Isn’t a Trump presidency (and the various scenarios that could unfold on the back of that) the biggest thing to plan for? We may need two foreign policies, one for a world in which we can largely trust US foreign policy and one for a world in which we can’t.
Long-term, we probably can't trust America anyway. Even "sensible" Americans like Noah Smith are urging Biden to scale back support for Ukraine, "leave that to Europe", so they can focus on the threat from China.
There are also many prominent Americans who are urging Biden to do *more*, not less, to support Ukraine, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The threat of a trump presidency is real. My ardent hope is that the UK election yields a government Americans can look to for inspiration--as they did in 1940-41--as we face down the isolationist, fascistic candidacy of trump.
On Israel/Gaza, I think Starmer was right with his initial position - in the wake of the 7 October atrocities the Conservatives would have made hay with anything less than unequivocal support for Israel and its right to defend itself. All the accusations of anti-Semitism under Corbyn would have been revived. I feel the mistake was not to adjust Labour’s position sooner, as the nature of Israel’s response and its impact on the civilian population became clearer. As early as mid-November, people like Macron (and even Nicholas Soames) had started calling for a ceasefire, or at least a “humanitarian pause”. Since no-one could accuse them of being anti-Semitic, the political risks of following suit were surely much reduced. And it might have avoided a lot of the internal difficulties Labour then faced in the run-up to the local elections.
No, sorry. Of course Israel has an absolute right to unequivocal support and to defend itself and to pursue Hamas, but for Starmer to indicate that cutting off the water supply to Gaza would be acceptable was wrong: not just morally wrong but a clear-cut statement that he would support Israel in committing a war crime. For a life-long Labour voter that was the end of my support for Starmer.
A key factor when it comes to foreign and defence policy is Treasury policy. Of course money is short and there will be the usual 'robust discussions' about spending. However there other Treasury policies that will have a significant impact on Labour's foreign and defence policy. What does the new Chancellor think about giving MoD and FCDO greater flexibility in switching funds from CDEL to RDEL? How about her view of proposals to take possesion of the £24bn of Russian State Bank assets currently frozen in UK financial institutions? Will she adapt current Treasury guidance in the Green Book to take account of national security factors? What is her assessment of the future of UK-China relations? Of course these questions are not the highest priority when it comes to promoting growth but they have a major impact on the challenges that both Lammy and Healey will face. Perhaps her team have already got answers but if not, perhaps they should think about them now, not after July 4th?
I think the MoD, and particularly procurement need more than a review. The system is so broken that almost all the major programs are unlikely to deliver. On top of that, it looks like the “End of History” peace dividend, and the associated belief that we would not face conventional warfare again have been thoroughly debunked by reality but have left our armed forces in a dire state. I think an incoming Labour government will find themselves needing to spend more on repairing the damage done to our military over the past 20-30 years and rapidly overhaul our strategic goals. This will inevitably mean compromises on new kit, just so the armed forces having something to use. To me the instability in the world is increasing not only in scope but also speed.
Isn’t a Trump presidency (and the various scenarios that could unfold on the back of that) the biggest thing to plan for? We may need two foreign policies, one for a world in which we can largely trust US foreign policy and one for a world in which we can’t.
Long-term, we probably can't trust America anyway. Even "sensible" Americans like Noah Smith are urging Biden to scale back support for Ukraine, "leave that to Europe", so they can focus on the threat from China.
There are also many prominent Americans who are urging Biden to do *more*, not less, to support Ukraine, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The threat of a trump presidency is real. My ardent hope is that the UK election yields a government Americans can look to for inspiration--as they did in 1940-41--as we face down the isolationist, fascistic candidacy of trump.
On Israel/Gaza, I think Starmer was right with his initial position - in the wake of the 7 October atrocities the Conservatives would have made hay with anything less than unequivocal support for Israel and its right to defend itself. All the accusations of anti-Semitism under Corbyn would have been revived. I feel the mistake was not to adjust Labour’s position sooner, as the nature of Israel’s response and its impact on the civilian population became clearer. As early as mid-November, people like Macron (and even Nicholas Soames) had started calling for a ceasefire, or at least a “humanitarian pause”. Since no-one could accuse them of being anti-Semitic, the political risks of following suit were surely much reduced. And it might have avoided a lot of the internal difficulties Labour then faced in the run-up to the local elections.
No, sorry. Of course Israel has an absolute right to unequivocal support and to defend itself and to pursue Hamas, but for Starmer to indicate that cutting off the water supply to Gaza would be acceptable was wrong: not just morally wrong but a clear-cut statement that he would support Israel in committing a war crime. For a life-long Labour voter that was the end of my support for Starmer.
Starmer made a serious mistake, but he didn't intend to say that cutting off water supply was accetable. He clarified his view later
https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-seeks-to-clarify-gaza-remarks-following-backlash-from-labour-councillors-12988235
He should have clarified his position within hours, rather than days, but he did clarify his position.
A key factor when it comes to foreign and defence policy is Treasury policy. Of course money is short and there will be the usual 'robust discussions' about spending. However there other Treasury policies that will have a significant impact on Labour's foreign and defence policy. What does the new Chancellor think about giving MoD and FCDO greater flexibility in switching funds from CDEL to RDEL? How about her view of proposals to take possesion of the £24bn of Russian State Bank assets currently frozen in UK financial institutions? Will she adapt current Treasury guidance in the Green Book to take account of national security factors? What is her assessment of the future of UK-China relations? Of course these questions are not the highest priority when it comes to promoting growth but they have a major impact on the challenges that both Lammy and Healey will face. Perhaps her team have already got answers but if not, perhaps they should think about them now, not after July 4th?
I think the MoD, and particularly procurement need more than a review. The system is so broken that almost all the major programs are unlikely to deliver. On top of that, it looks like the “End of History” peace dividend, and the associated belief that we would not face conventional warfare again have been thoroughly debunked by reality but have left our armed forces in a dire state. I think an incoming Labour government will find themselves needing to spend more on repairing the damage done to our military over the past 20-30 years and rapidly overhaul our strategic goals. This will inevitably mean compromises on new kit, just so the armed forces having something to use. To me the instability in the world is increasing not only in scope but also speed.