Lammy is turning Britain into a global laughing stock.
The Foreign Secretary has managed to create a rift not only with Israel, but with the United States too
CON COUGHLINDEFENCE AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS EDITOR5 September 2024 • 6:30am
To alienate an important ally, as Foreign Secretary David Lammy has managed to do with Israel over his decision to suspend some arms export licences, might smack of rank incompetence. But to act in a way that leaves the US, this country’s most important strategic partner, also feeling aggrieved demonstrates that he is fast becoming a liability.
Concerns were already being raised about Lammy’s erratic conduct prior to Labour winning its landslide victory, prompting speculation that Sir Keir Starmer would opt for a more credible figure, such as Douglas Alexander or Peter Mandelson, to represent UK interests on the world stage.
Lammy’s childish musings on former US president Donald Trump, whom he memorably called a “neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath”, his historic opposition to maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent and his antipathy towards Benjamin Netanyuhu are hardly the acts of someone who will enhance Britain’s global standing.
Lammy’s decision, for example, to withdraw Britain’s objection to the International Criminal Court’s request for an arrest warrant for Netanyahu – one of his first acts on taking office – meant the Israeli prime minister declined to meet the Foreign Secretary when he visited Jerusalem last month for an update on the stalled Gaza ceasefire talks.
Britain and Israel are supposed to enjoy a close strategic partnership on a number of major security challenges, such as the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme. So the unnecessary rift Lammy has caused by failing to oppose the possible criminal prosecution of an ally is not only short-sighted: it risks undermining our own national security.
Starmer’s decision to persist with Lammy’s appointment to one of the great offices of state now runs the risk of making his Government a laughing stock, given the backlash his decision to suspend some arms exports to Israel has provoked.
Israel’s condemnation of the decision, which Netanyahu denounced as “shameful”, was to be expected, even though Lammy’s intervention will have hardly any impact on Israel’s military firepower, such is the modest nature of the UK-Israel arms trade.
Of more concern, though, will be the unnecessary froideur that Lammy’s antics have created in Washington, where the Biden administration has made clear that, according to its own review of Israel’s military conduct, no evidence has emerged that the Israelis have violated international humanitarian law – the main justification given for Britain’s decision to suspend the arms licences.
Causing unnecessary friction with the US is worrying on a number of levels, not least because our national security relies heavily on the protection afforded by our so-called “special relationship” with America.
While differences of opinion inevitably arise between even close partners, when it comes to confronting major global threats such as Iran and Russia, it is vital that allies demonstrate a united front, lest their adversaries regard public disagreements as a sign of weakness.
Lammy’s willingness to enact punitive action against Israel on the same day that the country was burying the victims of yet another atrocity carried out by Iranian-backed terrorists will certainly be taken as an indication by Hamas – as well as its Iranian backers – that the UK is no longer committed to supporting Tel Aviv’s right to self defence.
The Government’s indifference towards Israel at a time when the Israelis are fighting Iranian-backed adversaries on a number of fronts – Gaza, southern Lebanon and Yemen, to name a few – comes at a time when its support for Ukraine is similarly perceived to be on the wane.
While Ukrainian forces have enjoyed their most successful spell on the battlefield for many months, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s criticism of Starmer for slowing down arms supplies to Kyiv will be interpreted by the Kremlin as an indication that Britain – in common with many other Western allies – is rapidly losing interest in the conflict.
The sense that Labour is seeking to scale down Britain’s international commitments, especially in terms of supporting erstwhile allies, will be strengthened by the warning that, now Starmer is firmly established in Downing Street, the Government appears to have no intention of fulfilling its pledge to strengthen the UK’s defence capabilities.
During the election campaign, Starmer and co were so desperate to profess their national security credentials that they told voters that they would seek to increase defence spending to at least 2.5 per cent of GDP. It is quite a different story now that Labour is in power, with Defence Secretary John Healey warning that the Ministry of Defence will have to “do its part” as Labour’s self-imposed austerity drive takes shape.
Just what our American allies will make of this egregious volte-face will be interesting to see, not least because Starmer used his first major speech on the international stage, at the celebrations in Washington marking Nato’s 75th anniversary in July, to call on all Nato member states to meet the UK’s impressive 2.5 per cent spending target.
Americans have every right to conclude that Starmer’s rhetoric was nothing more than hollow words from a hollow man. DT.
