Select committee: Foreign Affairs Committee
Conclusion 30
Eighth Report - Tilting horizons: the Integrated Review and the Indo-Pacific
Published 30 Aug 2023
Paragraph 95
Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Foreign Affairs Committee Implementing the Integrated Review: Tilt to the Indo-Pacific All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Conclusion (the committee's words)
[While stressing the importance of AUKUS, the Refresh makes no mention of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the Quad) established in 2007 and renewed since 2017 between Australia, India, Japan and the United States. We heard differing opinions from witnesses on whether the UK should apply to join the Quad, with some strongly supporting UK membership, others suggesting that it is too early to consider this now and one group against the proposal altogether. While understanding the reservations,] we see advantage in working with the Quad to develop a coordinated strategy covering the whole Indo-Pacific maritime area, and applying to join the Quad at such time as the existing members feel is appropriate.
From: Foreign Affairs Committee, Eighth Report - Tilting horizons: the Integrated Review and the Indo-Pacific (HC 172), paragraph 95, 30 August 2023
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 22 March 2024 (deadline 30 October 2023).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The Government welcomes the Committee's recognition of the Indo-Pacific's strategic importance and agrees on many points, but disagrees on a China Strategy, assessments of IPEF and RCEP, and the Committee's human rights criticisms.
- It agrees the Indo-Pacific must be a "long term and enduring aspect" of UK policy, but disagrees that it has not set out its long-term objectives clearly.
- On China, it disagrees with the recommendation to publish an unclassified China Strategy, stating it "does not intend to publish an additional China Strategy" while maintaining "as much transparency as possible".
- It "partially agrees" on funding and posts, citing doubled British High Commissions in the Pacific, and says CSSF funding "is adjusted annually" given the fiscal situation.
- It disagrees that it should publish assessments of IPEF while negotiations are ongoing or of RCEP, and says it does not "currently envisage" seeking to join RCEP.