𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

How do British Prime Ministers convey their commitment to national security? Invariably they reach for a familiar line: “The first duty of any Prime Minister is to keep the nation safe.” Sir Keir Starmer repeated it often. Yet having been repeatedly warned that an increasingly aggressive Russia could attack parts of Europe by 2030, his own Defence Investment Plan did not expect Britain to become fully war-ready until around 2035. Now it’s Andy Burnham’s turn.

He has yet to receive the keys to No 10 but, in his first major contribution to the defence debate earlier this month in a newspaper article, he opened by declaring that, you guessed it, the first responsibility of any government is to keep its people safe by strengthening our national security. In these increasingly turbulent times, it is reassuring to see our likely next Prime Minister addressing the threats Britain faces. Yet Burnham’s much-trailed speech in Manchester last month, setting out his economic vision, barely mentioned defence.

There were grand ambitions for a “No 10 for the North” and a blueprint for national renewal, but little recognition that today’s economy and our national security are now inseparable. Without security, our economy becomes increasingly vulnerable; without a growing economy, we cannot afford to protect it.

Burnham has limited experience in defence and foreign affairs. Yet with around half of Britain’s GDP dependent on international trade, events overseas are likely to shape his premiership every bit as much as domestic politics. Perhaps that explains why he felt compelled to set out his defence thinking so early.

Burnham is right to remind us that Britain faces a more dangerous world and that the character of conflict, particularly in the grey zone, is changing at remarkable speed.

But as I argue in my new book, Ten Steps to Prevent World War Three, we remain in denial about the trajectory the world is on – a steady slide towards greater confrontation and conflict. The debate about rebuilding Britain’s military strength is welcome. But debate must become action and stronger armed forces alone will neither halt growing global instability nor prevent our adversaries from increasingly targeting our economy.

Protecting Britain from the consequences of conflicts overseas requires more than tanks, ships and aircraft – though we undoubtedly need them as well. It requires statecraft. The purpose of any serious national security strategy should not simply be to fight wars well, but to prevent them from happening in the first place. The greatest military success is often the conflict that never requires British troops to deploy.

Every military professional understands that force is a last resort. It is most effective when backed by diplomacy, partnerships, intelligence and development, working together to reduce instability before it turns into armed conflict. That is the beauty of deterrence and nipping problems in the bud before they turn ‘hot’.

The drivers of conflict are well understood. Weak states, food insecurity, infectious disease, organised crime, extremism and mass displacement create the conditions in which violence flourishes. Addressing these challenges is an essential part of protecting Britain’s own security.

That is why development and diplomacy must once again be recognised as core tools of national security, not optional extras. Properly targeted aid is an investment in Britain’s security. Used wisely, it builds resilience, strengthens trusted partners and creates the political and diplomatic off-ramps that prevent crises escalating into wars.

It is Britain’s first line of defence.

Burnham says he wants to tackle illegal migration, extremism and protect Britain’s economic security. None of these challenges begin in Britain. They require sustained engagement overseas. When we cut development spending, instability overseas deepens. Refugees flee towards Europe, including the UK. Extremists exploit failing states to recruit followers and export terrorism. Civil wars disrupt trade routes and overseas markets, harming Britain’s prosperity.

Britain once understood that hard power and soft power are two sides of the same coin. Military strength deters aggression; diplomacy, development and statecraft reduce the need to use it. If Burnham is serious about making Britain safer, he must champion both. Otherwise, the threats no tank, warship or fighter jet can stop will increasingly arrive on our shores.

Tobias Ellwood is a former Conservative MP, who was chair of the Defence Select Committee from 2020 until 2023, and author of Ten Steps to Prevent World War Three