 |
| Argentina's leader, Javier Milei, with US President, Donald Trump (Image: AFP via Getty Images) |
Judging the first two months of Andy Burnham's reign as UK's Prime Minister may sound harsh, because most of this time has been the Parliament's summer recess. That being said, he has spent a lot of his time on social media, sharing any tiny announcement to show that his government means business. Whether it's a bus fare cap or cutting business rates for the hospitality sector, these have been supported with a snazzy video or photo to highlight how amazing they are. From a publicity perspective, it all sounds rather modern and it is clear that he wants to target a younger demographic, to engage with them more, at a time when we're told that they are disenfranchised by politics. One hopes the £1m budget he has set aside for this is worth it.
Burnham has also used his time to set out his principles. As he was previously the Mayor of Manchester, he always had championed the north of England, and often states that this part of the UK should be considered more in policy changes. One of his first actions was to open a 'Number 10 North', in Britain's third biggest city, where he and his appointed ministers will meet on a weekly basis. It's symbolic, for sure, however, at the moment, I don't see it as much more than that. It won't directly tackle the significant challenges in 'the north', as evidenced in Middlesbrough this summer, which saw pockets of unrest, sparked by a horrid case of two police officers dying trying to chase teenagers driving on the wrong side of the road in the middle of the night (tragically, those young men also passed away).
While clear principles are all well and good, now summer is over, we need to see Burnham as the serious Prime Minister, rather than a trendy one. Internationally, Britain is seen as an unsettled country - ever since the Brexit referendum ten years ago, the country has seen seven Prime Ministers (including David Cameron). Allies can do without being introduced to new people at the top again. And in an unsettled world, in which Britons are being impacted by, we need Burnham to be the top diplomat, the voice of reason, and, perhaps, offer a fresh perspective to the biggest challenges than what his predecessors had provided.
We have started to see this already when it comes to the ongoing crisis in Gaza and the West Bank, where Palestinians are still being bombarded by Israeli forces. Since 2023, the population of Gaza has fallen by six percent. Much of the region is under rubble. And as that is going on, extremist Jewish settlers have identified parts of Palestine they want to call their own home, something which is against international law, but nevertheless approved by the coalition government in Israel. Ed Miliband, now UK's Foreign Secretary, has openly condemned the move, and as a result of reported international pressures, Israel's leader Benyamin Netanyahu has ordered the dismantling of some of these settlements.
This narrative, within the British government, is a marked shift to what we'd seen under the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer. His support for Israel's 'right to defend itself' had been consistent, until just before he departed as Prime Minister where we'd seen hints of criticism towards the Israeli government, but never enough to truly rattle Netanyahu. The Israeli Prime Minister was bothered by Starmer, but not much more. But what is clear is that over the coming months, we'll see a greater diplomatic tussle between the two countries, especially if Netanyahu regains power after his country's October election, and if Miliband and Burnham apply further sanctions and pressures.
Burnham has made one relatively significant visit abroad, and that is to Ukraine. Its leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, was probably nervous to meet yet another British Prime Minister, especially after receiving generous and near-unconditional support from Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak and Starmer. Burnham wanted to make sure that this particular narrative hasn't changed. However, perhaps it should change. The support given to Ukraine by Britain, Europe and the United States, was under the clear understanding that it would be used to defend itself against the relentless Russian attacks. However, in recent months, Ukraine has been fighting back, targeting Moscow and other major Russian cities. Zelensky has also authorised attacks on Iranian resources, as a sign to Russia that its allies will also be targets (that being said, Iran has funded ammunition to Russia who used these to continuously attack Ukraine).
Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, is reading the current situation with some vigour. Not only has he ordered a greater military campaign towards Kyiv and other major Ukrainian cities in recent weeks, but he has also started to rattle Ukraine's allies. Germany has claimed Russia was responsible for landing an explosive drone at Leipzig Airport in August. Nobody was hurt, and Russia denies responsibility, but nevertheless, tensions have certainly risen, and indications suggest that, unless Ukraine and its allies change their tone on Russia, Putin's threats and mere presence will be more than just words.
In all honesty, I don't think Putin will do anything. When you're crippled militarily and economically, the next step is to sound tough to others, to make Russia appear strong when in fact the country is wounded. Whether Russia had a hand in what happened in Leipzig or not, the fact that this was even suggested by the German government shows that an urgent review into the approach towards the Ukraine-Russia conflict. There is only so much sterling that can be spent on a conflict that has no sign of ending.
President Donald Trump has changed the narrative in the United States, but he's gone almost 180-degrees, appeasing Russia and, in prioritising the war with Iran, downgraded Ukraine from his list of priorities (even if he has sent negotiators to both Russia and Ukraine, seemingly for them to pop over for a chinwag and cup of tea). The only thing he's right on, is that supporting Ukraine has its conditions. Tragically, he's set out the wrong conditions. It's up to Burnham, France's Emmanuel Macron and Germany's Friedrich Merz to lead the cause. Though, I seriously would include Italy's Giorgia Meloni in any talks. She seems to have surprised every political commentator by being friends with everyone, from all sides of the political spectrum, despite her party flirting with beliefs mirroring that of dictator Benito Mussolini.
When we thought the situation in Ukraine was complex, Burnham may have to re-prioritise his military strategy towards the Falkland Islands. This tiny part of South America, which has been under the leadership of Britain since the 1830s, is subject of yet another diplomatic attack by Argentina. After the war in 1982 which saw Argentina try, and fail, to claim the islands, we thought that was the end of it. Sure, leader after leader of Argentina have said they want to claim the Falklands, but they were all mouth and no trousers. This leader, Javier Milei, however, has been doing a bit more than just talk. He's been lobbying support, and is succeeding. While the United States has historically been neutral on UK-Argentina relations, it has also historically stuck to the facts around the Falklands' sovereignty. After all, in a referendum on the issue in 2013, all but four residents voted to remain British. But that hasn't stopped Trump from threatening to change his country's stance on this subject, purely because he's not a fan of the way Britain is run, and of Starmer's decision not to support the US in the ongoing Iran war.
What happens in the Falkland Islands matters, perhaps more this time than 44 years ago. If there is a conflict (I dare rule it out at this stage, judging by the erratic ways Milei and Trump act), considering it cost the UK £9.5 billion in today's money over a 74-day period, goodness knows how much resource would need to be put this time around. And that money could be spent on seeking pressing diplomatic solutions in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as future potential combatting cyber attacks. Spending on another Falklands invasion could also increase the likelihood of escalating threats from the likes of Russia, who will take advantage of an increasingly distracted Britain and Europe.
It will take more than snazzy videos to show that Britain can stand on its two feet abroad. I'm sure Burnham knows this. However, he has come in at a time when perhaps changing Prime Minister wasn't a bright idea. We cannot afford another leadership influenced by clueless and oblivious social media keyboard warriors. Burnham needs to offer certainty, and an authoritative charm, to ensure that those threatening countries aren't going to harm Britain's interests. And that certainty needs to come fast. Annoyingly, we're now at Conference Season, where political parties will be congregating with their peers having debates and jollies. Can the new Prime Minister balance the two and secure early diplomatic victories? We all hope so.
Comments
Post a Comment