There are only three countries that Britain can trust.

By: Daniel Hannan / The Daily Telegraph
Translation: Telegrafi.com

A few hours after Britain declared war on September 3, 1939, Michael Joseph Savage, New Zealand's first Labor prime minister, made a statement from his hospital bed (he died seven months later).

"With gratitude for the past and also with confidence for the future, we stand fearlessly alongside Britain. Where she goes, we go. Where she stands, we stand."

With how many nations do we have such a connection, an alliance so instinctive and automatic that it needs no explanation? The list is short, but it certainly includes three countries with which we truly have a special relationship: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

We are connected by language, culture, and family ties. We share the same legal system, relying on each other's precedents. We have similar parliamentary forms, with all the details: scepter, protocol, system, and everything else. We honor the same king.

The modern campaign to more closely unite the four major kingdoms began in British Columbia in 2015 and is known by the acronym CANZUK – a term originally coined by UN officials because these four nations almost always voted as a bloc.

CANZUK supporters call for closer diplomatic and defence cooperation, the automatic right to work in each other's countries and a common market based on mutual recognition of standards for goods, services and professional qualifications.

For a decade, CANZUK was treated by politicians as a worthwhile but not urgent idea. Then came Trump’s second term, trade wars and the reversal of US foreign policy. Both major Canadian parties are in favour of a CANZUK-style deal, as are all three coalition parties in New Zealand. In Britain, too, the idea is gaining popularity. And it’s not hard to see why.

To understand how much the world has changed, try this thought experiment: Suppose Donald Trump were secretly working for Vladimir Putin. What would he do differently?

It is one thing to stop arms shipments to Ukraine, including those already in transit, and to cut off intelligence sharing. But Trump is going far beyond these measures. He has repeated Putin’s propaganda claims, calling Volodymyr Zelensky a dictator and accusing him of starting the war. He has ordered his cybersecurity agency to no longer prioritize the threat from Russia. He has removed pro-Ukrainian American generals from their commands. He has voted at the UN, along with Russia, Belarus, and North Korea, against a resolution condemning the invasion of Ukraine, a resolution from which even China abstained.

Worst of all, he has provoked conflicts with NATO countries, threatened to annex Greenland, and declared economic war on Canada.

The leaders of other democracies in the English-speaking world have been left abandoned, like the governors of distant Roman provinces when the Eternal City was destroyed. Consider, at least, the impact on Britain's defence procurement.

Since the 50s, we have assumed that, in a major war, we would fight alongside our American allies. Yes, we could handle smaller wars, alone: ​​Aden, the Falkland Islands, Sierra Leone. But if things escalated seriously, we would be part of a US-led coalition.

Like other Western allies, we have chosen to specialize in certain areas, rather than develop a full-fledged defense capability. We have relied on the US for heavy transport, advanced satellites, and intelligence. Above all, we have been dependent on it for the development and maintenance of our nuclear missiles.

Our current nuclear deterrent system, Trident II, will last until 2040. And then? Can we be sure that the US will remain a reliable ally? I think it is very likely; but, after the last two months, I can no longer be completely sure.

What about Europe? Again, I like to believe that we will still be on the same side – the side of freedom and democracy – but, it wasn’t long ago that the EU planned to close the Irish border out of anger, just because our vaccination program was faster than theirs.

On the eve of Brexit, Jeremy Hunt, as Foreign Secretary, was astonished to find that Britain’s investment in European defence – armoured regiments in Estonia and Poland, the RAF effectively acting as Romania’s air force, and much else – had yielded no tangible benefits. Even now, when we might have thought the EU would do everything it could to bring Britain closer to a closer defence deal, it continues to insist that it will not discuss anything else with us until we allow its ships to fish in our waters.

No, there is only one group of countries with which it is unthinkable to have a breakup within the next 40 years: the other CANZUK countries. This matters, among other things, because we will soon have to make decisions about our next-generation nuclear deterrent.

If we decide to build a fully autonomous nuclear capability – one that is not dependent on the US for storage or spare parts, like France – then we will need our own missile manufacturing capacity. This will cost about twice as much as buying a ready-made alternative from the US. Alone, we could not afford it; but as part of a CANZUK consortium, we could do it.

CANZUK has consistently polled around two-thirds support in all four potential member states, making it the most popular policy that governments could implement but have not yet done.

Why haven't they? Partly because, until recently, the enthusiasm came mainly from right-wing parties: the Conservatives in the UK and Canada, the Liberals in Australia, and the three right-wing parties in New Zealand (the National Party, New Zealand First, and the ACT).

Some leftists reflexively rejected anything that seemed like imperial nostalgia or, worse, a longing for the so-called White Commonwealth (although, in reality, all four countries have higher proportions of non-white populations than the EU). In Britain, EU nostalgics were offended when they saw leavers proposing free movement with distant countries, arguing that Britons could more easily imagine themselves working in Australia or Canada than in Finland or Slovakia.

But all of this was before Trump started threatening Canada with annexation – and, in fact, clashing with other US allies. When Australia signed its trade deal with the US in 2005, it specifically exempted its steel exports from any tariffs imposed in the name of national security. Trump has imposed them, anyway.

Suddenly, CANZUK is starting to look inevitable and urgent. In the recent Liberal leadership debate in Canada, the candidates were competing with each other to seek closer economic ties with other major English-speaking monarchies – even though the debate was in French.

When I suggested CANZUK in the House of Lords this week, the down-to-earth minister, Baroness Chapman, responded that the government would listen sympathetically to any proposal.

On basic principles, I do not prefer a CANZUK pact over a US-led one. I would prefer to keep the US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement, NATO, AUKUS and the whole architecture that we have built since the Atlantic Charter of 1941. I am pleased that New Zealand, under its impressive Defence Minister, Judith Collins, is aligning itself with AUKUS.

If the alliance with the US can be saved, CANZUK will complement it. But if not, it will be a solid alternative, constituting, in essence, the third most powerful military force on the planet.

How soon can we get it done? Well, next October marks the 100th anniversary of the Imperial Conference of 1926, which began the formal transformation of the British Empire into a voluntary union, the Commonwealth.

Just as King George V hosted his prime ministers on that occasion, so too should his great-grandson, King Charles III, invite the prime ministers of his four major kingdoms – which by then, with any luck, may include Peter Dutton in Australia and Pierre Poilievre in Canada, as well as Christopher Luxon in New Zealand. At that meeting, the formal establishment of a CANZUK secretariat should be announced, which, due to the time difference, should be based in Vancouver and tasked with ensuring the free movement of labour, the reciprocity of markets and a common defence between the four neighbouring nations.

This would provide any participating prime minister with a huge electoral boost. And, you know what? If Sir Keir Starmer can pull this off, he will deserve the electorate. /Telegraph/