July 19, 2024 - 10:00am
Keir Starmer used the opening of the European Political Community summit yesterday to “reset” Britain’s relationship with Europe. Speaking at Blenheim Palace, the new Prime Minister committed to remaining within the ECHR and invoked Winston Churchill to stress the urgency of European defence. But Labour’s foreign policy priorities, perhaps naturally given how early in the term it is, are not yet wholly clear.
Earlier this week, the King’s Speech gave the country an insight into how Labour plans to govern, with defence one its main points of focus. Starmer and Defence Secretary John Healey announced a “root and branch review” of the British Armed Forces. Chaired by George Robertson — a former defence secretary who modernised the British Army in the late Nineties, and ex-secretary general of Nato — the review will consider the scope of threats facing the UK and its capabilities and priorities in “a new era for Britain” and a “new era for defence”. Starmer stipulated that the review would help ensure “our hollowed-out armed forces are bolstered” and have “the capabilities needed to ensure the UK’s resilience for the long term”.
Labour trailed its intention to launch a defence review through its time in Opposition. The party argued that the Conservatives’ vision of Global Britain was detached from a realistic understanding of threat and capacity. Healey has now fashioned it into a review led by the Ministry of Defence, focusing on Britain’s priorities and capabilities.
Labour’s internal debates about international affairs will be revealed in time. In Opposition, the party was rarely divided over foreign policy — apart from issues surrounding Israel and Gaza. The realities of Government are very different, though, and it is Labour’s turn to grapple with Britain’s contending strategic priorities.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Labour has grounded its credibility on defence in unequivocal support for Kyiv. The war in Ukraine synchronises Labour’s wish to settle Britain’s relations with Europe, as was clear at the EPC yesterday, and its belief that Russia is the foremost threat to British security. From its launch, Labour charged the original Integrated Review with underplaying the European dimension of British foreign policy. The invasion of Ukraine appeared to validate that criticism, as evidenced by Liz Truss ordering an update to the document during her brief tenure as PM.
But Labour’s foreign policy has to square Russia’s place as the primary military threat to Britain and its European partners with the long-term, systemic change brought by China. Healey has consistently emphasised the trade-off in British defence policy between Europe and Asia. “There needs to be a realism about military commitments into the Indo-Pacific,” he told Politico in March last year. “Our armed forces are ill-served by leaders who pretend that Britain can do everything, everywhere.”
As a future-facing party, however, many younger figures in Labour see China looming as the primary economic, political and military threat to the international order. The party’s ambitions for a green transition and industrial renewal, they argue, can only be planned alongside an awareness of China’s economic prowess. David Lammy, whose “progressive realism” aims to be the guiding doctrine of Labour abroad, promised an “audit” of the UK’s relationship with China when he was Shadow Foreign Secretary. Meanwhile, new MPs, activist groups and think tanks — such as Hong Kong Watch and the China Strategic Risk Institute — intend to pressure the Government to recognise China’s hostility.
There will invariably be difficult debates about how Britain should balance the threats posed by Russia and China, and there is no shortage of different opinions. For those who cite Russia, rebuilding Britain’s armed forces, ammunition stocks and military-industrial base will be imperative. Advocates of prioritising China argue for a more fundamental reworking of the British economy to withdraw it from dependency on a potentially hostile power. What’s more, how Britain places its limited military and diplomatic resources — and alongside which international partners it does so — are large questions the Labour Party has not yet addressed.
Underlying Labour’s election campaign was a desperate caution about how much it could actually do within a tight economic framework. The party knew the difficult decisions were coming, and now it has to make them.
Angus Reilly is Assistant Editor at Engelsberg Ideas. He is writing a book about Henry Kissinger in the Second World War and a biography of David Owen.
Angus_Reilly
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeStarmer’s staunch defence of Ukraine illustrates as well as does his neglect of the teenage girls of Rotherham his utterly transactional approach to power. He knows as well as anyone that the Ukrainians can’t win this war, but he and the rest of the EU establishment will keep it going until there are no young men left on either side.
Depends how you define “win”. Ukraine has no desire to invade and conquer Russia, so presumably that’s not what you mean by win. What’s more important though is that Ukraine doesn’t lose.
Did you miss the bit about storm shadows being sent 100s of km into Russia or do you serious believe that boots on the ground is the only thing that constitues a war? On your take, Germany was never at war with the UK since it never put boots on the ground there, did it?
And so what (the Storm Shadows) ?
If Russia can bomb hospitals and power stations in Ukraine (after launching an unprovoked invasion), it would be a bit strange if you thought that Ukraine should not be able to target military facilties in Russia. Something most of us would call quite legitimate self-defence.
It doesn’t matter whether we think Russia is our enemy. It is quite clear from the statements from Russia’s leaders – from Putin downwards – that Russia considers the UK to be an enemy.
So we’re in a position today where we don’t have any choice in the matter.
And that’s without considering the systematic Russian efforts to disrupt IT systems in the West.
No, but it sent hit squads to Britain to murder Russians and collaterally, a British citizen. That constitutes an act of war.
That’s a specious argument. It’s rather like suggesting that because Kalashnikov’s are the most common machine gun in Africa, Russia is therefore at war with that entire continent. Objects do not imply agency.
Ukraine is going to lose Crimea – but it makes more sense historically for Crimea to be part of Russia, if that is what its people want. And they probably do – since most are in some way connected to the Russian military, the Tatars, Turks and Greeks having long ago been deported by Stalin.
Agree. There is something intensely scary about Starmer. He holds to the most extreme progressive ideologies on race, identity socialism and eco zealotry – and yet purports to be a wrapped in the flag Tory patriot. Its a cocktail of chaos. His grand strategy is so schizoid it is quite astonishing he can get up in the morning. He first yelps: More Super Sized Soviet style Big State!!! More Quangos!! More Taxation!! More Regulation, especially regs made by the EU!!!! Gimme a tommy gun I am off to Kharkiv!!! Then his alter ego bleats – More devolution!! We tread lightly!!! We love Trussian Growth!!!! But not enough to even promise the 2.5%!!! Its quite quite mad. We need a defence budget of 3% plus now just to protect our own interests. But our State has been bust by the Hard Lockers so it will all head to welfare and the bombed out NHS and public sector pay. He acts like Boris The War Leader with Zelensky cuddled and in Number 10. Stirring!!!!! Onlu Ukraine is doomed as neither we nor the sorry arsed meek Germans are lifting a finger to make a difference. Come November, its over.
Meanwhile our no deterrent borders have been thrown wide open to illegal migration (kerrkhing say the amuggling mafia!) and we have shamed ourselves already with the scummy cowardly decision on Hamas food energy education ally UNWRA. This is not pure Machiavellian pragmatism. This is a chaotic dangerous jumble of instincts caused by the collision of quiet hardcore progressive/human rights devotion and the loud necessity to talk and act like the Fake Tony-Tory statesmanlike Character fabricated by McFadden to sieze power. Eye popping.
He’s like O’Brien in 1984 – capable of holding a myriad conflicting notions in his head at once whilst also believing them all to be true.
Very well observed SE!
What Russian threat, other than the one hyped up by the political and MSM class?
According to the promoted narratives it is both a major threat to Europe ( if not the entire world…lol) but is so weak it is losing in Ukraine…some threat!
And China was the preferred investor in the UK… until its economic strength (if such it actually has…) became a threat to Western ie US hegemony when all of a sudden it was the major military threat to…well, everyone.
The UK’s “defence priorities” should be exactly that…defence of the UK and its national vital interests. It has no such interests in the Pacific or indeed which self interested clique rules Ukraine.
Defence does not entail military adventurism such as the Balkan “intervention”, the Iraq war, the Syrian debacle, the Libyan catastrophe or any other such “defence” actions.
I agree with most of what you say but to assume the UK sending storm shadow missiles into Russia to kill Russians isn’t an act of war is naive.. Russia is an enemy of the UK. The UK made it so, entirely unnecessarily as well! So of course Russia is a threat: it might send a few supersonic missiles to take out the arms factories manufacturing storm shadows.. I think that would be a reasonable response, don’t you?
The UK made Russia an enemy by going along with NATO expansion. It need not have done so..
The opening act of war was Russia’s assassination on British soil of its dissident enemies.
You’re going to ignore Russia using nerve agents on British soil then, murdering not just Russian dissidents but also British citizens?
Also by your logic Britain would have been justified in carpet bombing Tel Aviv during the Falklands because the Israelis helped arm the Argentinians. I don’t think anybody would deem this to be a reasonable course of action
So, just to be clear, Russia is a threat to the UK.. yeah, history shows if you supply weapons to attack another country that country often takes a dim view and becomes your enemy. Duh? Of course of the UK kept its small, vulnerable nose out that very 2-sided conflict (as some other, more intelligent NATO members are doing) Russia would now be more of an ally, wouldn’t it? ..or at least not an enemy.
China is another enemy is it? I’m struggling to see how or why? It cannot surely be down to jealousy can it? ..or China’s inalienable right to pursue its own far superior economic, political and military goals can it? Is that now a reason to pick a fight with with an unbeatable enemy? Or is it just slavish brown nosing of a lunatic, declining US trying to keep it, the world’s bully, on side? It’s pathetic.. makes you look like a silly, pitiful, sycophantic vassal.
The UK is spending quite a bit fighting its current major threat that of tented women and children in Gaza, granted with a lot of success. So why not use the same tactics on the even more dangerous enemy already invading the UK in rubber dinghies? Surely the same bombs and bullets used to blow Palestinian civilians to pieces in Gaza can also be used to bomb and strafe those invaders in La Manche and on the beaches and in the landing grounds? There at least you can win.. but against Russia? ..not so much! ..and against China? ..not at all! At least not unless you get the Gurkhas back on side!
Stop being so stubbornly ignorant and amoral!
“We want to reset relations” is clearly the new “my father was a toolmaker”.
I’m still reeling from the clown-show that is his new 84 million donation to ‘Africa’ in the barely comprehensible belief that this will stop illegal immigration. Surely no human being can be that stupid? What else is at play here? Is it just a massive virtue signalling exercise with our money or something more sinister.
Billions have been donated to Africa over decades and yet illegal migration has only increased. Many illegal migrants don’t even come from Africa. He might as well have taken that 84 million into Parliament Square and set fire to it. Surely the minimum he could have done with it is to spend it on British jobs, maybe even some at Border Force, just to make it slightly relevant.
Then we have his prison overcrowding scheme to be ‘fixed’ by releasing thousands of convicted criminals early. His Net Zero scam of laying miles of solar panels over prime farmland in a country that hardly sees sunshine. So don’t expect him to come up with anything resembling a coherent foreign policy regarding Russia. The man is already showing that he is not a serious human being.
Their truly difficult decisions for Labour lie in the balance between defence and social policies. The previous government demonstrated a reckless and irresponsible preference for prioritising social policies, presumably because the short-term political gains outweighed the need to defend what wealth, influence and freedoms we have. Labour has so far kept to the Conservative mantra for increasing defence spending only ‘when we can afford it’. The real questions are not when but how, and what is the first duty of any government? Only by prioritising the reduction of other spending will it be possible. Without firm determination to act now on spending no amount of growth in GDP will solve our current defencelessness. The manta should be: ‘We will increase social spending only after we have made sure our wealth , influence and freedoms are adequately defended’. Labour wants to reset Britain; start by setting the right priorities.
Cold War 2 and we have alot less money. It’s not a great place.
But we have alliances and we have a stable adult in charge at last.
Can this bunch of midwits really last 5 years? Milibrain & Lambkins make it look unlikely.
When the British Foreign Secretary is chosen as a dog at a dog show based on color and coat type, the result can be somewhat unexpected.