New Atlantic Charter deals with China – without naming it

One of the first achievements of the 2021 G7 in Carbis Bay was the signing of a new pact between the UK and US “to work together for a more peaceful and prosperous future”. It is named after the 1941 Atlantic Charter, signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and prime minister Winston Churchill, a statement of the common values of the two countries at the height of the war including removal of trade barriers, disarmament and the pursuit of peace.

That earlier pact is easily romanticised as standing for a unity of views that did not entirely exist. It did not bring the US into the war as the UK wanted; it was Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor later that year which achieved that. As Andrew Marshall of the Atlantic Council points out, “the US was keen to relieve the UK of its colonial possessions and its protectionist arrangements with its colonies, and only partly succeeded”. ^[1] But the common statement of values and goals did long outlast the war, giving the charter a resonance in relations between the two countries that persists – hence the decision to invoke it in a new Carbis Bay version.

Gritty clauses tackle the threat from China, Russia and authoritarian states 

The new charter of June 10, one page and eight clauses long, unsurprisingly includes commitments to tackle global warming and protect biodiversity, work against pandemics and harness scientific innovation. There is a pledge to pursue “sound governance of debt relief” which poorer countries might welcome though find skimpy; there are, though, pacts more directly focussed on development and alleviation of poverty than this one is intended to be. The grittier clauses tackle the threat from China, Russia and other authoritarian states – without naming them.

First, there is a commitment to “defend the principles, values and institutions of democracy and open societies” which might 15 years ago have seemed just boilerplate language but now has more meaning. The phrase about opposing disinformation “including in elections” clearly points to Russia’s alleged actions. The claim to “defend the inherent dignity and human rights of all individuals” carries obvious import for China’s treatment of the Uighurs. The pledge to back principles “of sovereignty, territorial integrity and the peaceful resolution of disputes” might cover Russia’s actions in Crimea and nearby – although it may also contain comfort for Johnson over Northern Ireland.

The Atlantic Charter reaffirms Nato as an alliance

The core of the pact is arguably clause five, which deals with “collective security” including against cyber threats. There is a reaffirmation of Nato as an alliance, backed by the deterrent threat of nuclear weapons – a far cry from President Donald Trump’s scorn for the organisation – although there is a nudge to its members to “strengthen their own national forces”. There is also a pledge to “defend key principles such as freedom of navigation and overflight…[and] lawful uses of the seas”, with clear implications for China’s actions in neighbouring seas.

It is easy to dismiss such statements as only rhetoric. Johnson and Biden hardly have the stature of FDR and Churchill nor, for all the disruption of coronavirus, does the crisis represent an existential clash of values as the Second World War did. But the hard kernel of this text does refer to the new clash of values – between democratic and authoritarian states. It goes into more detail than it might have done about what the US and UK are prepared to do about that.

1. That was then but this is now: Assessing the new Atlantic Charter - Atlantic Council