At the core of the Labour government’s approach to international relations lies a glaring lack of strategy or clear objectives. Few political moments have been as overhyped as the informal dinner held in a New York skyscraper, where then-presidential candidate Donald Trump hosted Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy for a casual meal.
Since that evening, Starmer has seized every opportunity to highlight the encounter, perhaps to emphasize his rapport with the next U.S. president. In a recent major foreign policy speech, Starmer once again described Trump as a “gracious host,” though the record does not confirm if he went as far as referring to Trump as his "best mate."
This fixation may stem from concerns about the Labour government’s past criticisms of Trump, which could resurface at a critical moment when Starmer seeks to fortify ties with Washington.
Yet, Starmer’s message during the speech was muddled, a reflection of the broader disarray in his government’s communication strategy. Some reports suggested he prioritized aligning with the EU over the U.S., while others claimed the opposite. This lack of clarity points to a deeper issue: Starmer’s apparent aversion to making definitive decisions that could alienate any side.
On Europe, Starmer spoke of closer cooperation but reaffirmed opposition to key EU frameworks, such as freedom of movement and membership in the single market or customs union. In the U.S., he praised the "special relationship," echoed Trump’s calls for a negotiated settlement in Ukraine, and even complimented the dinner at Trump Tower.
Oddly, Starmer made little mention of trade opportunities under a potential Trump presidency, despite Trump’s pro-Brexit stance and openness to a trade deal. Instead, Starmer’s remarks about Ukraine signaled a significant policy shift toward advocating for a “negotiated peace,” potentially rewarding Russia for territorial aggression—a concession unlikely to come without expectations of reciprocity.
Starmer’s balancing act extends to Europe, where he seeks a “reset” in relations without offering the concessions the EU most desires. His silence on Brexit, likely an attempt to avoid reopening old wounds, also prevents him from articulating any tangible benefits it may offer. The result is a vacuum: neither seizing Brexit’s opportunities nor advocating for rejoining the EU.
On transatlantic relations, Starmer avoids addressing free trade agreements, likely to avoid further straining EU ties. Instead, he focuses on defense, committing to increased NATO contributions but offering no concrete timeline for meeting targets.
This ambiguity risks diminishing Britain’s relationships on both sides of the Atlantic. The U.S. is not only a key defense partner but also the UK’s largest export market and investor. Ignoring trade in favor of vague platitudes weakens the broader partnership.
Ultimately, Starmer’s attempt to appease everyone leaves much to be desired. His speech offered enough to appease both U.S. and EU audiences but also included elements likely to unsettle both. For those listening closely, his rhetoric amounted to little more than hollow clichés, lacking substance or direction.
Foreign affairs demand clarity and conviction—qualities that were conspicuously absent. Managing to alienate both the U.S. and Europe, while frustrating both Brexit and Remain supporters at home is a feat of extraordinary mismanagement.
Comments
Post a Comment