One can almost feel sorry for Keir Starmer. It was not meant to be like this. Not that he will find the comparison gratifying, but there is a parallel with George W. Bush. Remember back: Bush Jr watched his father take centre stage on global affairs with a massive domestic approval rating. Then the domestics began to go wrong. Forget triumph in the Gulf War: instead ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’ Admittedly with the help of Ross Perot – the Nigel Farage of the US circa 1992 – George Bush senior lost to Bill Clinton.
The son was determined not to make the same mistake. He would be a domestic president. But Al Qaeda had other plans. When asked what was most difficult about being PM, Harold Macmillan’s reply would have resonated with every head of government: ‘Events, dear boy, events.’
There is an amusing paradox about our current premier. On the domestic front, where Sir Stumbler undoubtedly had plans, he has blundered from cock-up to crisis. Few prime ministers have proved so inept in their first year of office, and Starmer’s poll ratings reflect this. It is only surprising that he has any supporters left. Yet on foreign affairs the Labour leader has played a tricky hand with considerable skill, despite the fact that there is no evidence that he had ever given abroad much thought. That may be down to one wise, early decision. Encouraged by Tony Blair, Starmer retained the services of Jonathan Powell and to some extent John Bew, though the latter keeps on trying to escape back to academia. Those are two immensely shrewd geo-politicians.
Possibly with their guidance, Starmer followed the example of all prudent prime ministers since the debacle of Suez. While the French decided that they would never again trust the Americans and would try, however absurdly, to assert their own superpower status, we British were determined never again to find ourselves in conflict with the US. This remains true, even if that meant sucking up to Donald Trump. In pursuit of that goal and with the tacit help of King Charles, Starmer has done everything short of taking golfing lessons.
Much good that will do him, when it comes to his own domestics. That brings us to the question of recognising Palestine, and another amusing paradox. A row has broken out between two sets of lawyers. One group argues that in recognising Palestine as a state, the UK would be in breach of the Montevideo Convention. The others, who presumably include the PM and the Attorney-General, Lord Hermer, seem to think that Montevideo is in a far away country of which we know nothing.
Hence the paradox. The PM and the AG are both inveterate human rights lawyers. Neither has much truck with British sovereignty. If the UK were ever in conflict with a foreigner, they seem inclined to instinctively assume that the UK would be in the wrong. If any international convention appeared to restrict HMG’s freedom of action, they would welcome that. They would never ask themselves where was this ‘Internationalia’ – this legal superpower which purports to sit in judgment on our Parliament and to regulate the lives and liberties of our people – or why we should flatter this international legal pomposity by deferring to its opinions.
That said, apropos Montevideo, Internationalia has a point. It is a sensible and commonsensical document. It asserts that in order to be worthy of recognition, the entity in question should have a permanent population, a defined territory, an identifiable government and the ability to enter into diplomatic relations with other countries. From this, there is an obvious conclusion. If a supposed nation does not meet those criteria, what is the point of recognising it?
What indeed? But the Government has decided to recognise a Palestinian state for two reasons: one unworthy, the other hypocritical. The unworthy one is that it will make people feel better. There is a simple response to that. When it comes to Israel/Palestine, no-one is entitled to feel better. We are confronting a tragic mess, and to pretend otherwise is like kissing a small child’s bruise to make it feel better. That might work with small children. Grown-ups must face reality.
The hypocritical reason is more acceptable. Politicians are entitled to play politics, even, occasionally, low politics. In much of the country, Labour are caught between two fires. First, there is Reform. Second, Dracula-Corbyn has clambered out of the tomb. Two or three years ago, it seemed that under Keir Starmer’s leadership, the Labour Party had cured itself of long Corbyn. But the virus has returned. Recognition of Palestine is an attempt at appeasement. But it will not work, because hardly anyone will be satisfied. England in particular is condemned to a summer of discontent, and Sir Stumbler has no answers.
He could at least have the satisfaction of reminding the international lawyers that whatever view they take of Palestine, and indeed Montevideo, Britain does meet all the tests for recognition. We are a sovereign nation, and if our Government chooses to recognise Palestine, then Palestine will be recognised, whatever they think in Doughty Street Chambers and the other covens of human rights infestation. One suspects that this would not be his response.
Whatever he does will not matter. We are in an unholy mess. Almost everyone knows what ought to happen: a two-state solution. Almost no-one seems to have any idea how to bring this about. In the absence of any plan, calling for a two-state solution is on a par with kissing the bruise better.
While the rest of us are mired in confusion and gloom, a crucial actor has no interest in a two-state solution. Benjamin Netanyahu wants one state, and the devil take those who do not belong in it. What is the answer? In its absence, one is thrown back on Yeats: ‘The best lack all conviction, while the worst/ Are full of passionate intensity.’
– the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
Columns are the author’s own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of CapX.
