Agora - content

The open forum for foreign policy

Blogs

Are aircraft carriers still relevant to British security in the hypersonic age?

With China now deploying hypersonic missiles, the aircraft carriers HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales could be at a distinct risk. To address this, the UK should invest carefully in defences capable of defeating hypersonic missiles whose extreme speed may overwhelm missile defense systems.

The carrier

HMS Queen Elizabeth currently serves with the Royal Navy as the latest and largest in a long line of UK aircraft carriers, which carry British jets at sea, enabling the UK to project power and protect its global interests. Announced in 2007, her entry into service was delayed until 2020 due to budget cuts announced in the 2010 UK Strategic Defence and Security Review, at a final cost of a little over £6bn. HMS Queen Elizabeth will be followed in front-line service by sister ship the HMS Prince of Wales in 2023.

Aircraft carriers are the best means of projecting UK naval power, enabling Britain to swiftly intervene in international crises and also to protect vital sea-based trade effectively.

There has been debate over how effectively carriers such as HMS Queen Elizabeth can continue to protect British interests. Two alternatives – missile carrying arsenal ships and submarines – cannot effectively replace them. Arsenal ships do not match the complexity of the aircraft carrier, which possess greater flexibility in striking power. Carrier-based aircraft can carry many different weapons for distinct targets and jet pilots can adapt to changing circumstances. Carriers also possess assets such as airborne early warning radars, which can scan the skies and seas for threats; these cannot operate on a smaller arsenal ship due to lack of space on board.
Submarines can deny enemy access to strategic waters. However their utility for sea control, dominating the waters in a given area, is limited by their need for stealth. Once detected, submarines are vulnerable. Submarines, such as the under-induction Astute class, can effectively supplement the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier but cannot replace it.

Enter hypersonic missiles

Hypersonic weapons move at over five times the speed of sound, leaving mere seconds for a ship’s defences to react.. However with adequate investment in defences, such as early warning and directed energy weapons, there is no reason the aircraft carrier cannot remain at the fore of Britain’s security strategy.

China has been claiming vast swathes of ocean in South-East Asia, denying ships from smaller nations the right of movement – freedom of navigation – on the seas. The so-called Asian Quad (India, Japan, the US, and Australia) is therefore stepping up military efforts to balance China’s challenge to regional freedom of navigation in the South China Seas. The Quad nations are now holding exercises in the Indian Ocean and deploying warships to waters in East Asia to balance Chinese power.

As a key US and Australian ally, and a beneficiary of open sea lanes, the UK would well become involved in any confrontation with China. China is now making concerted investment in hypersonic weapons as part of a package of offensive weapon systems, designed to deny access to and restrict movement in contested areas. Chinese hypersonic missiles pose a genuine threat to British aircraft carriers.

Investing in counter-measures

Counter-measures to hypersonic weapons do exist. Speeding up the induction of Airborne Early Warning and Control Systems such as the ‘Crowsnest’ – Airborne Early Warning (AEW) – helicopter by the end of 2020 enables early detection. A helicopter based radar like Crowsnest can scan over the horizon to detect an incoming hypersonic threat early enough for defences to be effective. Sophisticated infrared sensors on the F-35 jet, which the Queen Elizabeth class carry, can detect a hypersonic launch early, as will space based surveillance assets. Together, these multi-spectral, multi-platform sensors can make a deployment of aircraft carriers viable in a hypersonic weapon environment.

Laser weapons and railguns are potentially able to defend against emerging naval threats, because they can match high hypersonic speeds. The US Navy has begun deploying small scale laser weapons for missile defence. Railguns use electromagnetic force to fire projectiles at roughly six times the speed of sound. Research into railguns is actively focusing on their use in missile defence. Another such system could be Glide Breaker, a US project to develop anti-missile systems to neutralise hypersonic threats. Both could theoretically deal with the hypersonic threat, potentially intercepting them a few seconds before they hit the ship. The Royal Navy should increase cooperation with the US, which leads global research on railgun technology.

While hypersonic weapons will require a renewed focus on space and airborne early warning, they will not make the aircraft carrier obsolete. With multiple solutions emerging, a ‘hard-kill’ response that can protect carriers is imminent. The UK and the Royal Navy would be well served by continued investment in a modern carrier capability going forward.

Jeevan Vipinachandran holds an MSc in Comparative Politics: Conflict Studies from the London School of Economics.

In Iraq, the UK is at risk of war with Iran

Iran’s proxy forces in Iraq could operate independently of Iran’s wishes. They may inadvertently draw the UK into armed conflict with Iran. Only comprehensive domestic reform in Iraq can minimise the threat of these groups.

Iran supports and trains large Shia militias in the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF). The PMF were formed in response to the disintegration of the Iraqi military in the face of ISIS. These groups include Kata’ib Hezbollah, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, The Badr Organisation and others. Members of these militias occupy key positions in Iraqi institutions and occupy seats in the Iraqi Parliament. These groups are key fronts for Iranian influence in Iraq.

While Iran undoubtedly wields decisive influence in these groups, this does not translate into direct control. Iran’s proxy groups generally behave according to their own best interests, taking into account local considerations. Some of these militias lack a clear command structure and are, in the words of researcher Michael Knights, “extraordinarily complex, and hard to manage at the best of times”.

For example, Kata’ib Hezbollah has carried out lethal strikes against western forces in Iraq. In response, the US has struck Kata’ib Hezbollah’s bases throughout Iraq and Syria and assassinated its leader, Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis.

UK policy must recognise that two emerging trends in Iraq might weaken Iran’s control of these groups. These are the growing political conflict between Shia clergy in Najaf (Iraq) and Qom (Iran), and emerging Iraqi nationalism.

The Najaf-Qom dispute is a fundamental disagreement between two distinct worldviews. The Najaf clergy advance the traditional belief that they should have limited involvement in governance. In contrast, Qom is the home of Valeyet-e which is the current political system of Iran and involves key control of state matters by the Shia clergy. This dispute has taken on strong political dimensions. Iranian efforts to dominate Iraq have become increasingly unpopular amongst the Iraqi public and the Najaf clergy is seeking to regain prominence after decades of Baathist repression. Most recently, PMF militias loyal to Najaf have left the PMF at Najaf’s beckoning, as Iraqi efforts to exert control over the PMF and absorb it into the state increase. This move damages the legitimacy of the remaining pro-Iranian groups. Since the PMF originally formed at Sistani’s behest in 2014, the public has called for Najaf-aligned groups to withdraw, which damages the legitimacy initially held by the PMF.

Likewise, emerging Iraqi nationalism is going to frustrate Iran’s efforts to control the PMF groups it carefully cultivated. Iraq has seen repeated and widespread protests against the perceived chronically corrupt and inept post-2003 political system as well as the foreign influence considered to contribute to its failure. The 2019 protests, which started in October, saw several hundred thousand protestors stall the nation’s economy in pursuit of political reform. Iran itself was often the target of these protests, with the Iranian consulate in Najaf being burnt down. These protests have also rallied against foreign interference more broadly. As recently as January of this year protestors decried Iraq’s role as staging ground for any would-be conflict between Iran and the US. Iran-backed militias have harshly opposed the protests. They are alleged to have used lethal violence against protestors.

The burgeoning Najaf-Qom dispute and emerging Iraqi nationalism has the potential to socially and politically ostracise Iran-backed Shia militias, given Iran’s sharp dip in popularity in Iraq. The removal of pro-Najaf forces from the PMF strips them of the legitimacy it gave them, and their opposition to the widespread protests might damage their standing in any new political order that may emerge.

In order to avoid social and political ostracisation, they may aggressively target Western forces to co-opt the widespread unpopularity of foreign interference in Iraq and offset their own foreign backing. As well as, this Iranian-backed groups may agitate any nationalist government in Baghdad, which they may perceive as a threat to their existence or as anti-Shia.

This has significant policy implications for the UK. Should an Iranian-backed militia strike coalition forces without Iranian approval, it could spark conflict. The US has already struck both key Iranian officials in Iraq and Iran-backed militias. If Iran’s proxies aggressively target Western forces, US response may precipitate war.

Consequently, British policy should be to strengthen the Iraqi state and diffuse tensions with Iran regionally. The UK must recognise that its interests are best served by helping to combat the chronic levels of corruption within the Iraqi state, to restore its capacity and legitimacy. In tandem, diplomatic efforts with Iran must be renewed.

The 2015 Nuclear Deal showed that diplomatic settlements with Iran are achievable, sustainable, and able to greatly reduce tensions. Relations with Iran could be guaranteed despite the dismal state of US-Iran diplomacy given the UK’s track record in maintaining notably better relations. Only decisive diplomatic engagement with Iran can remove the risk of war.

Jack Sargent is co-Head of Agora’s Defence & Security Programme.

Why a global pandemic demands greater regional autonomy

The fragmentation of Britain’s COVID-19 ‘lockdown’ strategy has been apparent since the virus first hit the country. The start of social isolation and economic shutdown may have been uniformly implemented across the UK on 23 March but, as different countries within the union start to emerge from lockdown, each region seems to have chosen a strikingly individual route out. It may turn out that this global disease normalises more policy decisions being made at the regional level in Britain.

Do I stay at home or stay alert? Over the last few months, varying demands such as these from the UK’s different political bodies have supplied the nation with a generous helping of confusion (and, in some instances, hysteria). Yet a united response to the pandemic may not necessarily be the best way to defeat it. Centralised government control should roll back, in order for local areas to better assess the threat of the virus there and administer the necessary steps to stop it from spreading.

The fluctuation of the R number across Britain

Westminster granted sub-national bodies greater independence as it became clear that the coronavirus R rate – the rate at which the disease is spreading – varied greatly in different communities. London’s mid-May infection rate, between 0.6 and 0.9, put it at slightly safer levels than Scotland’s estimations which lay somewhere between 0.7 and 1.

Scientific evidence suggests that if the R number is consistently below 1, slower transmission levels of the virus would eventually eradicate it from the nation. However, cases would inevitably exponentially grow if the number crept above 1. In this instance, the removal of a harsh lockdown would only allow the disease to embed itself deeper into the lives of the population. Consequently, Scotland’s predicament demanded a later lifting of its lockdown due to the teetering position of its R number of around 1.

The biological effect of COVID-19 only accounts for a fraction of the havoc it has wreaked on humanity. Education, finance, and social interaction have all been affected. This is fundamentally why Boris Johnson has had to cede so many of his Cabinet’s powers to separate governments in the devolved nations of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Prioritising the reopening of certain regions first

London accounts for 23% of the entire UK economy and a 2018 City of London study found that the capital employed 1 in 59 British workers. It would have been economically unproductive for London, and the rest of England, to wait for Scotland’s transmission rate to be suppressed and for the two countries to come out of lockdown at a unified date. A financial and employment hub like London could not dawdle lifting measures when scientists announced that it was safe for England to begin the gradual reopening of its economy, especially when it was revealed that Rishi Sunak’s furlough scheme was costing upwards of £14bn each month.

When combined, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland account for just 15% of UK GDP. Scotland may have contributed £1.2bn in oil revenue to the nation’s economy in 2018, but that same year a nearly a fifth of its population were economically inactive.

Devolved bodies do contribute billions to the UK’s economy and their economies need to be reopened, but their politicians have erred on the side of caution. From a health perspective, Scotland was unable to follow England’s timetable of easing lockdown, but England’s economic output into the nation’s economy perhaps emphasised its need to open sooner. Ultimately, autonomy was granted for local leaders to better scrutinise the scope of their region’s infection rate and do what was best for either the public health or the economy.

However, it is also tempting to subscribe to a more cynical perspective that delegation of power has allowed central government to escape a degree of accountability. With figures such as Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford holding down separate forts, any failures in their lockdown strategies will leave a clear direction for their electorates to point the finger .

The threat posed by the virus is not an easily dismissed issue. Public safety and higher levels of government scrutiny are deeply intertwined. Ultimately, a centralised approach from Westminster would undermine the varying needs of different communities across the UK. It may well be that the pandemic convinces more people of this.

Emily Wilson studies Politics and International Relations at the University of Manchester.

Field vs forest: readjusting livestock farming in Britain post-Brexit

Britain’s departure from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a golden opportunity for the Government to reform the way the UK farms sheep. The EU policy has previously prioritised mass production of livestock over environmental concerns and actual consumer demand.

Sheep oversaturate both economic markets and the English countryside as a legacy of farming subsidies. This poses a threat to our environment. Cows are also unknowing adversaries in our plight to lowering carbon emissions, however sheep rearing demands much more space and is far less economically productive then other agricultural pursuits.

The cost of higher carbon emissions

Mighty forests have been decimated and strategically replaced with sparse fields that enhance the capacity and food supply of the livestock that inhabit them. Making up 40% of the entire nation, British uplands are incompatible with agricultural farming so have been utilised as pastures for animals.

In England, sheep farming demands 44% of our upland land mass, whilst cows are granted 29% of the space to graze. These figures become increasingly unsettling when compared to the 13% of the UK we have generously allocated to our woodlands.

This deforestation has left the UK well acquainted with higher carbon emissions by rationing the natural absorbers of the gas: trees. Trees respire inversely to humans by taking in carbon and releasing oxygen, but a forest’s ability to process carbon is greatly affected by the number of trees that are actually in it. Through replanting efforts, forest coverage in England has increased 7.8% since 1905. However, this is barely enough to combat the 315.5m tonnes of carbon dioxide Britain produced in 2019.

The term ‘deforestation’ carries connotations of butchered rainforests in Brazil. It has been coined as an exotic term, barring the idea of it ever happening in the UK. Yet the only difference between Britain and developing countries cutting the trees down is that the former began prioritising farmland over woodland over 1,000 years ago. Northern Europe’s gift of naturally superior farming terrain has left a cultural brand on it. It signifies that it has always been okay to take from our environment, as that is what we have always done.

However, it is the sheep we are breeding now that are becoming the prime carbon culprits. Sheep select the most appetising plants, with tree saplings being a particular nutritious delicacy. This prevents the expansion of woodlands, and newly planted carbon trees are consumed as saplings in bulk before they can grow.

Ignoring evolution

Britain once boasted complex food chains with predators such as brown bears mediating the numbers of farmable livestock. The extinction of these creatures directly correlates to the threat they posed to our ancestors’ farm animals. In 1281 King Edward had already requested the killing of every wolf in England in order to protect pastoral farming. Biodiversity had been evicted and replaced with favourable conditions that would allow the mass production of animals.

Darwinism explains how species evolve over millions of years to best adhere to the demands of their environment. This concept has been altered by the explosion of our sheep population since the Middle Ages, when these natural predators were hunted to extinction. As seen in 2018, when Britain’s sheep population reached 22.5m.

Other species are unable to evolve; at the same time the livestock population rises. Sheep in their bulk devour the best produce in the fields, leaving other grazing species under threat. The destruction of the forests for their behalf means that many other animals that rely on the woodland for food and protection are becoming additionally vulnerable.

Where to point the finger

The UK has a culturally ingrained misconception that the demand for sheep is still high. Mutton and lamb consumption only accounts for 1.2% of the average Briton’s diet.

Britain’s relationship with the EU also dictates the success of sheep farmers. Over 30% of production is exported and 90% of that is to the EU. A ‘no deal’ Brexit would expose UK farmers’ exports to World Trade Organisation tariffs that could add 50% more to the production costs of sheep.

COVID-19 also greatly shrank the domestic market for sheep. Lamb is a popular meat consumed at pubs and restaurants. After these institutions were forced to close the market for the product fell sharply. This contributed to the price of the averaged cull ewe plummeting by £37 to £71.70 in mid-March.

Farming tends to go back generations and provides steady incomes for 34,000 households, often in poorer communities across Britain. What is needed is not the removal of sheep farming altogether but instead the reworking of the system with environmental problems that will soon parallel its lack of economic productivity. Following the end of the Brexit transition period and the UK’s departure from the CAP, the Government will be able to make these necessary changes.

Emily Wilson studies Politics and International Relations at the University of Manchester.

Diplomacy and mining the Moon

There are moves to mine resources on the Moon and the deep seabed, two distinct but related global ‘commons’. The UK must push for environmentally sound regulations ensuring the responsible management of these vulnerable areas.

A number of news outlets have reported the possibility of mining projects on the Moon and in the deep seabed. These areas are linked, despite their immense geographical differences. Both are global ‘commons’ – domains not under the jurisdiction of individual states, but international agreements, and to which all nations have access – with near limitless economic potential.

The Moon

President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order on 6 April 2020 asserting the right of the US and its firms to extract resources from the lunar surface and other celestial bodies. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) should work with the private sector, it says, spurring innovation toward its long-term goal: a human presence on Mars. NASA has since outlined how a lunar presence might work in its Artemis Accords.

Is this allowed? States are regulated in outer space by a suite of international treaties, the most important of which is known as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (or OST). This mandates that the exploration of outer space should be peaceful, and not subject to claims of sovereignty (international law partly inspired by the 1959 Antarctic Treaty).

Resource extraction is murkier legal territory, with no mention in the OST. Attempts were made to cover this with the 1979 ‘Moon Agreement’, which labelled resources the “common heritage of all mankind”. Only 18 states ever signed, however, rendering it largely ineffective.

In 2015 the US passed legislation recognising property in outer-space resources, with states such as Luxembourg following suit. The UK should support creating a clear rules-based system that regulates firms’ conduct in outer space to reflect the variety of policy options, both economic and environmental. Otherwise unilateralism risks triumph over multilateral governance.

The deep seabed

As in outer space, the seabed is an evolving area of international governance. The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is the UN body designated to regulate resource extraction on the seabed in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Licences granted so far extend only to exploration in 30 regions, but the Authority is working towards a Mining Code that would allow exploitation. The intention was to agree to the Code in July 2020, although the COVID-19 pandemic has delayed this.

Still, the underlying desire to mine the deep seabed will not diminish. It holds enormous quantities of valuable minerals used in smartphones and by renewable-energy technologies. The World Bank estimates that, to keep global temperature rises this century to “well below” 2°C (the central aim of the 2015 Paris Agreement), demand for certain metals used in batteries will increase more than ten times by 2050. Indeed, prices for palladium, used in catalytic convertors, have risen by a third since the millennium. Platinum, used in electric-vehicle fuel cells, has more than doubled. Seafloor mining technology has also advanced markedly over recent years, according to ISA’s current Secretary-General.

What about the environment? A British Government-commissioned capability statement warned in 2017 of “the potential extinction of unique species which form the first rung of the food chain”. The prospect of mining has resulted in the classification of the scaly-foot snail – Chrysomallon squamiferum – as endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. More worrying, we simply have no idea what life would be destroyed. There are almost 26,000 species listed in the deep sea (below 500 metres depth), but research has modelled there could be over 10 million.

Defending multilateralism in the commons

The British government has sponsored two licences for polymetallic nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone, an area of 4.5m square kilometres between Hawaii and Mexico. On exploitation, its position is to take the precautionary principle, specifying it will not sponsor “any exploitation licences for deep-sea mining projects until there is sufficient scientific evidence about the potential impact on deep-sea ecosystems” with “strong” ISA standards in place.

This is to be commended, but should go further. Regulations need to establish a baseline for biodiversity, from which subsequent divergence can be monitored. There should also be a clear roadmap towards ever-greater environmental protections as the industry matures.

Whether at the abyssal depths of our planet’s oceans or far beyond our atmosphere, rules on resource-extraction should be established on a multilateral basis. Responsibility demands that these prioritise environmental protection, based on the precautionary principle.

Max Daniels is a Fellow at the Polar Research & Policy Initiative, has worked in the House of Commons, and studied for an MA in Geopolitics, Territory and Security at King’s College London.

The pandemic reveals the need for change in UK migration policy

COVID-19 has changed, and will continue to change, migration policy. As we move towards the end of the Brexit transition period and away from the height of the pandemic, the Government should adapt policy to provide stronger social rights for those migrants who have contributed so much to COVID-19 efforts, or else they risk losing them.

The way politics responds to both the COVID-19 pandemic and migration appears to be two sides of the same coin. Both matters transcend borders and are associated with policy responses which call for the tightening of borders. How will the future landscape for new and existing migrants in the UK change?

In the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, this landscape will drastically change. Beyond this, there is potential for the UK government to create an appreciative environment for those migrant workers that the UK and countries across the EU have relied on for the past few months.

Is migration an area of concern for the UK public?

Since the pandemic began, immigration has seemingly slipped from Britain’s policy agenda. Whilst it might feel like an era ago, it has only been a few months since Brexit was at the forefront of British politics, which itself was built on a foundation of hostile migration policies. It is important, therefore, to see how migration has shifted in the list of top issues facing Britain.

According to public surveys by Ipsos MORI in February and April 2020, “immigration/immigrants” was no longer a top 10 issue for the UK public. Just 5% mention this as a key issue, the lowest score for “immigration/immigrants” recorded since December 1999. The change in perception towards this issue is particularly stark when compared to views just before the EU referendum in early 2016, when over half (56%) of those surveyed stated that “immigration/immigrants” is a concern (the highest proportion recorded for this issue).

The beating heart of the country

During the pandemic, the efforts of migrants working in essential industries have been singled out. Notably, Boris Johnson publicly thanked two nurses: “Jenny from New Zealand” and “Luis from Portugal”, who were by his side for 48 hours when he was in a critical condition due to COVID-19. It is even more interesting that he stated an unnecessary piece of information when describing someone’s merits: their respective countries of origin. He described their roles in the NHS and referred to them as being part of the “beating heart of this country” and “the best of this country”.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock also paid tribute to NHS workers “from all over the world” who “came to this country to make a difference”. Indeed, according to a report published by Parliament in July 2019, 13.1% of the NHS workforce are not British, or around 153,000 staff. Losing such a sizable proportion of the NHS workforce would undoubtedly cause the NHS to suffer.

This immigrant-positive rhetoric is a far cry from the Conservative government’s previous announcement of the ‘hostile environment’. Many people from migrant backgrounds may be curious whether and how this will change in the aftermath of the pandemic. Will they still be welcomed in these sectors or is ‘clap for carers’ only temporary? It is questionable whether this rhetoric will manifest into concrete policy changes after the pandemic.

The aftermath of the pandemic

For the UK Government the topic of migration should become a renewed area of focus, but for different reasons to those prior to the pandemic. The pandemic has revealed the very visible contribution of migrant workers, yet many could face the double blow of being classed as ‘low-skilled’ and earning below the minimum salary requirement to work and settle in the UK. These include supermarket workers, caregivers, people working on farms, and those keeping the country moving by driving buses.

Indeed, there was a notorious call for people to fill a shortage of workers on British farms in April 2020. After a call for British workers failed to attract people to the role, the Government was forced to bring in seasonal workers from Eastern Europe using chartered flights. It seems, contrary to previous anti-immigration rhetoric, that there is a deep-rooted need for migrant workers.

Migration policies must change to provide stronger social rights for migrants. They are COVID-19’s unsung heroes, making the ultimate sacrifice to the pandemic and essential services recently. These policies should shift away from attracting solely skilled workers if the UK wants to keep our essential workers after the crisis. This is particularly crucial towards the end of the Brexit transition period when immigration may return to the agenda. If policies stay stagnant or move along their hostile trajectory, the Government risks losing those they have been relying on, something that may be hard for them to admit.

Preeti Pasricha is co-Head of Agora’s Democracy & Governance Programme.