Britain can genuinely rely on only three nations, and the US is not among them.
download - 2025-03-17T054949.539.jpeg
It's crucial for us to build a strong alliance with these trusted countries, which would undoubtedly be a significant advantage for the Prime Minister. A military band from Canada stands ready to play the national anthem at a Royal Fair celebrating the coronation of King Charles III. Canada, Australia, Britain, and New Zealand are all united under the same crown. Within hours of Britain declaring war on September 3, 1939, New Zealand's first Labour Prime Minister, Michael Joseph Savage, made a poignant statement from his hospital bed, shortly before his passing seven months later: "With gratitude for the past and hope for the future, we stand unwaveringly alongside Britain. Wherever she leads, we will follow.
" How many nations share such a deep bond that it requires no explanation? The answer is a brief list, primarily comprising Australia, Canada, and New Zealand—countries that share not just language and culture, but also kinship. Our legal systems resonate with each other's precedents, and our parliamentary practices, complete with maces and green benches, mirror one another. Together, we share allegiance to the same monarch. The contemporary movement to strengthen ties among these four key nations began in British Columbia in 2015, branded as CANZUK—a term first used by UN officials noting how frequently these nations voted together. Advocates of CANZUK seek enhanced diplomatic and defense collaboration, an automatic right for citizens to work in one another's countries, and a common market built on mutual standards for goods, services, and professional qualifications. For years, the notion of CANZUK was regarded as admirable but not pressing. However, shifting political tides—including the second Trump term, tariff conflicts, and major changes in US foreign policy—have led both major Canadian parties and all three coalition parties in New Zealand to embrace the idea, while growing support is evident in Britain as well. Consider a thought experiment: if Donald Trump were secretly working for Vladimir Putin, how would his actions differ? Beyond stopping weapons supplies to Ukraine, Trump has embraced and propagated Putin's narratives, labeling Volodymyr Zelensky a dictator and accusing him of instigating the war.
He has deprioritized the Russian threat within his cybersecurity agency and relieved pro-Ukrainian generals from their positions. Additionally, he has aligned with Russia at the UN against motions condemning the invasion of Ukraine, even as countries like China abstained. His confrontations with NATO allies—threatening to annex Greenland and initiating an economic conflict with Canada—have left fellow democratic leaders in the Anglosphere feeling isolated, much like Roman governors during the fall of Rome. This leaves Britain questioning its defense strategy, as historically it has relied on the US as its main ally in times of major conflict. Since the 1950s, Britain has expected to fight alongside America in significant wars, while managing smaller conflicts independently. This dependency has shaped our military capabilities, especially in areas such as heavy equipment logistics and nuclear deterrence. As we near the end of the Trident II's operational lifespan in 2040, uncertainty looms over America's reliability as an ally. While I remain hopeful that Britain and Europe will align on the side of freedom and democracy, recent events have shown a lack of goodwill, with EU actions in response to Britain's vaccine rollout demonstrating that we cannot always count on Europe's commitment to our defense. Ultimately, the only countries with which it seems unimaginable we could sever ties in 40 years are the CANZUK nations. This is vital, especially as we make decisions regarding our future deterrent. Should we pursue an autonomous nuclear capability—similar to France's—we would need our own rocket manufacturing capacity. This endeavor would require nearly double the investment compared to purchasing from the US. Alone, we might struggle to afford it; united within a CANZUK partnership, it becomes feasible.
CANZUK has consistently garnered around two-thirds of public support across its member nations, standing out as a highly popular yet unimplemented policy. The previous reluctance of politicians, largely stemming from right-leaning parties, now faces a transformed landscape, as Trump's aggressive stance towards allies has shifted the dialogue. Suddenly, CANZUK appears not only necessary but urgent. In a recent debate among candidates for Canada's Liberal leadership, there was a clear consensus on the need for closer economic ties with fellow English-speaking monarchies, even in a French-language forum. When I previously brought up CANZUK in the House of Lords, Minister Baroness Chapman indicated that the government would consider any proposals. Personally, I do not prefer a CANZUK pact over a US-led framework. I see value in retaining our long-standing US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement and NATO structures. Yet, should the American alliance falter, CANZUK offers a robust alternative, potentially forming the third most powerful military coalition globally. How swiftly can we implement this? October next year marks the 100th anniversary of the 1926 Imperial Conference, which started the evolution of the British Empire into the Commonwealth as a voluntary association. As King Charles III prepares to host prime ministers from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand—potentially with new leaders like Peter Dutton and Pierre Poilievre—it would be an opportune moment to announce the establishment of a CANZUK secretariat. This body would promote labor mobility, market reciprocity, and a unified defense strategy among our allied nations. Such a move would provide a significant electoral boost to all participating leaders. Interestingly, if Sir Keir Starmer can champion this initiative, he would truly earn accolades.
[attachment deleted by admin]