Where We Are Now

As the Conservative leadership contest moves towards its later stages, the eleven contenders who were in the race last week have been whittled down to just four. The past week has given a clearer picture of what the foreign policy priorities of each of the survivors might be, particularly in relation to defence spending and their commitments to the Government’s net zero by 2050 target. With these positions clarified, it is now possible to re-examine what international affairs may look like under a Conservative government led by each one.

Rishi Sunak

After a dip in support, Rishi Sunak is once again the bookmaker’s favourite to win the contest, and has made a number of telling comments on foreign affairs, particularly in debates.

We have learned, for example, that Sunak views China as a national security threat, but also that he is willing to work alongside it, particularly on economic issues. On Russia, he has been unwavering in his support for Ukraine, and is committed to continuing the Johnson government’s work on the matter, such as sanctions and military aid.

The former Chancellor is perhaps more enthusiastic about going net zero than some of his colleagues, and believes that the 2050 target is viable. He did, however, urge caution, warning that the target must be met incrementally as part of his attack on so-called ‘fairytale economics’.

This fiscal hawkishness also spills over into foreign policy more directly. Last year, whilst Chancellor, Sunak announced the abandonment of the government’s commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP of developmental aid, devastating key recipients including Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. In the Budget of the same year, Sunak courted the Middle Eastern aristocracy by announcing policies attractive to investment including a holiday on stamp duty and eight new freeports.

In private, Sunak has reportedly pushed back against the current Conservative government’s attempts to repeal aspects of the Northern Ireland Protocol. Alliance MP Stephen Farry described him as the ‘least worst option’ for peace in the nation.

Penny Mordaunt

The one-time Defence Secretary’s campaign is showing signs of slowing down after lacklustre debating performances and repeated attacks in sections of the Conservative-aligned press.

One such attack, in the Daily Mail, alleges that Mordaunt met with the chair of the Muslim Council of Britain, a body whom the government have boycotted since 2009 due to allegations of antisemitism regarding comments made about Jihad in Israel. Whilst this does not reflect well on her ability to build strong Britain-Israel relations, it does indicate that she is wiling to talk to controversial actors, a key aspect of effective peacemaking.

Elsewhere, though peacemaking does not seem to be on the agenda. Mordaunt has made her military background a core aspect of her political persona, and has stressed her belief that defence spending should rise by at least 0.5% above inflation per year.

An MP since 2010, Mordaunt has an extensively hawkish voting record in the Middle East, supporting air strikes both in Syria and Iraq.

On immigration, she has taken among the harsher stances. Not only does she, like all the candidates, support the continuation of the controversial Rwanda deportation policy, but she also supports denying people smugglers access to fuel and boats altogether.

Perhaps more reassuringly, Mordaunt is committed to the existing net zero target, and has indicated a few policies which may help achieve it, including the creation of new green jobs.

Liz Truss

The current Foreign Secretary is perhaps the candidate most committed to militaristic solutions to global disputes, raising questions about her peacemaking credentials.

In debates, she has challenged other contenders for their lack of keenness to raise defence spending, and advocates for the expenditure of 3% of GDP on this sector.

On the Ukraine situation, she has taken a particularly hard line, opposing all Russian intervention in the nation, including in the annexed Crimea region. She takes a much harder line on China than her colleagues, allegedly privately telling a caucus of MPs that she would recognise the situation of the Uighur people in northwestern China as a genocide.

A born-again Brexiteer, Truss is supportive of reforming the European Court of Human Rights, and has indicated that she may be willing to remove the UK from its jurisdiction, raising questions about peace and human rights at home.

On the net zero issue, Truss is somewhere to the Right of Sunak. Supporting the target in principle is one thing, but the Foreign Secretary also opposes key measures to help the United Kingsdom reach it, including the green levy on energy.

Kemi Badenoch

The candidate with the lowest existing profile, Badenoch’s campaign may well draw to a close very soon, which is just as well considering her staunch right-wing stance on  issues of foreign affairs.

Unlike the others, she would initially not even pay lip service to the net zero target, and outright rejected it. In the last few days, she has shifted her position slightly, committing to the goal, but, like Truss, not to the policies which would make it achievable.

It is hard to see how Badenoch could square the circle of defence spending. From the back of a campaign centred around austerity measures and the slimming down of the state, it would be logically inconsistent to argue for an increase in military expenditure. After all, she has suggested cutting down the foreign aid budget even further.

Badenoch also styles herself as an ‘anti-woke’ politician, and has criticised popular ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s for its activist stance on issues such as the refugee crisis and its support for Palestine and the Middle East Peace Process. It is, therefore, almost impossible that a Badenoch premiership would help advance the cause of peace in that region.