must guarantee adequate funds for the Global Combat Air Programme involving Italy and Japan, as well as for AUKUS. The government needs to address the issues of insufficient recruitment and inefficient procurement, even in the event that defense spending in other areas is restricted. Prioritizing defense and strategic investments that support the development of vital technologies and bolster the UK’s scientific and research foundation should be its top priority.
10.] The UK’s global role requires the future administration to allocate a regular sum of money for overseas development. Restoring the UK to its former position of prominence in this area will be facilitated by bringing official development assistance back to 0.7% of GDP. But the UK should, at the very least, make its development investment more predictable. Given that hosting refugees and asylum seekers domestically accounts for a large portion of the foreign assistance budget, it should address the lack of transparency surrounding the aim of its aid funding.It should also take into account more consistent and reasonable expenditure on diplomatic capacity, which has historically received less attention from the government than spending goals for development and defense. Investing more in diplomatic capacity is necessary, not less, in light of the UK’s exit from the EU and the growing instability of the world stage.
11.] The UK general election was taken into consideration when writing this research report. It incorporates input from Chatham House research programs, associate fellows, internal and external advisers, and the UK in the World Programme’s advisory council, in addition to more than forty interviews and twelve roundtable discussions.2. Regardless of party, the incoming UK administration will have several obstacles and difficult problems. This paper provides alternatives and priorities for the people considering what the UK should do.