Raphael Machado
Despite British efforts to regain some of the prestige lost throughout the 20th century, London has faced either a lack of material means or excessively adverse conditions.
The United Kingdom occupies a unique geopolitical position in the contemporary world. Once the world's leading power during the century spanning Napoleon's defeat to the onset of World War I, the UK found itself surpassed by the United States (and the Soviet Union) following the conclusion of World War II. This decline led to the gradual loss of almost all its overseas possessions.
The geopolitical collapse of the UK has been so pronounced that, particularly after Brexit, many began to label the country as the "51st state" of the United States, denying any semblance of autonomy or agency to a nation once synonymous with Atlanticism and a key driver of the European project for several decades.
However, this narrative that dismisses the UK as merely an extension of U.S. geopolitical interests is incomplete or even misinformed. While it is true that, particularly in recent decades, the UK has struggled to act independently or contrary to U.S. policies, the country has pursued independent initiatives in regions such as the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Ibero-America.
In fact, Brexit can be seen as a trigger that provided new life to British foreign policy directed toward these regions, as its external relations have partially "de-Europeanized" (with the exception of Eastern Europe).
Thus, British intelligence (MI5, MI6, etc.) remains an influential actor on the international stage, with priorities that do not always align with those of the U.S. intelligence community.
The British Empire was the dominant external power in Ibero-America during much of the 19th century. Through diplomacy and elite clubs such as Freemasonry, Britain aimed to dismantle and eliminate the Spanish Empire from the New World. This was largely achieved in the early decades of that century with the independence movements, most of which were supported by London.
By doing so, the UK replaced Spain as the de facto metropolis overseeing nations that were formally independent but effectively subordinated as colonies of London's finance-centric City. Beyond controlling the region's economies through monopolies on primary products and loans or by purchasing sovereign debt, Britain also imposed military hegemony through actions such as the naval blockade of Buenos Aires and the Falklands issue.
While the Monroe Doctrine gradually eroded British dominance in the Western Hemisphere, leading to Washington replacing London as the primary power, historical ties (and some possessions) were never completely severed.
However, London's influence in the region has largely been confined to environmental debates in recent years. For instance, in Brazil, despite attempts to expand trade relations, the UK's primary engagement revolved around financing environmental NGOs and issuing threats against the Bolsonaro government over accusations of "Amazon destruction." These included hints at invoking the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine on environmental grounds.
A dangerous precedent was also set with the confiscation of Venezuelan gold stored at the Bank of England during the dispute involving Juan Guaidó. Venezuela's attempts to legally recover the gold culminated in a final legal defeat in 2023. Consequently, any country deemed "illegitimate" by the so-called "international community" risks having its assets frozen and confiscated by London, undermining trust in bilateral relations.
Clearly, the UK is a declining force in Ibero-America, with China and, increasingly, Russia strengthening trade, military, and energy ties with regional countries at the expense of British influence.
In contrast, British foreign policy in the Middle East has been more consistent and assertive post-Brexit.
This region, traditionally a zone of British influence, especially following the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire where the UK played a pivotal role in dividing territories and drawing borders to suit its own interests, remains an area of strong British activity.
Among Britain's most reliable allies in the region, none stands out more than Jordan, whose Hashemite monarchy has historically been a "client" of London. This relationship has not changed in recent years, with intensified military exercises and joint efforts by both countries to intercept Iranian projectiles during retaliatory attacks against Israel.
However, the UK's relations with other countries in the region are more ambiguous.
A classic example of such ambiguous relationships is Turkey, which balances its ties with Western countries, including the UK, with whom it has signed a free trade agreement and cooperates on a military modernization project, while simultaneously maintaining relations with Russia, Iran, and even, covertly, with Israel.
On the other hand, with Saudi Arabia, another traditional ally, there are contradictions involving the sale of arms and other military equipment by London to Riyadh. Furthermore, Britain's emphasis on the Green Agenda contrasts with Saudi Arabia's own strategic interests. While the Saudis are not opposed to energy diversification, they have leaned toward the "nuclear" route, which has led Riyadh to strengthen relations with China and Russia.
In countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman, the UK maintains military installations and deployments. However, this distribution of troops-primarily aimed at controlling the Persian Gulf-may be numbered as the region increasingly becomes hostile to Western presence.
Iraq provides another example. The UK, which once played a significant role alongside the U.S., has seen its military and economic operations in the country reduced to a bare minimum and practically wiped out, with companies like Shell exiting Iraq. To some extent, Iran has replaced most of the Western influence that has retreated from the country.
Meanwhile, in the Asia-Pacific and Indo-Pacific regions, the UK's strategy seems to mirror that of the U.S., with an emphasis on prioritization.
The British strategy for this part of the world was formalized in the 2021 Integrated Review of Security, Defense, Development, and Foreign Policy, which identified the region as a priority due to China's growing influence.
However, this is the principal obstacle to Britain's recovery of influence in the area. Although the Belt and Road Initiative has global scope, its greatest impact has been on Southeast Asian countries and, broadly, ASEAN nations. The UK lacks a viable alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative. To make matters worse, far from its 19th-century naval projection capabilities, the UK now depends entirely on its regional alliances (such as AUKUS, for instance) to project any power in the Pacific.
In summary, despite British efforts to regain some of the prestige lost throughout the 20th century, London has faced either a lack of material means (be it investment capacity or military capability) or excessively adverse conditions (shifting geopolitical contexts, competition from local powers). Overall, it has struggled to offer countries in these regions any significant advantages that would make it a preferred partner.