The future of conflict and cooperation

Hastings Ismay, Churchill’s chief military assistant during WWII and the first Secretary General of NATO, once said of that organisation, “It must grow until the whole free world gets under one umbrella”.

The world was a smaller place in the 1950s, and less interconnected. The challenges then were very different indeed. But the importance of NATO, and of pan-Atlantic partnerships more widely, has been restated for all to see following Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

These alliances are important because we are stronger together, acting with common voice and deed. It seems almost facile to write that sentence, especially as Finland and Sweden move towards becoming members of the Organisation due to Russia’s aggression, but the seeds of doubt were being well sown by opinion formers about the efficacy and need for institutions like NATO in the late 90s and early 2000s. In crisis, NATO has once again found its role. Or, perhaps, in crisis, countries have recognised its importance.

Either way, this multilateral approach is one we should learn from and adapt. NATO’s shield, preventing conflict through strength, is a model that can apply in so many other domains.

One of my proudest moments as an MP came in February as HMS ANSON left Barrow for the open sea for the first time. Speaking to the young submariners on the deck of ANSON before she left dock, I was left with no doubt of their resolve and purpose – defending the UK and its allies, and heading to sea for a career of service.

Barrow-in-Furness has produced every boat in the UK’s submarine fleet, and continues to do so. After a shocking retrenchment in capability in the 90s that led to a critical loss of skills and deprivation in the town, there are now generations of work in the shipyard, delivering the hunter/killer boats, Dreadnought (Trident’s successor), and SSNR – the next generation of subs.

Submarines are rivalled in engineering complexity by only one other thing: the international space station. But yet in sleepy old Barrow, situated on a peninsula in the middle of nowhere, the job of making them is being done many times over. These boats guarantee NATO members’ security. And while their technology and command is the domain of the UK Government, they are delivered through close partnership with the US. This shared endeavour – this alliance – underpins a technical, strategic, and political alignment between the UK and US.

It is welcome, therefore, that this alliance is to expand. AUKUS (the partnership between Australia, the UK and the USA) will bring sub-sea capability to Australia, with a shared exchange of knowledge, skills and capacity for nuclear-powered vessels to secure Australia’s interests and push back against aggression in the South China Sea.

There are precious few countries with the skill to manufacture boats like these, but they have never been more necessary to stand firm against aggressors who seek to exploit weaknesses and probe our defences.

As the world becomes more interconnected, and new technology renders old machinery less effective, it has become clear that we are in an arms race in two domains – technology and unseen spaces. At a time when a $100 drone can surveil an army, or a £20,000 NLAW will render a multi-million dollar tank a flaming husk, it is in these areas that we must find common purpose with our allies.

These amazing vessels and their steadfast crews protect the undersea cables that connect the world, remain vigilant against our foes, push back aggression, surveil, and act as an ever-present warning that they are there, somewhere, silent and unseen. They are the very embodiment of a deterrent.

But it is not just in the silent domain of the sea that we must find common cause and build alliances – we must do so in the world of cyber too. It is in this space that we are all too exposed - states, the private sector and infrastructure connected, dependent on each other, and only as strong as their weakest link. The WannaCry and NotPetya attacks cost the global economy tens of billions, but yet we remain vulnerable to yet more of these exploits – relatively cheap to run, and destabilising to the extreme.

Hard power matters, as Ukraine demonstrates, but in cyber we are only as strong as our weakest link, and there are all too many weak links.

In my capacity as Chair of the All Party Group on Cyber Security, I have heard time and again of the risk to businesses and governments across the globe. An attack on a major cloud provider can affect us all, or spread from interconnected system to interconnected system. Speaking to Commonwealth leaders recently, I was struck by their repeated ask for a common shield. They looked with some envy at GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre, and to the NSA too.

I am glad that AUKUS includes ambitious provisions for ‘joint capabilities and interoperability’ in the cyber space between Australia, the UK and USA, but we must be more ambitious than that, and extend the umbrella that Ismay spoke of to like-minded partners across the globe. Hard power matters, as Ukraine demonstrates, but in cyber we are only as strong as our weakest link, and there are all too many weak links. As leaders in cyber security, the US and UK have a responsibility to strengthen those bonds. And we will benefit from doing so.