International Relations and Defence Committee

The committee scrutinised whether the post-war multilateral order still works, and what that means for UK influence. Sir Mark Lyall Grant and Sir John Sawers agreed that some operational institutions still function, but the UN Security Council and WTO dispute settlement are badly weakened by great-power rivalry and US disengagement. Both argued the UK must adapt to a more realist, three-tier world by focusing on a small number of priorities, using coalitions, intelligence, defence, diplomacy and soft power more selectively, and doing more with the global South. They also emphasised that UK influence depends on domestic strength, economic growth and stable leadership, while warning that current aid and diplomatic cuts, and over-proselytising liberal values, constrain Britain’s ability to shape outcomes.

The session scrutinised whether the international multilateral system is in crisis or in transition, and what the UK should do. Witnesses argued that multilateral institutions are both in crisis and being reconfigured by multipolarity, with China and the US competing for control of finance, technology and governance. They urged the UK to act as a convenor, to rebuild cross‑government coherence, and to lead in the G20 while engaging with the global South and regional bodies. Reform paths include crisis‑driven renewal, selective institutional reform, and safer funding for core tasks (health, humanitarian relief, climate, energy). They warned UN funding pressures risk turning agencies into “guns for hire” if reform stalls. The committee should map the breadth of multilateralism and propose a UK strategy focusing on energy, technology, health, and a cohesive cross‑government approach through the G20 and regional forums.

The March 2026 IR&DC session examined how US Middle East policy, especially the Iran actions, intersects with UK foreign and defence priorities. Witnesses highlighted tensions between US strategic aims and international-law norms, questioned the value of close US-UK alignment in a shifting global order, and urged the UK to diversify partnerships and develop a clear plan for any involvement in Iran-related actions. Recommendations focused on creating explicit UK objectives for any military engagement, deepening European security cooperation, and improving engagement with US institutions (e.g., Congress) to align interests with UK values and security needs.

This session examined the legality of US actions in Venezuela and their implications for the rules-based international order. The witnesses, Professor Michael Schmitt (University of Reading) and Professor Marc Weller (Chatham House), argued that US operations violated the UN Charter and international law, with Schmitt detailing multiple phases of the intervention as breaches of sovereignty and the prohibition on force, and Weller emphasizing broader consequences for the international legal order and the need for UK leadership in defending the rule of law. The discussion also covered the Monroe Doctrine, the use of force in humanitarian contexts (Kosovo), and the potential for coalition-building and institutional mechanisms to uphold international law. While both witnesses condemned unlawful use of force, they differed on normative steps the UK and other states should take to reinforce or reform the regime governing interstate action. The session did not record formal government commitments, but it highlighted calls for the UK to “step up” in defence of the rule of law and to consider convening a global coalition or panel on international rule of law.”

The session scrutinised the US National Security Strategy (NSS) and National Defense Strategy (NDS) and their implications for UK security and UK–US defence cooperation. The witnesses characterised the NSS as a “flexible realism” document that foregrounds the nation-state, border control, burden-sharing, energy dominance, and diplomacy over intervention, while downgrading Europe as the central starting point of grand strategy and emphasising Western Hemisphere and Indo‑Pacific priorities. They stressed the NSS is presidential‑driven and provides strategic scaffolding rather than binding directives. From a UK perspective, the witnesses urged diversification of partnerships beyond the US while maintaining Five Eyes and continued Atlantic ties; they warned of potential US disengagement from Europe and spoke about a possible move toward a European‑led NATO, arguing the UK should plan for greater European burden-sharing and stronger European partnerships, including in Asia. They noted contradictions in the NSS regarding Europe and flagged concerns about “burden dumping” and how European defence funding and capability gaps might evolve. Looking ahead, the discussions highlighted the need for a clear UK China strategy, careful navigation of US–EU relations, and maintaining interoperability with the US while broadening partnerships with other allies.

In this 19 November 2025 session, the International Relations and Defence Committee questions Stephen Doughty and James Hughes on the depth, direction and safeguards of the UK–US relationship. Key government positions include a reaffirmed commitment to invest in the bilateral partnership, insistence on the UK’s independent foreign and defence policy alongside NATO obligations, and continued collaboration across defence, intelligence, and technology. The session also probes the economic dimension of the relationship (tariffs, the Economic Prosperity Deal), multilateral engagement, and ongoing challenges in climate policy, aid/trade in Sudan, and cultural/creative-industry concerns. Notable government commitments include sustaining the partnership, pursuing tariff improvements (including Section 232 discussions on pharmaceuticals) and supporting Ukraine; while there is acknowledgement of ongoing diplomatic efforts around Palestine and future ambassadorial appointment in Washington. The committee surfaces concerns about climate divergence, the status of a UK ambassador in Washington, and the long-term health of the “special relationship” amid geopolitical shifts.