As the UK prepares for its election, expected to be later this year, the tide appears to be turning dramatically. Recent polls suggest a victory for Labour that parallels Tony Blair's landslide in 1997. This sweeping shift in public opinion signals a major change in UK politics in recent times, with Labour leading in voters' primary concerns: economy, health, housing and immigration. Interestingly, even though these issues seem predominantly domestic, they are closely intertwined with global issues such as the Ukraine conflict, global supply chain and geo-economic fragmentation. Nevertheless, the Conservative and Labour Party both seem to echo a similar rhetoric when it comes to their foreign policy.

Unlike his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn, Keir Starmer carries no long-term foreign policy baggage, often appearing somewhat vague on his stances. For instance, his advocacy for rebuilding alliances is without specificity, lacking any new proposals aside from pre-existing ones. His approach has also been inconsistent with party lines, such as his initial welcome of the AUKUS pact which was soon followed by his party's condemnation of it. Some have even described his policies as "more attitudes than concrete policies." The Tory government, on the other hand, made significant strides in crafting, publishing, and refreshing its foreign policy papers. The paper, called the Integrated Review, was met with sharp criticism by Labour. However, they failed to provide any alternative ideas, other than their plan to audit the Ministry of Defense. 

Starmer's cautious and even wary approach may stem from lessons learned from the poor performance of "Corbynism" and the widespread understanding that foreign policy is not typically a winning factor in elections but could potentially be a fatal liability. Despite this, Labour's evolving foreign strategy seems to intentionally align with the majority of Tory policies while attempting to maintain nuanced differences—marked by significant departures from his predecessor's policies in issues such as that of Palestine. Most notably, Starmer has disposed of Corbyn's long-term policy of unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood.

Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy affirmed Labour's embracement of "Israel['s]...right to self-defence," albeit with an emphasis on proportionate action and adherence to international law. They have pushed for the two-state solution, mirroring the Conservative's approach. Lammy's stronger stance on the Gaza crisis, criticising the "siege conditions" and calling for immediate humanitarian action, aligns with the broader Tory viewpoint while emphasising a more pronounced concern for human rights and international law. 

This reflects Labour's balancing act: supporting traditional allies and a diplomatic approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict, alongside a commitment to recognise Palestine in a two-state solution framework. They have advocated for ceasefires wherever conflicts emerged without pushing for any substantive involvement. However, their rhetoric seems more reactive than proactive, as Starmer has faced criticism for initially not advocating for ceasefires, preferring "humanitarian pauses" instead, a stance he maintained until recently. This strategic alignment with some distinct nuances, showcases Labour's attempt to forge a foreign policy path that resonates with contemporary global challenges yet remains within the traditional UK political consensus.The differences are more tonal than fundamental and extends to the broader spectrum of Labour's foreign policy, which, under Starmer's leadership, seeks to strengthen Labour's historical commitment to NATO and the transatlantic alliance. 

Sir Keir Starmer has opened up a record 13-point lead over Rishi Sunak in terms of who Britons think is the “most capable Prime Minister”, according to a new IPSOS survey for The Standard, as reported on January 30, 2024. PHOTO: AFP

Speaking at Chatham House recently, Lammy further underscored Starmer's unwavering commitment to NATO—adding his support for an expansion to include Sweden and Finland. The alliance has become a vital lifeline for UK and even EU's survival, with the country's top general asking citizens to prepare for a war with Russia which was echoed by the German Defense Minister—a theoretical conflict that the UK is woefully underprepared for. The need for US support is undeniable but remains unreliable, with a projected second Trump administration threatening a withdrawal from NATO and a less bellicose approach to Russia. He so much as said so to EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, adding "By the way, NATO is dead," and vowed to "never" defend Europe. This was reflected on by Lammy, emphasising the importance of broadening alliances beyond Europe, citing AUKUS and new defence cooperation with Japan, while advocating for a new security approach in Europe. Labour intends to pursue a UK-EU security pact, complementing NATO, and establish mechanisms for cooperation on hybrid threats. Furthermore, both parties seemed to be in agreement in regards to their China policy.

Although Labour criticised the Conservatives' inconsistent approach regarding China, their policies appear to be a distinction without a difference. Lammy detailed in his Fabian pamphlet that Labour's China policy will be guided by three Cs: compete, challenge, and cooperate. The similarity was evident with Tory lines of protect, align (with allies), and engage. However, a distinct shift was Labour's promise to recognise China's ill treatment of Uyghurs, which Lammy later clarified by saying they aimed "to act multilaterally" with partners. Another distinction was Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves' economic policy, termed "Securonomics," which largely echoes the economic nationalism of Bidenomics. It primarily advocates for secure supply chains with reduced reliance on China, enhancing energy independence and balancing "modern supply side economics" with global economic cooperation. Despite their differences in economic policy, both parties seem to broadly agree on reverting back to their previous role in being a global development superpower—aiming to eventually restore the UK's aid budget to 0.7 percent of Gross National Income when the fiscal situation allows for it.

Read more

No smooth sailing ahead for Rishi Sunak

Labour's Shadow Minister for International Development, Lisa Nandy, emphasises the UK's need to be viewed as a "reliable partner" globally, rather than focusing solely on reversing aid cuts or reinstating a separate aid department. She does not commit to an immediate return to the 0.7 percent GNI aid spending target, prioritising the restoration of global trust. Similarly, Andrew Mitchell, the current Minister for International Development, acknowledges the UK's decline as a "development superpower." He advocates for restructuring the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) to regain global influence in development. Both parties also maintain a similar narrative in issues such as their unified support for Ukraine, with shadow defence secretary John Healey vowing no changes in Britains' resolve. Additionally, committing to a "better balanced" strategic arrangement in regards to their Indo-Pacific policy—aiming to build upon the "tilt" towards this area initiated by the Conservatives.

These policies signal Post-Brexit challenges facing Britain and its need to redefine its role on the global stage. Professor Nicholas Westcott explains Britain's foreign policy post World War II relied on the US for security, EU for the economy and the Commonwealth for legacy—all of which are now gone, be it due to Brexit, Trump or negligence. He suggests a foreign policy based on four core pillars: alliance with the US, friendship with Europe, partnership with the Commonwealth and middle powers, and engagement with China.This approach aims to restore Britain's economic, military, and diplomatic strength, all of which have been adversely affected by Brexit. Labour's imperative is to adopt a balanced and pragmatic foreign policy that safeguards Britain's diminishing global relevance and influence.

Mahadev Ghosh is an independent researcher based in the UK.

We welcome your contributions and analysis of global events. To submit articles to our weekly page, Geopolitical Insights, please send an email to ramisa@thedailystar.net

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.