Many casual observers of British politics will only just be being introduced to the probable next Vice President of the US. And in keeping with Donald Trump’s penchant for the bizarre, JD Vance has begun his tenure as presidential running mate with some unusual musings on Islamists and nuclear weapons.
Speaking at the National Conservatism conference in Washington DC last week, JD Vance speculated about which Islamist country would be the first to hold nukes. ‘Maybe it’s Iran, maybe Pakistan already kind of counts. And then [me and my friends] finally decided, maybe it’s actually the UK, since Labour just took over.’
Vance’s tongue seemed at least partly in his cheek, though that hasn’t stopped Labour responding to the jibe, deputy prime minister Angela Rayner telling ITV simply that: ‘I don’t recognise that characterisation.’
But if Vance’s comment is ridiculous on its face, it is nonetheless revealing about the future of Anglo-American relations, as well as what a second Trump presidency might mean for European security more broadly. In fact, much of Europe is recognising that the US is increasingly reluctant to patch up the security umbrella it has held over the continent since the Second World War, whoever wins in November.
While Pew research from May shows that Americans continue to largely approve of Nato, support for the trans-Atlantic alliance is in decline. Republicans are especially hostile, with 55% of those who lean towards the party having an unfavourable view, double that of their Democratic counterparts.
Vance is perhaps only unusual on the American right in how explicit he is about his feelings. Writing for the Financial Times in February, he argued that the US has footed Europe’s defence bill for too long. ‘As the American defence budget nears $1 trillion per year, we ought to view the money Europe hasn’t spent on defence for what it really is: an implied tax on the American people to allow for the security of Europe,’ he said.
As Vance points out, Europe’s productive economies could afford to spend more money on defence, especially in supporting Ukraine. Germany, the UK and France are among the biggest economies in the world, their annual GDPs easily dwarfing that of Russia. It is understandable that Americans, not least the working class Vance, have become frustrated about subsidising our welfare states as we skimp on weapons.
‘The question each European nation needs to ask itself is this: are you prepared to defend yourself?’ asks Vance. ‘And the question the US must ask is: if our European allies can’t even defend themselves, are they allies, or clients?’
The new Labour government is at least cognisant of the risks of a less engaged US. As part of its flurry of post-election announcements it has announced yet another ‘root and branch’ review of British defence capabilities. In an advance on the previous government’s Integrated Review, this new report actively names four nations as threats to the UK, rather than the euphemistic ‘challenges’.
George Robertson, the former Nato secretary general who is jointly heading up the review, says the country is being ‘confronted by a deadly quartet of nations increasingly working together’. While Russia may be the most immediate threat, the other three potential aggressors are China, Iran and North Korea.
This echoes remarks made by US President Joe Biden at the Nato summit early this month. But with the prospect of another Trump presidency, it’s unclear how committed the US would be to Nato. Other European defence structures will at least have to shoulder more of the burden of keeping the EU and its allies, including the UK, safe.
To this end, Labour has already indicated it wants a security deal with the EU, with additional pacts for France and Germany. While the now Foreign Secretary David Lammy told the Munich Security Conference that this wouldn’t rival Nato’s structures, Europe may have less of a choice about this than it would like.
The UK government will no doubt want to avoid even the suggestion of phrases like ‘European Army’, guaranteed to draw howls from the Right. And British participation in the EU’s mooted Defence Union could certainly undermine our control of our own army: or ‘sovereignty’, to use another dread phrase.
Warnings that the EU’s urge for bureaucratic control could undermine competition and innovation across European defence firms, the UK’s included, are also sensible. Any collective security plan should seek to harness the diversity of Europe’s defence industries rather than crush them for the sake of integration.
Even so, the ability of European states to fend off the Russian threat will absolutely hinge on interoperability, a constant discussion point in every Nato defence exercise and many a defence procurement programme. No doubt this will compromise our sovereignty on some counts, but much less so than a belligerent Russia rampaging through Europe.
And it need not preclude the UK’s military partnership with the US in other areas. Vance has said the defence of Taiwan from a potential Chinese invasion should be the US’s top foreign policy priority, with failure to do this risking another Great Depression for his country.
This is likely good news for the Aukus trilateral security partnership between the UK, the US and Australia which commits to increasing defence capabilities, most notably in nuclear-powered submarines, and builds on the Five Eyes intelligence partnership. Whatever Vance has to say on the matter, the Anglosphere is likely to endure on the battlefield for some years to come.
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
