The Telegraph: Burnham has become a global laughing stock before even entering No 10

Andy Burnham
Photo:BBC

Our soon-to-be PM’s futile foreign policy is designed to pander to Labour MPs, not uphold British interests, The Telegraph stresses.

Listening to Andy Burnham’s pronouncements on foreign policy makes you wonder whether he might somehow believe in this daydream.

“Let’s be honest,” said our incoming prime minister in a video message last week. “The UK was too slow to call for a ceasefire [in Gaza], and we must do more to strengthen our approach.”

Then, speaking on Wednesday to the foreign policy titan known as Gary Lineker, Burnham added: “I did call for a ceasefire very early on, and I think again Labour was late to do that.”

He was presumably referring to the Commons debate on Nov 15 2023 when Labour, then in opposition, declined to vote for a Gaza ceasefire. But suppose it had? Does anyone seriously think that Netanyahu in his bunker – or Yahya Sinwar, then commanding Hamas from a tunnel – would have known or cared?

Urging a ceasefire at that moment might have caused Burnham and other Labour politicians to feel better, but it would not have made the slightest difference to events in Gaza.

So far, Burnham’s only intended audience for everything he has said about the outside world seems to have been Labour MPs and voters. But you can be sure that foreign diplomats will have been watching regardless.

At this moment, embassies across London will be poring over Burnham’s words and sending diplomatic telegrams back to their capitals exploring what his premiership might mean for British foreign policy. He has given them every reason to suspect that he regards British diplomacy, certainly in the Middle East, as nothing but an elaborate exercise in placating the rival factions of the Labour Party.

They will question whether Burnham regards the painstaking business of sustaining alliances, countering threats and trying to make a difference on the ground – or, in sum, upholding British interests – as somehow secondary to pandering to Labour MPs or voters.

On the evidence so far, Burnham’s priority will be conflict resolution within his own party, not the Middle East.

Last year, when Britain recognised a non-existent Palestinian state, David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, left his senior officials with the impression that he had no interest in the arguments for or against. He was privately clear that recognising the Palestinian territories was a political imperative – and that was that.

Foreign diplomats will wonder whether Burnham is going to be similarly prone to this kind of futile gesture. They might also have marvelled at his sheer unbounded ignorance.

“I fully support the restrictions on arms licences to make sure that no British bombs or bullets can be used by the IDF in Gaza,” he breezily declared.

Someone needs to tell Burnham that no “British bombs or bullets” have been used in Gaza for the simple reason that the UK’s only military exports to Israel are electronic components, not finished weapons.

As it happens, British industry makes precious few varieties of “bombs or bullets” for Britain’s own Armed Forces, let alone Israel’s. If Burnham thinks that he might stop UK companies from supplying any arms-related electronics to Israel, he will receive a rude shock when he learns that Britain is far more reliant on Israeli military technology than vice versa.

The defence system of the British Army’s new Challenger 3 tank, for example, was developed in Israel. So was the command module of the Army’s Sky Sabre missile, along with the target-acquisition system of the Royal Artillery and the electronic-warfare suites of Royal Navy warships.

Most importantly, the F-35 jets forming the mainstay of the RAF and most Nato air forces are produced by a multinational programme that includes Israel, which makes the aircraft’s outer wing structure.

Burnham presumably knew nothing of this when he blithely promised: “We’ve got to do more to put pressure on the Israeli government.” When he takes office, he is going to learn that his options for doing so are minimal. Would he prefer the RAF’s newest jets to have no wings?

If Labour activists cry betrayal when he fails to meet the expectations that he has deliberately raised – and they surely will – Burnham will have no one but himself to blame.

Foreign governments notice these things. Their diplomats will realise that Burnham has only ever held domestic responsibilities. They will not be expecting him to display a deep knowledge of international affairs.

If Burnham continues to echo the favourite obsessions of the Labour backbenchers who have given him the premiership without a fight, he will end up damaging Britain’s relations with a raft of important countries – from Israel to the Gulf to India – while achieving nothing.

Will Burnham be prepared to devote enough time to foreign policy? Again, the signals are not encouraging. When he wrote a more considered article on international affairs for The Times, he still felt the need to mention “No 10 North, and the devolution of power to all parts of the UK”.

So far, Burnham has contrived to give the impression that his foreign policy will consist of pacifying his party while delegating as much of the real work as possible. Hopefully, that will turn out to be false.

For now, his clumsy signals risk squandering his influence and displaying his ignorance before he has even taken office.

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs