‘What we can’t do is go back to business as usual’ Keir Starmer
The Labour Party now has a new leader and a new Shadow Cabinet. As the opposition takes shape for the foreseeable future, should we expect visible shifts in foreign policy and efforts to influence the government’s own strategy? And if this Shadow Cabinet is to end up in government by 2024, how will that change the UK’s approach to foreign affairs?
To answer these questions, it is necessary to analyse the stance and voting behaviour on Foreign Policy and Defence of the MPs responsible for foreign affairs decision-making in the new Shadow Government. I will attempt to thoroughly examine their stance on foreign policy issues in the following framework: working with the EU before and after Brexit, possibility and necessity of the UK military involvement in diverse conflicts overseas, building better bilateral relations with Israel and Russia.
EU and Brexit
Senior decision makers within the shadow cabinet have always favoured further integration with the EU and were mostly against the idea of Brexit referendum in 2016. Quite obviously, they generally supported a right to remain for EU nationals already living in the UK. We could summarise that, according to their voting behaviour in the last few years, they were generally against Brexit. In terms of upcoming exit negotiations, we would expect that their stance towards the EU was and therefore will possibly be more positive and cooperative than Tories’ current approach. Their votes pro-EU and against Brexit are potentially leading to an at least soft version of Brexit which many UK citizens still hope for. It also means that in 2024 this Shadow Government has some chances to rule the country because it is going to represent the voices of Remainers who are almost forgotten by the Tories but still present.
Looking at this story from the other angle, we can find out that it is not that simple. While many Labour MPs were against Brexit referendum, Keir Starmer voted for it. Moreover, now he is claiming that Labour’s Brexit stance in the general election was the ‘right policy’ even considering the fact that with this attitude the party lost 59 seats, giving a commanding majority to Conservatives. Lisa Nandy, who has previously got the attention of the media previously with the suggestion the UK should ‘look to Catalonia’ for lessons on how to defeat the Scottish nationalism, ironically seems to have providing us with one of the most balanced and flexible opinions on Brexit within Labour. Citing her leadership campaign speech:
I know the truth is more complicated than that. My remain voting friends are not liberal elites and my leave voting neighbours are not racist little Englanders. If we fail to recognise that there are valid views on both sides, we let everyone down… Winning the argument for a confident, open, internationalist country will take leadership. Thinking big. Not playing it safe. Understanding that the referendum result was a call for more power and control – and that the response should not have been reduced solely to a technocratic debate about single market membership and the rights and wrongs of a customs union.
Her prominence in the Shadow Government as Foreign Secretary suggests the Party will aim for a more moderate, balanced and conciliatory approach to Brexit going forwards. Nobody can turn back time, and nobody within Labour can ignore the reality that the UK is leaving the EU. The problem they face now is to define their next steps on dealing with Brexit and building better relations with the European Union. At least we assume that with Labour’s previously positive attitude towards EU, this Shadow Cabinet would lead the country to the softest Brexit ever possible.
Military involvement
In this field, Labour MPs were actually more divided. Generally, all of them voted for strengthening the Military Covenant, the mutual obligations between the nation and its Armed Forces. In simple terms, this amounts rewards, adequate compensation and fair treatment for those who served in the British armed forces.
Labour Cabinet members did not support military action against ISIS (ISIL), particularly 2015 airstrikes in Syria. However, new Shadow Secretary of State for Defence John Healey voted for the Iraq war. As for the latter, many Labour MPs have consistently opposed investigations into the Iraq war, despite statements are saying otherwise. Keir Starmer was for his part prominently opposed, describing it ‘not lawful under international law because there was no UN resolution expressly authorising it’. One of his pledges in the leadership campaign highlighted his dovish instincts:
No more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice.
If Starmer in 2024 becomes a leader of the country, we could expect a more cautious approach towards any involvement in conflicts overseas while human rights issues and UN resolutions will possibly be accounted more than before.
Other members of the Shadow Cabinet have a more mixed record. Ed Miliband was against Iraq war as well, however, he backed Afghanistan and Libya interventions. Lisa Nandy voted for the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya. Emily Thornberry opposed British involvement in the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, claimed that public support for Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad has been underestimated (thus refusing to denounce Russia for vetoing UN Security Council resolution) and condemned the actions of the US government after the killing of Qasem Solemani. Moreover, Thornberry (together with Lisa Nandy) also opposed replacing Trident (UK nuclear programme) with a new nuclear weapons system, advocating for the money to be spent on the army rather than nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, other Labour MPs under our consideration did support Trident.
In general, we cannot clearly measure whether Shadow Cabinet members were more for or against the use of the UK military forces in other combat operations overseas. That said, both the leader and deputy leader are generally against military intervention.
Bilateral relations
Keir Starmer is openly committed to repairing relations with the Jewish community in the UK and all over the world. His pledges on Labour antisemitism have gained plaudits from Jewish organisations, who praised him for achieving ‘in four days more than his predecessor in four years’.
Labour seems likely to soften their stance towards Israel in light of this, focusing on a less strident and more bipartisan approach.
For instance, Lisa Nandy was nominated by the Jewish Labour Movement, but also backed the pledges that include recognition of the Palestinian rights ‘to self-determination and to return to their homes’ that raised public concerns in the UK and international media. Ed Miliband is highly supportive to closer ties with Israel but he claims that as a Jew and a friend of Israel he must criticise Israel when necessary, opposing the ‘killing of innocent Palestinian civilians’.
It is a different story when Labour MPs consider relations with Russia. Lisa Nandy expressed all the concerns about this country, perhaps broader than any other MP from the new Shadow Cabinet had done, in one of her Labour leadership speeches:
At a crucial moment, we hesitated in condemning an authoritarian regime that supports Trump, invades its neighbours, steals its country’s wealth, interferes in elections in Europe and America, attacks minority communities and then used chemical weapons on the streets of the UK… We stood with the Russian government, and not with the people it oppresses, who suffer poverty and discrimination. We failed the test of solidarity. And as a result, we let the Tories get away with their own shocking weakness on Putin’s Russia.
All in all, it leads us to one important point: the diplomatic, political and economic relations with Putin’s Russia will remain stilted, possibly along with sanctions, perception conflicts and mutual accusations of meddling internationally.
However, it is far easier to be critical of a major foreign power in opposition. This stance may have to thaw if Labour get into power, when working on an issue by issue, person to person level instead of government-to-government. At the end of the day the positive outcomes of this lower level of cooperation will spill over to the other spheres of political and socio-economic life as well, and possible Labour government in 2024 could do well to bear that in mind.
Conclusion
It is indeed hard to predict the actions of the Shadow Cabinet at the moment and even harder to talk about them in four years’ time, in 2024. However, we are witnessing a visible shift in Labour foreign policy planning. The amount and quality of changes will depend on how the Labour party and a new Shadow Cabinet will respond to the new challenges. Even if Brexit remains Brexit for Labour and we do not expect anything ground-breaking there, in other fields like military involvement overseas and bilateral relations with other states, Labour stance is more mixed with regard to approaching armed conflicts. Moreover, it will surely support better relations with Israel but continue to contain Russia, perhaps more aggressively than before. The fact that the new leadership in the party acts as a visible alternative to the Tory mainstream and the previous leadership is a good sign for Labour and the UK’s foreign policy going forwards.