CANZUK: Good for Them, Bad for Us
The proposed CANZUK alliance is good for the British, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders, but bad for the United States.
The first few months of the second Trump administration have seen a flurry of activity on a wide variety of fronts. Perhaps the most impactful moves have been in foreign affairs, which the president has wide latitude to influence without Congress. Since coming to power in late January, the White House and its handpicked executive team have moved rapidly to totally restructure the nation’s alliances, commitments, economic relationships, and military affairs. The actual changes, including the shuttering of USAID, the imposition of a disruptive global tariff regime, and the shifting of support away from Ukraine, have all made a significant impact on America’s global standing, particularly with our allies. Just as off-putting for these nations has been our rhetorical swing from an engaged, stalwart global force for good to a withdrawn, belligerent, isolation-curious hemispheric power. We have threatened, cajoled, demeaned, and attacked our long-term allies in Asia and Europe, solely at the personal whim of the president.
Other nations have not only taken notice of this massive shift in America’s stance toward the rest of the developed world, they have already begun acting on it. Asian partners have looked to China as a counterbalance to our economic threats, scrambling to shift supply chains and diversify their economies away from what has been perceived as an inconstant and mercurial Washington. European allies have reduced their future commitments to purchasing American military hardware and seek to develop a fully separate security grouping to ensure European stability. And some of our closest allies – militarily, culturally, and economically – have begun to chart a different course, leaving America by the wayside.
Paramount among those allies are the four other members of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing group: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. These Anglosphere nations share a great deal with us in terms of heritage, common history, shared battlefield exploits, and more. Our national interests have been broadly aligned for more than 80 years. We worked together to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japanese, face down the Soviet Union, and fight back against Islamic terrorism. We pool our efforts to defend the world order that has made us all prosperous and allowed us to be free in our own ways. Well, at least we used to.
Now that the Trump administration has been on its worldwide ally alienation tour, these nations have a far greater incentive to join forces without us and coordinate their policy aims in a more substantial and directed fashion. The framework for this arrangement has existed for over a decade now, with the CANZUK International group pushing politicians in all four nations to further integrate their economic, defense, and migration policies. The idea has gained significant purchase, with past leaders, including Tony Abbott and Boris Johnson, signaling their interest. The recent actions of the United States, often targeting these long-time partners with greater vitriol than that given to our shared foes, have made CANZUK into a live issue. One of the movement’s leading figures is British politician and Conservative peer Daniel Hannan, who has argued at length that America is no longer a trustworthy partner for the Anglosphere nations and that they should look to each other for greater future ties.
This is not a novel idea for these nations. Indeed, it has a longer history than the positive relationship between them and the United States. Canada, New Zealand, and Australia were the first constituent parts of the British Empire that were granted Dominion status, essentially giving them a high level of domestic autonomy while still retaining their association with the metropole in London. The Empire maintained control of foreign affairs and sought to enhance trade ties among the Dominions, a highly successful system that kept the British Empire alive for decades longer than it otherwise may have been. Recreating this tightly-knit bloc – on far more equal terms than the original arrangement – would be highly beneficial to each of the four nations involved. It would cement their special relationship as key former constituent parts of the greatest imperial project the world had ever known, enhance trade relations in the face of an increasingly-protectionist world, align their defense spending and priorities to project power in defense of their shared interests, and allow for stronger ties of people and culture. It should be a no-brainer for these four nations to link themselves more closely, especially in a world where America is no longer a force for constancy.
Even though CANZUK would likely be a boon for the four nations involved, it would be bad for the fifth member of the broader Anglosphere, the United States. Right now, the US and the CANZUK nations participate together in the Five Eyes intelligence program, operate and train our militaries jointly, and retain deep economic bonds. Having these culturally-aligned nations so tightly integrated under American leadership is very good for us. It allows us to shift priorities to best fit our interests, even if making those of our friends more marginal, without losing them as key allies. Washington can treat the group as a bloc or work with individual nations where it is most favorable for us. As the largest player, we have outsized power to influence joint decisions and bring our partners along with us, even if the decision in not within their direct interests. For instance, all four nations sent military personnel to Iraq to support the US-led mission to topple Saddam Hussein, something that was of little national concern to most of them. This is a good setup for America.
If CANZUK becomes a reality and those nations band together for joint decision-making, the US will no longer be dealing with four individual nations in our multilateral discussions, but one unified bloc. That gives the CANZUK countries far more leverage when it comes to group policymaking, joint rhetoric, and military disposition. Even if they cannot force America to do something – combined, we still dwarf them in aggregate – they can withhold their own action far more easily and successfully than they ever could on their own. This would not spell the end of the mutual alliance between the Five Eyes powers, but it would absolutely be a significant change in its internal dynamics. Given the massively favorable situation we have today, any alteration would be for the worse for American interests.
This may not seem like a big deal, but with looming conflict with China on the horizon, it surely is. We need all the allies we can get in that existential struggle to uphold the world system that has so greatly benefited us since the end of the Second World War. Not only do we need allies, we need to be the nation that is incontrovertibly in charge of the anti-China coalition. No other nation can serve in that role and successfully hold the coalition together in the face of a strong incentive to bandwagon with Beijing or face direct threats. Anything that undermines that leadership, including multilateral sub-alliances like CANZUK, would harm our ability to adequately defend our interests. In this case, the wound is entirely self-inflicted, as American actions are the driving force behind the potential diplomatic change.
Unless we re-establish our position as a stalwart and reliable defender of the mutual interests of the Five Eyes alliance, it is more than reasonable for the CANZUK nations to look to one another without Washington’s participation. And although that would benefit them, it would hurt us. There is still time to forestall this outcome, but the Trump administration must change course. If not, we will be consigning ourselves to an uphill battle to protect American interests in the Indo-Pacific.