A few days after taking office, the next prime minister of the United Kingdom will go to Washington for an important NATO conference.
They will welcome roughly fifty heads of state for the European Community Summit at Blenheim Palace the following week, one day after the State Opening of Parliament.
All politics may be local, but the PM will quickly learn that administration is often an international endeavor after a domestic election.
They will have to deal with a number of global issues during this hectic round of diplomatic speed dating, including threats from China, political unrest in the US, divide in Europe, and conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine.
Rishi Sunak has come under fire for allegedly outsourcing a lot of his foreign policy work to foreign secretary Lord Cameron in recent months. Analysts and diplomats predict that he will face pressure to concentrate more on foreign policy if re-elected. It is also said that Sir Keir Starmer would have a difficult time adjusting to life on the international scene if he were elected prime minister.
Head of international policy at the Policy Exchange think tank Sophia Gaston said, "There is no time to get your feet under the table."
"Geopolitics doesn't patiently for you to swot up on your brief."
assistance to Ukraine and NATO
The main topics of discussion at the NATO summit, which will commemorate the union's 75 years, will be whether or not Ukraine should join the alliance and how much more assistance it should get.
Some members are hesitant to commit to automatic, inevitable membership because they think it would intensify hostilities with Russia. Instead of a formal invitation, the US thinks that Ukraine should be given a "bridge" to NATO.
Labour has pledged to continue receiving military and financial assistance from the Conservative administration. However, some party strategists feel that they may have to emphasize continuity more than the Conservatives in order to put an end to any doubts.
They believe Sir Keir may decide to offer Ukraine a faster and less conditional route to joining NATO than some allies are willing to consider, but they will not be able to offer more money or instruments because Labour is committed to implementing a review of defense spending first, which would take many months.
There will be disagreements in Washington about how much each member of NATO should spend on defense, according to officials. Some supporters want to increase the aim from the current 2% of the national production to 2.5%. Given its conflicting domestic goals, which include health and education, how much will the next administration want to spend? The Labour Party will do the same "as soon as resources allow"; the Tories pledge to spend 2.5 percent on defense by 2030.
Labour does not want to commit to unfunded expenditure because it wants to seem fiscally prudent and serious about defense. However, the party can come under pressure while in power.
Regarding defense expenditure, the Liberal Democrats call the 2.5% aim "an ambition", Reform suggests it should be as high as 3%, while the Green Party remains mute on the matter despite having renounced its hostility to NATO.
Tough decisions in the Middle East
The new administration will face several challenges in the Middle East. Would it reinstate UK money for the UN relief organization Unwra in Gaza, and if so, when? Should Foreign Office attorneys determine there is a possibility that military sales to Israel may be used to breach international humanitarian law, would it be required to halt such shipments, as supported by the SNP, Green Party, and Plaid Cymru? Would it make that legal advice public?
If Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu were to walk through London, the authorities may even have to choose whether to carry out an arrest order issued by the International Criminal Court against him. Will the administration eventually have to choose whether to support a potential ceasefire in Gaza that required tough concessions?
While no decision would be simple, diplomats tell me they think a Labour administration would have an easier time making decisions due to internal political constraints. Following the strikes on October 7, Sir Keir Starmer strongly defended Israel, even going so far as to imply that it had the right to deny Gaza access to water. However, Labour has started to soften its support for Israel as Palestinian losses have increased and internal pressure has grown. It has been increasingly critical of Israel's military action in Gaza, has backed the ICC's war crimes accusations, and has hinted that it may oppose UK weapons supplies to Israel. Diplomats argue that these decisions would only get more challenging once in office.
Taking a stand against China
The two biggest parties ostensibly have comparable China policy. Labour pledges to "compete, challenge and co-operate" with China, while the Conservatives pledge to "protect, align (with allies) and engage". Analysts of foreign policy tell me that drawing a boundary between these conflicting goals is a challenge for both parties. Labour promises to conduct a thorough review of UK-China ties. How much trade restriction should the government impose on China in order to strengthen Britain's economic defenses? To what extent should the government work with China on health and environment issues?
China's desire to annex Taiwan looms large over this. Many US politicians think that by 2027, there will be some kind of military intervention. Would the UK government impose sanctions on China in such a scenario, even at great financial risk to itself? Is there any way that the UK government might back the US military's defense of Taiwan?
"The big question for Labour is whether it understands that strategic competition is a US-China story, or whether it’s a challenge that Britain has a role to play in," said Sophia Gaston of Policy Exchange.
An unsettling US election?
November's presidential election may force Downing Street to make difficult decisions. Following a close outcome like the one in January 2021, there is a chance of political unrest and bloodshed.
Leslie Vinjamuri, director of the US and Americas Programme at Chatham House think tank, says that the UK may find itself in a position where it must comment on issues pertaining to American democracy, dysfunction, and commitment to its own democratic values sooner rather than later.
"The next UK government needs to think very clearly concerning whether and the manner in which it will speak up in the event of a disruptive election."
No matter who wins in November, diplomats warn the US is also becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the world, which means the next UK government may have to decide between supporting US and European stances on important issues like trade duties on European products, Ukraine, and China.
And then, of course, there's the question of whether Donald Trump, should he win, would serve as US president. What if he tried to start a trade war with China or perhaps Europe, or negotiate an unsatisfactory political solution in Ukraine?
Changes in Europe
The triumph of nationalist parties in the elections for the European Parliament might make it more difficult for a UK prime minister to negotiate a new trade agreement with the EU. Some leaders who could be in favor of the UK might be preoccupied with maintaining their own positions of authority. Others could be less inclined to make agreements, for example, on migration, with the UK.
In an attempt to formally formalize cooperation on matters including the crisis in Ukraine, the danger from Russia, joint defense procurement, mass migration, and organized crime, Labour has said that it would seek to negotiate a new defense and security deal with the EU.
However, others in Labour believe that there will be a political vacuum until the new European Commission is constituted in the fall, during which time, if they were in government, they would want to show their pro-European credentials without giving up their bargaining position.
In contrast to the Lib Dems who want the UK to rejoin the Single Market as well as the SNP, which thinks EU membership is the "best option for Scotland," Labour has pledged that it would not let Britain to return to the Single Market, Customs Union, or the EU.
A Labour administration may eventually have to decide how far it is ready to align Britain's economy with the EU in exchange for further cooperation, either on trade via the planned review of the Brexit agreement in 2025 or on security through the new pact. This is according to European officials. The government would have to strike a balance between gaining economic advantages and acquiescing to EU regulations over which it had no control, which would make this politically difficult.
The Conservatives pledge to continue eliminating EU regulations from the UK statute book and to "build" on the Brexit agreement they achieved. Reform would remove the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights, do away with EU legislation, and renounce the Windsor Framework that established Northern Ireland's trade partnership with the EU.
No comments:
Post a Comment