Editorial: America First vs Global Britain
On Tuesday night Joe Biden shirked the blame from the chaotic withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. The speed of the Taliban’s takeover was unexpected, the President said – a sole admission of any miscalculation.
Biden took the reins of a Trump-era decision and mangled it into a foreign policy catastrophe for the US and its allies around the world. Britain was at the forefront of those Western nations scrambling to pull their staff and Afghan partners out of Kabul on the weekend as Taliban fighters ripped through the capital. Devastating as it was, it is done. Driving out the Taliban is a much harder mission than keeping them at bay and there is no appetite from the UK public for military intervention.
What was illuminating was Biden’s extraordinary exculpation of himself from the narrative. Only months after declaring America was once again open for business, the President’s “it wasn’t me” speech was rightly denounced as emblematic of an “America First” mindset. This puts the US President on a collision course with Boris Johnson’s vision of a “Global Britain”.
In the landmark Integrated Review, a supposed blueprint for Global Britain, the Prime Minister said democratic societies are “the strongest supporters of an open and resilient international order” which protects human rights, manages tensions between great powers and addresses conflict and instability. This is a far cry from Biden’s excuse that there was little for the US to do but withdraw and hope for the best.
The alliance between the US and the UK has long been defined by the so-called “special relationship”. Britain has been especially eager to butter up American leaders while it tries to negotiate its position on the world stage after Brexit. But in the wake of Afghanistan, Mr Johnson will have to pivot the UK into a position to act without the assurance of US support.
The first test will be how ministers secure safe asylum for Afghans who worked with British forces in Afghanistan and those under threat of persecution from the Taliban. Already, there have been too many tragic cases of people denied visas despite being under threat of reprisal from their work with UK personnel or diplomatic staff. British ambassador Sir Laurie Bristow’s decision to stay in Kabul airport and personally process asylum applications was an act of incredible bravery that Mr Johnson’s “Global Britain” should seek to emulate. Britain will accept 20,000 Afghan refugees, an arbitrarily small number and one with an abundance of caveats. Only 5,000 asylum seekers will be granted safe-haven in the UK over the next year. As Labour MP Chris Bryant pointed out in today’s parliamentary debate, “what are the other 15,000 supposed to do? Hang around and wait to be executed?”
The second test will be how the UK confronts the power vacuum left by the US withdrawal, not simply from Afghanistan, but from broader foreign policy objectives. Russia and China will have watched the chaotic scenes with glee. Enemies of the West will be emboldened by Biden’s “America First” objectives. President Biden refused to send “American daughters and sons” to fight a “civil war”. Countries such as the Ukraine and Taiwan will feel newly alone in their efforts to fend off regimes seeking to undermine democracy, lest their struggles are also relegated to the status of a domestic dispute.
The Chinese propaganda machine has already leapt on the opportunity to paint the West as weak. Its state media, the Global Times was emblazoned with the headline “Failure of America in Afghanistan serves as a warning to Taiwan secessionists”.
The third and hardest test will be Mr Johnson’s ability to stand up to President Biden. The US President has not been afraid to have “candid” conversations with the Prime Minister when he was concerned about the Northern Ireland Protocol and peace process on the island of Ireland. If the US-UK relationship truly is special, then truth must be the currency. Former Prime Minister Theresa May delivered a scathing and accurate assessment of the government’s response: “Did we just follow the US and hope that on a wing and a prayer, it would be alright?” Blindly stumbling after the US can no longer be a centrepiece of British foreign policy.
Earlier this year, Mr Johnson told Parliament, “we are living through a daily demonstration of how events on the far side of the world influence not only British security and prosperity, but something as elemental as the state of our health.” He was right then, and must apply the same logic now. If Global Britain is to live up to its name, it must be able to demand that its allies cast off isolationist stances which threaten the stability of the international order.