By Mohamed Harees –

Lukman Harees

Having entered the House of Commons in May 2015, it has taken Keir Starmer less than a decade to climb what Benjamin Disraeli, once famously described as the “greasy pole” of British politics. Britain now has a new government after Labour Party won a landslide victory in last Thursday’s election, winning 412 seats and a huge 172-seat majority in parliament. While 2019’s general election was largely a story of two parties, this time national ballot led to historic gains for the Lib Dems, the Greens and Reform UK. The victories by pro-Gaza independent candidates, among them ex-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn dealt blows to some of Westminster’s most prominent MPs. The rise of the “populist” Reform UK Party led by Nigel Farage, particularly had leaders of the more established political outfits rattled. (Interestingly the biggest donor to this party was a British entrepreneur with Sri Lankan heritage). Labour has also regained its dominance in Scotland, and Wales too.

Seldom in any democracy has a governing party gone so quickly from triumph—Tory Party won a huge majority in 2019—to disaster in 2024. The reasons are clear: a botched exit from the European Union, stark social and economic decline, institutional decay, to foreign policy disasters, the recent one being the unconditional support to a genocidal regime in Tel Aviv. Over the last decade and a half, the widespread feeling that the UK was on its last legs was reflected in surging English nativism and Scottish, Welsh, and Irish separatism that in different ways threatened to pull the union apart. The voters have left the world in no doubt as to whom they blame for this malaise.

In U.K. general elections it’s almost traditional to avoid discussing international affairs. Campaign strategists insist it’s a waste of effort, based on the belief that voters care more about issues closer to home. Over the next four months, the presidents of both the U.S. and France will be focused on their own political survival, with their ability to shape world events correspondingly reduced. The U.K., in contrast, at least has the most stable government of all the major Western democracies. All politics may be local, but after an election focused on domestic issues, the PM will discover fast that government is often global. Labour government will have to confront a raft of international challenges, with wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, political instability in the US, division in Europe and threats from China.

Thus, at a time of exceptional political fluidity at the global level, how might Britain and its role on the international stage change under Prime Minister Starmer? There is a golden rule for those seeking to understand British foreign policymaking: It never moves unless forced. Ministerial ambition, parliamentary trench warfare, media outrage or unavoidable circumstantial change can all shift policy. Prof A Ibrahim, an advisor to Biden administration on foreign policy says ‘under Sir Keir Starmer, Labour’s foreign policy is likely to:

1. Favour maintaining Britain’s existing alliances but be unlikely to establish new ones.  

2. Evidence ideological support for Joe Biden’s foreign policy and for the broad goals of the European Union.  

3. Oppose the revisionist illiberal powers in Europe, including Viktor Orban’s Hungary and Vladimir Putin’s Russia.  

4. Seek to work with other states on a case-by-case basis in relation to, for instance, climate change and decarbonisation.  

Keir Starmer’s victory  may come with a host of expectations, both domestically and in foreign policy. Yet those expecting swift and significant changes in Britain’s foreign policy will likely be disappointed. Domestically, Labour’s new chancellor, Rachel Reeves — the first woman to hold the post — warned that there isn’t “a huge amount of money” to spend. Any mission of national renewal will thus have to be a long-term project. Labour’s win may look like it is not only a new phase in British politics – a different political reality after over a decade of Conservative dominance – but it brings with it a recognition that new ideas are needed in a world much changed since 2010. On paper however, Labour Party’s foreign policy promises under Starmer do not differ much from the Conservatives, who have been ousted after 14 years in power. Indeed, Starmer and his ministers have offered little to no criticism of the previous government’s foreign policy stances. Any drastic shifts in foreign policy thus won’t be a near-term priority. The greatest differences are on Europe and migration; on China, Ukraine, the rest, it is astonishingly similar.

Starmer, considered as a centrist and vocal supporter of upholding the US-led world order, has promised to uphold London’s transatlantic partnership with Washington, regardless of who wins the next US presidential election later this year. Analysts point out that Starmer will likely drop any rhetoric of “Global Britain”, while his government may still look to maintain a proactive role on the global stage while being a close “junior partner” of Washington. Europe will almost certainly be an immediate focal point of Starmer’s foreign policy. Starmer will support improving post-Brexit ties with Europe, potentially reducing trade barriers and coordinating on security and migration. His government is also expected to uphold Britain’s firm material and political support for Ukraine, as well as maintaining London’s robust sanctions regime on Russia. In fact, by 2025, when Labour ministers are barely in their chairs, the country may see the consequences of a collapse of the Ukrainian front line followed by an even more aggressive Russia pressing against the Baltics, Poland and Scandinavia and the huge economic and refugee consequences of that.

Starmer and his foreign secretary Lammy are unlucky that their election to government comes at a time of a rightward shift in global politics. None of Trump, Le Pen, Erdogan, Meloni, Orban, Modi, Netanyahu, Xi, Putin and many others are naturally to their liking. Events created by such people are likely to require firm responses at a time when the UK is short of hard power tools. Britain’s international reputation, has taken a terrible battering to the point where it is affecting inward investment – yet again foreign policy and economic policy are fusing.

Analysts say that that the lack of discussion on China — one of the most consequential policy issues of our generation — ought to be cause for concern. The relative silence has given rise to speculation about how the Starmer administration will handle relations with Beijing. Labour’s manifesto didn’t contain many clues — just a vague commitment to audit relations with China. Prof Azeem Ibrahim identifies a particular need to set out a vision for global leadership that would see the UK play a major role in containing Chinese expansionism. U.K.’s Labour is likely to champion China trade over human rights and also talk of human rights in the war in Ukraine, although the administration will shut their eyes with regard to the Israel’s carnage in Gaza.

In respect of Sri Lanka too, at least Labour’s position on the last phase of the war against LTTE in 2009 is clear. In a statement released to mark the “15th year Mullivaikkal Genocide Remembrance Day,” in May 2024, Starmer (as the Opposition leader) paid tribute to the tens of thousands of Tamils killed in 2009. It read “Mullivaikkal must also be a reminder that as well as commemorating those who are lost, we must bring the perpetrators of atrocities to justice. As Tamil communities across our country pause and reflect upon this solemn day, the Labour Party reaffirms our commitment to work towards lasting peace, reconciliation and a long-lasting political solution for the Tamil people. Today, the Labour Party recommits to securing justice for the families of those who died and the survivors who suffered such grave human rights violations. We urge the UK Government to stand with the Tamils and heed the recommendations of the UN High Commissioner to refer the perpetrators of atrocities to the International Criminal Court”. Now that Labour being in the government, this may materialise.

Little in the Middle East will be easy for the new government.  Would it restore UK funding to UNWRA, the UN aid agency in Gaza, and if so when? Would it have to end arms sales to Israel – as advocated by the SNP, Green Party and Plaid Cymru – if Foreign Office lawyers decide there is a risk they could be used to violate international humanitarian law. Would it publish that legal advice? London will also likely continue aligning with the US on Iran, including sanctions, siding with Israel in any further tensions with Tehran, and a possible UK designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a “terrorist organization.” Starmer will likely continue assisting the US in countering Yemen’s Houthis’ attacks on Red Sea trade.

In respect of the Middle East, Starmer has not been an ally of Palestine up to this point and won’t start being one once he enters Downing Street. Essentially, he has shown meticulous consistency in ensuring Israel has a dependable ally when it comes to being shielded from accountability.  He will almost certainly further double-down on aligning with Washington. That will include hesitancy over recognizing a Palestinian state and upholding firm support for Israel, despite legal and political pressure to suspend weapons sales to Israel over the Gaza war. Starmer has already in hot waters ,having expressed strong pro-Israel opinions before and during Israel’s offensive on Gaza, including its “right to defend itself. After the October 7 attacks, Starmer gave strong support to Israel, even suggesting that it had the right to cut off water to Gaza. But as Palestinian casualties mounted and internal pressure grew, Labour appeared to temper its support for Israel. His call for a cease-fire appeared timid as Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe worsens. Another foreign policy challenge will be to decide whether to implement an arrest warrant issued by the ICC against ‘war criminal and genocide enabler’ Netanyahu if he were to pass through London.

Starmer will however be under pressure at home to toughen the stance against Israel, although none of these measures would however be easy choices; in fact it would be harder for a Labour government because of internal political pressures and the strong Zionist influential lobby represented by the Labour Friends of Israel .Ultimately, will the government have to decide at some point whether to back a prospective end to the fighting in Gaza that involved difficult compromises? It’s therefore unlikely Britain will change its actions towards Israel/Palestine without Washington’s approval. Labour foreign policy is a lot like Conservative foreign policy.  The party has struggled to set out a genuinely distinct vision for the UK’s place in the world. The Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza is no exception. Foreign Secretary Lammy then emphasized that Labour supported Israel and its right to defend itself, and that Israel’s response must be proportionate and within the bounds of international law.

Starmer has commemorated the victims of genocide in Srebrenica  and has also spoken in support of the Rohingya in Burma, and his foreign policy team has also condemned both current genocides and past atrocities. One member of the Labour Foreign Policy Group has drawn together public statements from Starmer to indicate that there should be a formal position established in law which positions Britain in opposition to genocides and mandates actions in cultural and economic domains to punish genocidaires. This is considered in light of Starmer’s statement that Britain needs a strong internationalist and moral position on contemporary issues. With the lack of a broad-based international effort to move towards a new peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, there appears to be no basis upon which Labour could participate in an international effort to move the two parties towards a two-state solution. Nonetheless, if an initiative of this kind was proposed by an American administration, Britain under Keir Starmer could be expected to support such an initiative.

There are of course optimistic signs in the horizon. Labour’s support for Israel has become slowly but increasingly conditional. On 20 May, (Now Foreign Secretary) Lammy then told MPs: “Labour believes the UK and all parties to the Rome statute have a legal obligation to comply with orders and warrants issued by the [international criminal court]”. That means, on the face of it, if warrants are issued, as requested by the ICC prosecutor, and Netanyahu remains prime minister, it would be prudent for him not to visit Britain. The disjuncture between US Congress feting Netanyahu and Labour ministers seeking his arrest would be stark. Ultimately however, the scope for manoeuvre will depend on the context and whether the duopoly Britain faces is Trump-Netanyahu or something like Biden-Gantz. If it is the former, advocates of the international rule of law know a dark winter awaits. Blair’s backing for the US invasion of Iraq, and his staunch support for Israel during the 2006 Lebanon war eventually weakened him politically. Having learned much from him about winning power, Starmer also shouldn’t forget how Blair ended up losing it.