Labour’s Lost Love for Advancing the U.K.’s National Interest

O n July 4, the Labour Party won a huge election victory in Britain, entering government for the first time in nearly 15 years with a staggering majority of 174 seats in Parliament. Keir Starmer, the new prime minister, campaigned on a promise to govern differently than the long-standing Conservative government on a wide variety of issues, from climate change and European integration to immigration and economics. Still, one of the most dramatic changes in the first few months of the Labour regime has been in the realm of foreign affairs. Starmer appointed MP David Lammy as Britain’s foreign secretary, making him the second-most-powerful figure in the government. Although the rabid antisemite Jeremy Corbyn has been excised from Labour leadership, the choice of Lammy for the Foreign Office would not have been out of place in a Corbyn government. Lammy’s politics are progressive verging on radical, particularly when it comes to his government brief, foreign policy.

Lammy and Starmer seek to fundamentally alter British foreign and military policy to fit within Labour’s progressive mien, viewing Britain’s long and storied history as a world power as a liability instead of an asset to its standing abroad. Accordingly, the new administration is leaning heavily on diplomacy, retrenchment, and self-abasement to ingratiate itself with those it feels the Tories alienated over the past decade and a half: Islamic fundamentalists, China, Western Europe, and the left wing of the Democratic Party in America. For Labour to accomplish its goal of making British foreign policy more “neutral” and aligned with these favored constituents, it must act less forcefully, embrace moral relativism on the world stage, and affirm the growing elite consensus that its own history as an international power — and its support of America as its successor hegemon — was an oppressive evil perpetrated against the wretched of the earth.

To fully Labour-ize British foreign policy, there must be a major shift in priorities. Instead of focusing on the serious dangers emanating from the nations that seek to overturn the post-war order — Russia, China, and Iran — and their malign proxies, Labour is orienting its foreign policy entirely around the “threat” of climate change. Despite the fact that climate change is a slow-moving process that humanity can and will adapt to, it is apparently the biggest hazard to British interests abroad. Lammy discussed this in his biggest public speech as foreign secretary to date, stating that climate would be “central to all the Foreign Office does,” and claiming that it was far more pressing than either terrorism or Russian imperialism. Of course, this ignores that both terrorism and Putin’s Russia have killed people in the U.K. itself, while climate change has obviously done nothing of the sort. Making emissions reduction into the primary driver of policy would result in a necessary lessening of military spending and deployment overseas, harming British readiness and its ability to project power effectively.

This climate myopia would be a boon to our mutual enemies. Lammy has said he hopes to “reinvigorate green diplomacy,” warning that “there will be no global stability without climate stability.” This is misguided in the extreme. The world’s largest polluter, China, is also the foremost opponent of the Anglo-American global system. Negotiating with Beijing over climate — something the Chinese government has repeatedly shown little interest in following through with, as China continues to open new coal-fired power plants — is a fool’s errand. Not only will it fail to achieve any significant reduction in greenhouse gases, it will allow China to take advantage of the West and shift attention away from its genocide of the Uyghurs, its belligerence towards its neighbors, and its starring role in the genesis and spread of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Climate negotiations aren’t the only problem with Labour’s approach to China. Lammy wishes to prioritize engagement over confrontation when it comes to Beijing, particularly on issues of trade, the war in Ukraine, and international comity. This is the height of naïveté and plays right into China’s hands — so much so that a state propaganda outlet, the Global Times, has published op-eds to that effect. The Chinese Communist Party under Xi Jinping is an aggressive, belligerent entity that seeks regional hegemony and a revision of the global order against Anglo-American interests. It is not a good faith actor, nor should it be treated as one in diplomatic affairs. But Lammy is doubling down on this engagement-first approach, reportedly planning a trip to Beijing to meet with senior CCP leaders within his first 100 days in office. This would be the first major visit from a U.K. foreign secretary in over a year and would herald a redirection of Sino–British relations, one Beijing is poised to take full advantage of. The British — as a member of several key defensive agreements including the AUKUS submarine pact and the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing group — are one of the indispensable nations when it comes to pushing back against Chinese aggression. Having a London more interested in appeasement than in defiance would deal a severe blow to our ability to deter or counter the CCP’s malign aspirations.

The worst aspect of the new Labour approach to foreign affairs is its treatment of Israel. Lammy claims to desire a more “balanced position” on the issue, but this is simply code for becoming more anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. His actions since taking over the brief at Whitehall say that loud and clear, but his anti-Zionist sentiment goes back further. Lammy was one of the key backers of Jeremy Corbyn’s takeover of the Labour Party, calling him “bloody brilliant” and nominating him for leadership in 2015. Corbyn was infamously defenestrated as party leader after his virulent antisemitism became politically inconvenient, and Lammy has sought to distance himself from his former compatriot. But Lammy’s approach to Israel during his short tenure thus far would have been perfectly at home in a Corbyn administration.

In an early visit to Israel, Lammy called for an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza, parroting Hamas talking points about aid deliveries, condemning the IDF for “appalling” civilian casualties, and pressing Jerusalem to ensure “that war is conducted according to international humanitarian law.” Since returning from the Middle East, Lammy has continued his crusade against Israel’s just campaign of retaliation. He has led the charge in restoring British funding for UNRWA, the U.N. organization that has significant organizational overlap with Hamas and whose members participated in the massacre of October 7. The Foreign Office has suspended some arms sales to Israel and has not ruled out an embargo if its pleas for a cease-fire are ignored. Lammy has suggested that the U.K. could further sanction Israelis, including IDF units, for “settler violence” and other “escalatory behavior” in the West Bank. Instead of opposing a harshly anti-Zionist U.N. resolution that called into question Israel’s very existence as a state, Britain merely abstained from voting. And in response to the large-scale Israeli operation precisely targeting Hezbollah combatants in Lebanon, Lammy urged “calm heads and de-escalation.” These actions don’t constitute a “balanced” position, but an outwardly anti-Israel one that endangers British and American lives.

The United Kingdom is one of the few nations on Earth that has genuinely expansive geopolitical interests and connections — a legacy of the British empire that makes it a valuable ally to the United States. The “special relationship” between the two primary nations of the Anglosphere stood as the bulwark of liberal democratic capitalism and global security for the whole of the 20th century, helping to win two world wars and the struggle against Soviet Communism and ushering in an era of unprecedented advances in the human condition. Losing such a stalwart ally would be disastrous for America’s ability to emerge victorious in the 21st century, putting us at a strategic disadvantage against the axis of Eurasian foes we face. Having our longtime friend commit geopolitical suicide by choosing weakness over strength and appeasement over confrontation would add insult to injury.

The West must stand together against those who seek to overthrow the world order, relying on our shared values, cultures, and histories to unite us. There is strength in numbers, but only if we remain resilient and self-confident. The Labour foreign policy under Lammy and Starmer would undermine such unity in a quixotic quest to improve the U.K.’s image with those who are predisposed to despise it. If it succeeds, the empire on which the sun never set will become a geopolitical backwater, if not an outright laughingstock.

This brand of foreign policy — appeasement, false balance, and woefully bad prioritization — may not remain siloed to London; depending on the results of November’s election, it could very well cross the pond. A Harris/Walz administration would likely echo many of Labour’s bad ideas, from a self-flagellating worldview to a penchant for conciliation over confrontation, engagement over realism, climate over combat, and the feelings of our foes over the interests of our friends. As bad as a Lammy-type foreign policy will be for Britain, its American instantiation would be far worse. If we retreat from the fight, we will lose. And that would be catastrophic for the future of our nation, our allies, and human liberty everywhere.