Global Britain

Debate between Bob Stewart and Bob Seely

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely]

I very much respect what my hon. Friend says. I am just nervous about this, “Oh, we’re terribly unimportant nowadays” argument. We are not a superpower and have not been since the 1950s. China is the new superpower and the United States of America, our closest ally, is a current superpower. But there are a series of great powers underneath that level, including France, Germany and Japan, and rising ones such as Brazil and Indonesia. Arguably, because of our varied and integrated assets—our language and culture, and the military in which my hon. Friend served—we are still a great power, and perhaps the most leading one.

[Bob Stewart]

I am not going to argue with my hon. Friend about the semantics, because I agree with him. There is a level below the superpower of which we are most definitely a member.

I firmly believe that our participation in the United Nations really helps us to have influence in the world; and if we get it right, we get it very right. We were a founding member of the United Nations in 1945, which then—75 years ago—was an organisation that reflected the power politics of that time. Now there are 193 members and the United Nations is honestly the world Parliament, albeit a flawed one just as we are flawed here. It is the best we’ve got.

The most important United Nations organ is the Security Council, which consists of five permanent members. As everyone probably knows, they are the United States, Russia, China, France and ourselves. We were all allies in the second world war, and incidentally we are all nuclear-capable. Any one of the permanent members of the Security Council can veto a resolution to prevent its adoption, regardless of the fact that it may have majority support among the 15 members because the Security Council includes 10 non-permanent members, with five being elected each year to serve for a two-year period.

Critics quite rightly say, “Things have moved on. You’re looking at something that was relevant in 1945 and things have a hugely changed since then.” They are right. In a way, the United Nations is stuck in the past. The way it is set up is. Many people say—and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) just implied this—that states such as Japan, Germany, India and Brazil, and perhaps the European Union in the round, should be permanent members. Others say that France and the United Kingdom should not. Actually, they have a point—we must accept that—but may I just examine it and tease it out a bit? In terms of GDP contribution to the world, the United States is at 24%, China is at about 16%, Japan is at 5%, and then Germany and India at 4%. The UK and France are next, at 3%, followed by Italy, Brazil and Canada, at 2%. Interestingly, Russia is at less than 2%. Thus we hear the odd phrase that Russia’s economy is smaller than Italy’s—that is where it comes from. Using such measures, and assuming that the Security Council continues to have only five permanent members, they will be the United States, China, Japan, Germany and India. The UK and France would be out, and so too would Russia.

But in truth there is no real mechanism for change in the United Nations, and I do not think there is much appetite for it either. Trying to change that sort of organisation would be incredibly difficult. For instance, it would require the agreement of all five current permanent members—in other words, they would be volunteering for redundancy. I do not see that happening, and I am not sure whether the world would want it to happen. So, for the foreseeable future, the United Kingdom will remain a permanent member of the Security Council. That is really good news for us, as global Britain—great news. It provides us with a platform, and we do not have to pay too much for it because we use our reputation. Our reputation in the world is huge, regardless of fact that we have lesser and lesser defence forces. I have had direct contact with that myself, as I once rang the Security Council from the field, and when I said I was British, that got me through pretty quickly. We have a very good reputation in the Security Council, and the General Assembly as well.

Let me comment particularly on British involvement in UN peacekeeping, which, of course, the Security Council authorises. No United Nations operation can take place without being sanctioned by the Security Council, and we, as a permanent member, have a veto on that. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West back in his seat. I am sure he missed my slight dig at the Royal Green Jackets, so I want to get it in again now he is back—but he can read it later. For peacekeeping, there are three practical ways in which we contribute in the Security Council: first, by helping to provide the mandate, then by funding the forces, and then by contributing forces. Overall, the United Kingdom contributes nearly 7% of the UN’s budget for peacekeeping. That is more than we have to, but we still do pretty well because it is considerably more than our world GDP percentage.

I am glad to see that the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), is now in his place, because I am about to give him a bit of a hand, as he is a good friend. It was a good idea for him to attend and perfect that he has just arrived. From hints put out by the Government over the last weeks, I gather that they intend to put more effort into UN peacemaking and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. That is really good news—I am totally up for that. In fact, as part of our defence review, I am up for the idea of earmarking part of our armed forces to be sent to the United Nations when there is a requirement and we agree it. I like the idea of a battle group that is UN-designated.

I accept that the United Nations is not perfect, but it is well worth having, and honestly, it is all we have got. Every recognised state in the world—all 193 of them—is a member, and each has a seat in the General Assembly, as do we. Of course, the UK may not like some of the resolutions and debates in the General Assembly, but there is no doubt that it is the best forum—indeed, the only one—for gauging world opinion. Condemnation within the forum of the world is never welcomed by any country.

I have concentrated on one part of global Britain, but that is because I wanted to, because I believe that the United Nations is so important. The United Nations is a crucial part of keeping and improving our international influence. We are doing well now—we are not doing badly—but if we put more effort into it, we could get much more back. Our permanent seat on the Security Council is incredibly valuable, because that is where legally binding international mandates are designed, and through our own arguments, with our good Foreign Office officials and our good Ministers, such as the hon. Member for—where is it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely]

It is a matter of time. I thank my hon. Friend.

There has been much talk about global Britain, and last year I and others published “Global Britain: A Twenty-First Century Vision”, which I circulated to many MPs this week. Unfortunately, I came third in a tight field of three in the race to be Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but I hope that was a comment on me, rather than on my work, which I hope is still useful.

That study contained 20 ideas, one or two of which have been mentioned by other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who spoke about the importance of the United Nations. The United Kingdom has arguably been the world’s greatest nation at developing alliances throughout our history. Indeed, we would not have done so well in the last two world wars if those alliances had not been in place. Whether NATO, our close relationship with Europe now that we are not part of the European Union, or CANZUK, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) eloquently referred, there is a wealth of alliances that we could be building. The victor in the Foreign Affairs Committee race, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), spoke about partnerships with middle-ranging powers, or with great powers such as Korea and Japan, which are important.

[Bob Stewart]

On soft influence, when my hon. Friend and I, and other hon. Members, go abroad, perhaps in uniform, we are very well received in large parts of the world. One very important instrument for our soft influence is using our military academies to educate people, particularly from the middle east, but anywhere—for example, Kazakhstan.

[Bob Seely]

Absolutely. In my very brief time at Sandhurst, I saw people who were there from foreign powers. That is a very important form of soft influence, along with our universities and higher colleges. In Shrivenham, there are many international students, especially in the higher courses. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.

I want to add one thing to the debate about the necessity for strategy. Despite having a wealth of think-tanks that study strategy, I am not sure we have done it well enough in the past few decades. We have been too tied to the United States for its concept of strategic hard power, much of which we might agree with, and too tied to the European Union for our definition of soft power, through trade and so on. A global Britain would give us the chance to develop our own idea of how to combine hard and soft power when it comes to trade negotiations, the export of values, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester spoke, and many other elements.

Many Members have spoken about the rules-based order, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). There are now considerable threats to the rules-based order, not only from the rise of Russian authoritarianism but potentially from the rise of China under the leadership of the Chinese Communist party. I may well differ with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester on some of these matters. I think he see many opportunities and some threats. I see many opportunities, but also many threats. We have to understand much better not only how we ourselves can project an integrated power, but how others are projecting an integrated power to us.