Fifth Report - Refreshing our approach? Updating the Integrated Review

The Integrated Review has provided a robust and flexible framework to guide UK foreign policy decisions out to 2025. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has tested many of the assumptions underpinning the IR, and these have been found to hold true. A full-scale refresh is only warranted, given the scale of resources and time required to complete it, particularly at this exceptionally challenging time for Britain’s foreign and security policy, if the Government makes considerable changes or is prepared to fill in some of the gaps in more detail to justify this use of resources. Enhancing the resilience of the United Kingdom should be central to the refresh.

We recommend that the forthcoming National Resilience Strategy includes the creation of a national resilience lead. Effective implementation of this strategy would include regular cross-Government meetings that discuss shared efforts to improve UK’s resilience to threats across all policy areas. (Paragraph 11) Designation of the People’s Republic of China

The Integrated Review designated China as a “systemic competitor”. Strong language that is not coupled by action does nothing to alleviate confusion, and risks increasing uncertainty and undermining our credibility. The Government needs to be firmer and more explicit in articulating the UK’s security interests when it comes to China. The primary responsibility of the state is to keep its people safe. China poses a significant threat to the UK on many different levels. We would support the Government changing the language from “systemic competitor” to “threat” if it were accompanied by carefully calibrated and proportionate policy change, particularly on domestic resilience and security, rather than empty rhetoric. (Paragraph 17) Coherence of Government policy on China

China represents an important security challenge for the UK; it is also an important partner. The Integrated Review acknowledged that the UK will need to continue to compete with China in some areas while cooperating in others. When updating the Integrated Review, the Government should address the long-term viability of this approach. The long-term goal must be to foster greater resilience and economic diversification, so that in the future the UK has more freedom to choose its actions in response to any aggression or human rights abuses by the PRC. Key to this is cooperation with key allies to improve our resilience, but also to ensure responses to hostile actions by the PRC are made multilaterally where possible. If we are more resilient to the PRC’s weaponisation of supply chains, we can be more effective on the world stage as a global player. Britain should stand absolute against interference in our own country by the PRC and this should be expressed within the IR. (Paragraph 24) 24 Refreshing our approach? Updating the Integrated Review The future of UK-Europe relations

The Integrated Review notably lacked detail on the future of the UK’s relationship with its European partners and the EU. The renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine has altered the dynamics of European politics and provided a clearer lens through which to view UK-Europe security relations. It is important that the updated IR clarifies the nature of the UK’s security relationship with key European partners and the EU. We will be exploring further the extent to which this relationship should be formalised or institutionalised. (Paragraph 31) Balancing the Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic

The Integrated Review was right to highlight the UK’s increasing interest in the Indo-Pacific. However, this refresh presents an opportunity to reset and clarify the UK’s relationships beyond the Indo-Pacific and specifically in the Euro-Atlantic. The Government should explain if, and how, it expects the UK to contribute to European security while maintaining the Indo-Pacific tilt, particularly at a time of considerably constrained resources. The IR refresh should also explain in more detail what policy objective the Government hopes to deliver with the Indo-Pacific tilt, or work away from the term “tilt”, and set out what the benefits to the UK will be. (Paragraph 37) Filling the leadership vacuum in unstable regions

The language of the Integrated Review and UK actions since its publication suggests that the Government is tilting away from the Middle East. We acknowledge the trade- offs involved in prioritising other regions but the Government should be careful to avoid any perception of disengagement from partners and fragile countries so close in proximity to our own. Instability in MENA will threaten UK citizens at home. We urge the Government to confirm whether it intends to deprioritise the Middle East and if so, how it will continue to promote peace and stability in these regions with fewer resources.

The IR should detail how the Government will actively fight to make sure the multilateral system remains one reflective of our core values and the rules-based international order. That means advancing a forward-leaning multilateral foreign policy and putting forward our own candidates in coordination with likeminded nations for key roles. (Paragraph 46) Refreshing our approach? Updating the Integrated Review 25