What’s the point of Britain’s foreign policy?
- With the Chagos Islands circus, Britain is embarrassing itself on the world stage
- As the 21st century progresses, the raw realities of international relations are being laid bare
- A reputation for integrity and respectability can quickly morph into a reputation for gullibility and credulity
Amidst discussions about Treasury bonds, corruption scandals and grooming gangs, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that Britain isn’t just in poor shape domestically – it’s also embarrassing itself on the world stage.
Keir Starmer’s planned Chagos Islands handover was put on ice this week, with incoming US President Donald Trump set to be given an opportunity to veto the plans. After weeks spent trying to expedite the process, by offering increasingly elaborate cash handouts, it seems that Starmer may be stumped by Trump. For all of his ‘America First’ rhetoric, it’s hard to imagine President Trump consenting to a deal which would leave a key US military base at the mercy of a Chinese ally.
The whole piece is well worth reading, particularly the two paragraphs below, which highlight Keir Starmer's acute and damaging limitations as both UK Prime Minister and as an international statesman. It is already embarrassingly clear that he lacks the pragmatic competence to succeed in either role.
Like everything else that he does, Starmer’s Chagos surrender is motivated by a sincere belief in the value of rules and processes. For the former human rights lawyer, the world really is governed by a coherent corpus of international law. Without these rules, the globe would surely descend into chaos, and so their maintenance is of the utmost importance. In the context of the Chagos Islands, that means abiding by the UN’s 2021 ruling about the ultimate sovereignty of the archipelago...
Rather than using this as an opportunity to reflect on whether or not those rules ever really mattered in the first place, Starmer’s answer is to double down. If the international rules-based order is collapsing, then Britain must become louder and prouder about its advocacy of that system. Unfortunately, there is little value in being the only player left abiding by the rules. A reputation for integrity and respectability can quickly morph into a reputation for gullibility and credulity.
His limitations do not seem to result from a "sincere belief", but an inescapable aspect of what the man is. It is already clear that he is unable to see beyond rules and processes - in his world, nothing but anarchy lies beyond them. His stupidity is rooted in this.
3 comments:
"His limitations do not seem to result from a "sincere belief"..."
Agreed. I don't think Starmer has sincere beliefs about political or moral issues - only knee jerk reactions to 'the rules' being challenged.
In Realpolitik rules may be followed accidentally, not intentionally. Starmer doesn't choose to understand this.
He is indeed heavily invested in rules and procedures, but only when it suits him. He's not called 2TK for nothing, and there are plenty of people languishing in jail who would have been free if he had not personally insisted that the law be politicised.
I think the British are well able to tolerate a "jobsworth" official if they are not biased. Being too dim to see beyond the regulations just makes them an object of pity and minor irritation. It's when this is coupled with open malevolence that the pitchforks come out. Starmer is way beyond that point now.
DJ - that seems to be Starmer, knee jerk reactions to 'the rules' being challenged. He seems to see respect for government and officialdom as one of the major rules too, as a harsh response to the state being challenged has plenty of precedent behind it.
Sam - the malevolence is an aspect of his character which seems to be unexplained, unless there are aspects of his life we don't know much about. One of those may be his teenage years because he joined the Labour Party Young Socialists at the age of 16, which would be about 1978.
It is easy enough to imagine him learning political malevolence from that age. As a naturally intransigent character he may have kept hold of it.
Post a Comment