The
answer to the question ‘Is the UK a global military power?’ depends on the
theoretical lens through which one analyses the UK’s military power. The
theoretical perspective affects the definition of ‘military power’ that is used
and therefore the answer to the question. At the beginning of this essay I will
discuss a prominent school of thought within International Relations, Realism. I
will argue that examining the UK’s military power through this theoretical
approach provides the conclusion that the UK is not a global military power.
This is because realism considers power as a zero-sum game based on material
capabilities. The UK’s material capabilities are weaker when compared to that
of other states and therefore if power is zero-sum the UK loses power as other
states gain it. I will then argue that the UK is in fact a global military
power when factors other than material capabilities are analysed. Factors such
as the UK’s membership of security institutions, the implications of these
memberships and the UK military’s global reach and influence. I will use Hedley
Bull’s defining characteristics of a global power to examine the UK’s military
strength. This requires an English School approach, which I believe to be more appropriate
than the Realist approach as it takes into consideration the role of the
military in a changing global environment e.g. The importance of international
institutions, the role of humanitarian intervention and emerging security
challenges that require British military influence abroad.

Defining
what a ‘global military power’ is fundamental to answering this question. The
literature often conflates military power with the status of a global power
more generally. For example, military capability and thus power, is a country’s
ability to defend itself against threats, both foreign and domestic, as well as
pursuing interests despite competing interests from other actors (Tellis,
2000).  Military power is considered in
this instance as the product of national power, hence the status of global
power being synonymous with military power. This can make it difficult to
distinctly define if a state is a global military power therefore it is simpler
to measure military power rather than to define it. As previously mentioned measuring
military power depends on the theoretical approach taken. This is why I will be
using two different notions of military power. I will begin by discussing the
realist approach.

 Mearsheimer, in his book ‘The tragedy of great
power politics’, states that global powers have offensive military capabilities
and that military power is measured in relation to the weaponry a state
possesses (Mearsheimer, 2001). Immediately, the material military power a state
possesses is an indicator of its status as a global military power. Therefore,
I will use the assertion by Mearsheimer that ‘a state’s effective power is
ultimately a function of its military forces and how they compare with the
military forces of rival states’ (Mearsheimer, 2001, 55) as the key indicator
of military power from a realist perspective. The international relations
scholar Kenneth Waltz also asserts that a great power is one which holds
material superiority over others, reasserting that material military
capabilities are an important indicator of power status (Morris, 2011).

The
‘Global Fire Power’ website provides a ‘power index’ whereby countries are
given a score as a result of their; air, sea and land forces, strength of
infrastructure, resilience of economy and defensible territory. This rating
provides an indicator of where the UK ranks in terms of its potential to ‘wage
a prolonged campaign against another’ state (Globalfirepower.com, 2017). Much
of this score is based upon numerical data relating to physical capabilities
such as total aircraft strength, total naval assets, army personnel as well
defence spending and natural resources (petroleum). The UK ranks 6 in the world
on this index below France, China, Russia, India and the United States
(Globalfirepower.com, 2017). Maintaining a realist perspective indicates that
the UK is not a global military power in comparison to the five states which
supersede its power. This is because power that is acquired relatively is more
significant than absolute gain (Waltz, 1959). In other words, analysing the
UK’s military power in relation to other states is more indicative of its
global position than if it were to be analysed in isolation to other states,
according to realist theory. This is the
assertion that power is a zero-sum game, which means as one actor gains power
other actors immediately lose power. Therefore, as other states rank above the
UK using this power index the UK is immediately rendered weaker than the states
above it (Powell, 1991).

Significantly,
the power index does not include the UK’s nuclear capabilities which are part
of its military power as nuclear weapons spending falls under the defence
budget of the UK. The Royal United Services Institute claimed in 2013 that the
UK’s submarine and deterrent spending would account for 35% of defence spending
by 2020/21 (Chalmers, 2013). The UK’s nuclear capabilities are significant as
the UK is one of only nine countries in the world that possess nuclear weapons.
Nevertheless, if the UK’s military power is relative then the fact that the UK
as of March 2016 only possessed 215 nuclear weapons in comparison to Russia’s
7000 and the US’s 6,800 (Ploughshares Fund, 2017), proves that the UK is powerful
due to its nuclear capacity in absolute gain but is not powerful relatively.

My
argument is that the English School approach is a superior lens through which
this question can be answered. This is because it not only acknowledges the
importance of power and how it is distributed but it also brings attention to
other factors (Morris, 2011). In this section I will examine the UK’s military
power using the definition of a great power put forward by Hedley Bull as well
as the concept of ‘legalised hegemony’ and the UK’s global reach and influence.
 This definition and other considerations
allows for a more holistic approach for examining the UK’s position as a global
military power.

Hedley Bull in his 1977 book ‘The Anarchical Society: A study of order in world politics’, describes the role of great powers and thus what makes them ‘great’. It is important to note that the application of the various aspects of this definition to characteristics of the UK’s military power overlap with each other in terms of where they fit into the definition. Firstly, he states that the country must be one of a collection of states of comparable power (Bull, 1977). The UK’s membership of NATO is an indicator of its comparability with other military powers in the world. The UK is one of the 5 of the 28 countries in the alliance that meets its defence spending target. NATO members are required to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defence, the UK spent £60.3 billion on defence in 2016 (Economist.com, 2017). This is similar to the spending of other European states that met their 2% target e.g. Germany, France and Greece (Economist.com, 2017). This indicates that the UK is economically capable of funding its military to similar levels as other states which have a similar size and GDP. NATO states that for a state to become a member it must be in position to ‘further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.’ (Nato.int, 2017). This indicates that the UK has both the political but most importantly the military capability to contribute to NATO’s aim of maintaining the freedom and security of the North Atlantic area. This is a symbol that the UK is of comparable military power to other member states within this powerful alliance. The next two aspects of Bull’s definition, when applied to the UK, reiterate the point that the country is of comparable military power to other global powers through its membership of highly influential institutions and ability to reach and intervene in a majority of conflicts across the globe.

Secondly,
Bull asserts that the state should be in the top classification of states in
terms of military strength to be considered a global power (Bull, 1977). This
is when the realist perspective, in terms of material capabilities, comes into
play within the English School perspective. As previously noted, the UK is
number 6 on the power index according to Global Fire Power (Globalfirepower.com,
2017). Most notably, a recent article published by the UK Defence Review stated
that a study carried out by European Geostrategy characterised the UK as a
‘Global Power’, only second behind the US which was labelled a ‘Superpower’
(Allison, 2017). The article references military capabilities and operations as
the cause of the classification.  Not
only does this categorise the UK as a global military power it also places it
in the top rank of countries in terms of military strength. The study claimed
the UK is a ‘A country lacking the heft or comprehensive attributes of a
superpower, but still with a wide international footprint and [military] means
to reach most geopolitical theatres, particularly the Middle East, South-East
Asia, East Asia, Africa and South America.’(Allison, 2017). The article also
referenced the UK’s membership of NATO and the United Nations Security Council,
as well as military interventions and operations carried out by the UK such as
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Allison, 2017)

Thirdly
and most significantly, Bull claims that global powers have certain rights and
duties that are internationally recognised by other states and actors but also
by their own leaders and citizens (Bull, 1977). The most recognisable
manifestation of this characteristic, in the case of the UK, is the state’s permanent
seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The UNSC primary aim is to
deal with threats to peace. The council has various means of doing this
including diplomatic and economic solutions, but it also issues directives for
peacekeeping operations, accommodating ceasefires, dispatching military
observers and initiating collective military action (Un.org, 2017). The UK’s
ability to veto and vote on the council is a right, as described by Bull, that
is unique to only the permanent five members of the council. This has given the
UK influence over key military decisions allowing for the expansion of
influence and power. For example, in 2011 the UK voted in favour of conducting
airstrikes against the Gaddafi regime in Libya. This was a call for military
action within a sovereign state, a crucial indicator of the UK’s military power
through intervention.

Special
duties are another aspect of Bull’s definition. Special duties carried out by
the UK include humanitarian intervention. Broadly defined, humanitarian
intervention requires the use of a country’s military power in the form of
armed force to end a humanitarian crisis in another state (Opil.ouplaw.com, 2011).
The modern concept has encompassed other justifications for humanitarian
intervention such as the need to bring about peace, stabilise a region and end
human rights abuses (Opil.ouplaw.com, 2011). In 2011 the UK was a key supporter
of UNSC resolution 1973 which authorized intervention in Libya on humanitarian
grounds (United Nations Security Council, 2011). In 2015 the UK began carrying
out airstrikes in Iraq and Syria with the goal of defeating ISIS along with a
coalition of other states led by the US. A country must have the military
capability to intervene in another state on humanitarian grounds as it requires
use of material military. This indicates that the UK has the significant material
military power to do this.

Gerry
Simpson’s conception of ‘legalised hegemony’ reinforces the argument that the
UK is a global military power (Simpson, 2004).  Simpson defines legalised hegemony as the
existence of ‘an elite group of states’ within international society that have
specific rights, duties and privileges distinct from other states which are
considered to have less power (Simpson, 2004, pg. 68). The UK’s seat on the
UNSC, membership of NATO and involvement in humanitarian intervention are all
evidence of the UK having the military power to be considered a part of this
elite group of states. Moreover, the UK’s position within Simpson’s legalised
hierarchy compliments Bull’s definition of a great power having special rights
and duties.

The global reach of a country’s military is a critical variable in assessing military power. The ability for a country to maintain and build a presence in all four corners of the globe is a accurate indicator of its power. The UK has overseas defence facilities in 10 countries across the globe (Allison, 2017) allowing the UK to have a presence in areas of strategic and diplomatic significance e.g. the Falklands, Canada, Brunei, Kenya and Bahrain. This enables the UK to pursue its defence and political interests as well as carry out expeditionary warfare if needed. Moreover, the UK’s overseas territory of the Falkland Islands provides strategic advantage by providing the UK with a military presence in the South Atlantic region. Relatively, the US has defence facilities in 70 countries across the globe but is the only state to have a greater number of overseas defence facilities than the UK (Grunwald, 2015).  The UK’s war in Afghanistan which lasted from 2001 to 2014 is another example of the UK’s ability to maintain a military presence abroad. The UK’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and subsequent presence lasted until 2011 which is significant evidence of global reach. As the threat of terrorism increases the UK is now a member of the Global Coalition, a group of countries pledged to defeat Daesh. The British Army presently has a non-combat role in Iraq, where it trains and provides equipment to the Iraqi Security Forces of whom it has trained 25,000 in various combat roles (Army.mod.uk, 2017), further indicating the country’s global reach and military power. An analysis of the UK’s military power would not be complete without reference to the Commonwealth. The British Empire formally ended with the transferring of Hong Kong to China in 1997. This signified a new era for the UK as a global power. However, the UK’s military presence in commonwealth countries signifies a level of maintenance of the UK’s once powerful empire.  With deployments of British soldiers in Kenya, Canada, Cyprus and Sierra Leone, the UK’s colonial past may have paved the way for a militarily powerful UK in the present allowing for British influence across the globe.

In
conclusion, the UK is a global military power when analysed from an English
School perspective. When Hedley Bull’s three main characteristics of a global
power are applied to the UK the answer is such. Various sources including the
power index created by Global Fire Power and the European Geostrategy study
claim that the UK is amongst the most powerful states in the world in terms of
material capabilities. The UK’s membership of NATO and its seat on the UNSC
reiterate its influential position as a military power capable of intervening
and being present in conflicts and locations around the globe. The UK’s global
reach through its overseas military presence and overseas territories adds
further strength to its military. It is evident that when military power is
considered from a realist perspective the full range of indicators of military
strength are not considered. Focusing on material capabilities exclusively
negates the affect intervention, presence, reach and influence have on a
country’s military power.

Bibliography  

• Allison, G. (2017). Study finds UK is second most powerful country in the world. [online] UK Defence Journal. Available at: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/study-finds-uk-is-second-most-powerful-country-in-the-world/ [Accessed 14 Nov. 2017].
• Army.mod.uk. (2017). Iraq – British Army Website. [online] Available at: http://www.army.mod.uk/operations-deployments/23414.aspx [Accessed 16 Nov. 2017].
• Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order In World Politics. 4th ed. New York: Palgrave McMillan.
• Chalmers, Malcolm (2013) Mid Term Blues? Defence and the 2013 Spending Review’. RUSI Briefing Paper.
• Economist.com. (2017). Military spending by NATO members. [online] Available at: https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-11 [Accessed 14 Nov. 2017].
• Globalfirepower.com (2017). 2017 United Kingdom Military Strength. [online] Available at: https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-kingdom#powerindex [Accessed 13 Nov. 2017].
• Grunwald, M. (2015). Where in the World Is the U.S. Military?. [online] POLITICO Magazine. Available at: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321 [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017].
• Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The tragedy of Great Power politics. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. P. 55
• Morris, J. (2011). How Great is Britain? Power, Responsibility and Britain’s Future Global Role. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 13(3), pp.326-347.
• Opil.ouplaw.com. (2011). Humanitarian Intervention. [online] Available at: http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e306 [Accessed 15 Nov. 2017].
• Ploughshares Fund. (2017). World Nuclear Weapon Stockpile. [online] Available at: https://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report [Accessed 14 Nov. 2017].
• Powell, R. (1991). Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory. The American Political Science Review, [online] 85(4), p.1303. Available at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30094881/powell_1991.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1510772667&Signature=aevpQnIgt5gw2f%2FJ%2BA8E5%2BlaW7Q%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DAbsolute_and_relative_gains_in_internati.pdf [Accessed 13 Nov. 2017].
• Simpson, G. (2004). Great powers and outlaw states. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, p.68.
• Tellis, A. (2000). Measuring national power in the post-industrial age. Santa Monica, California: RAND/Arroyo Center, pp.133-176
• Un.org. (2017). About the United Nations Security Council. [online] Available at: http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/ [Accessed 13 Nov. 2017].
• United Nations Security Council (2011). S/RES/1973 (2011). United Nations Security Council.
• Waltz, K. (1959). Man, the state, and war. New York: Columbia University Press.