I mentioned some weeks ago that one of the great points of interest – not to say enjoyment – in our era will be seeing how Keir Starmer’s government copes with the incoming Donald Trump administration in Washington. It is fair to say that many Labour MPs, not to mention the mayor of London (who spends more time grandstanding abroad than he does addressing violent crime in his own city), have been wildly impolitic. If there are two candidates in the running to lead your most important ally it would seem prudent for a wise man to keep his diplomatic options open. Alas, Westminster does not appear to be flooded by wise men.
‘I can’t emphasise enough what a bad idea it would be for the UN to use the transition to attack Israel’
In any case, an early example of the problem has just emerged, not in London or Washington, but in New York. Specifically at the favourite meeting place of despots and failed hopes – the United Nations on First Avenue.
This week the outgoing Biden administration has allowed a resolution to go to the Security Council which calls for an immediate ceasefire in the Middle East. Since the Houthis in Yemen do not listen to the Security Council, Hamas are never condemned by the Security Council and Hezbollah have built their arsenal under the eyes of the United Nations’ laughable ‘peacekeeping force’ in Lebanon, the resolution has only one enemy in its sights: Israel.
The latest resolution calls for an immediate ceasefire and then the return of all Israeli hostages. It also calls for all parties to abide by their obligations under international law. Though again one might note that neither the Revolutionary Islamic Government in Tehran nor any of their terror proxies have ever displayed any great interest in the jurisdiction of the international courts. The motion is simply the latest example of what the Democrats in Washington do on their way out of office after losing to a Republican.
In 2016, before Trump’s first inauguration, the Obama administration attempted to screw over Israel at the United Nations. Now – entirely predictably – good ol’ Joe Biden is doing the same thing. America has let it be known that it will abstain at the Security Council. Britain and France have signalled they are likely to vote in favour of the motion.
And here is an interesting juncture. Because several things are at play which are bigger than the Starmer government realises. The first is that the US and Israel are not signatories to the Rome Statutes. They take the perfectly admirable attitude towards foreign courts that they should have no jurisdiction over the military or political decisions of democratic nations. If the British or French like to think of the day that our own soldiers, cabinet ministers or even former prime ministers might be hauled before a foreign court to be prosecuted for protecting their people, well, the Americans and Israelis think otherwise. In the case of America there is an additional crinkle. Something called the ‘Hague Invasion Act’ means that any foreign country supporting the prosecution of not just an American but an American ally will be regarded as an enemy of the United States.
The British government appears to be labouring under the delusion that if they support or even abstain from the proposed resolution they will curry favour with the outgoing Biden administration: a piece of diplomatic manoeuvring which says much about our representatives in Whitehall and New York. What they seem to be ignoring is that all of this will be looked at with displeasure by the incoming Trump administration, which they will have to deal with for the next four years.
The UN vote is being brought forward at the request of Algeria, whose government, I think we can all agree, is respected by all civilised people as an exemplar and indeed arbiter of the international order. But the incoming Trump administration rightly sees the UN vote as an attempt to kick them on the way in. And they are not in a place to look kindly on countries which support that kick.
A glimpse of how the incoming administration in Washington views this vote can be seen in a statement by the Republican senator Ted Cruz. On Tuesday he said: ‘I can’t emphasise enough what a catastrophically bad idea it would be for the UN to use the transition to attack Israel and tie the hands of the incoming Trump administration. Catastrophic for the UN, and for all the countries, officials and NGOs pushing this.’ That is one of the more subtle things I have heard from the incoming administration in recent days.
Which brings me back to the Starmer government and its attempts to navigate the changing world stage. The government has repeatedly stressed its desire to continue arming our allies in Ukraine in their war against Russian aggression. The UK and France have expended a fair amount of money and diplomacy into that policy. The same governments do not regard aggression by the Revolutionary Government in Iran in a remotely similar light. But the Trump team does. And I suspect that the incoming administration may well regard British and French support for a diplomatic attack on Israel in a changed light as a result.
What is more, if the recent comments by our Business Secretary are anything to go by, it seems that the Starmer government is thinking of deciding that in any trade war between the US and the EU they would like to re-tie us to the EU. The fact that the last and next Trump administrations were keen to finalise a US-UK trade deal will doubtless also be either on or off the table, depending on decisions the Starmer government makes.
But these are big issues of statecraft. Ones that seem to be above the heads of some people who actually run our country. So perhaps the Labour government could think on a human matter. The resolution they are considering makes no mention of the British woman Emily Damari, 28, who is one of the hostages still being held by Hamas in Gaza. But then Hamas is a group that the UN has no interest in condemning and the UK government seems to want to prevent Israel from defeating. Ball in our court, I suppose.
Comments