‘Good domestic policy is the best foreign policy’

What does a moral British foreign policy look like? Last week’s meeting between Andy Burnham and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky provided a compelling example. Burnham announced that Ukraine will receive intellectual property access to Stone Cloak, a British-developed electronic warfare system small enough to fit on a tablet and mount on a drone, yet powerful enough to disrupt enemy detection capabilities. A moral foreign policy is not built on statements or placards; rather, it is Britain using its industrial and technological strength to help an ally resist and defeat an imperialist aggressor.

Left-wing foreign policy thinking finds this difficult to grasp, to put it lightly. Some of those most vocal in demanding a more independent and ethical foreign policy are also sceptical of the capabilities required to sustain it. They believe Britain should stand up to Donald Trump, sanction Israel despite America’s opposition, and confront authoritarian states — yet doing so requires the very capabilities that are often viewed with suspicion. This is true of defence spending and domestic defence production, but also of energy production, industrial capacity, technological development, and pro-growth policies. Along with being told that we are putting “war above welfare”, we are also accused of sacrificing environmental concerns for ‘the interests of capital’.

READ MORE: ‘Burnham must treat soft power as part of Britain’s defence’

Yet those of us on the left who demand these things only do so because we understand that moral certainty with no hard power is the chocolate teapot of international politics. If I had a pound for each time the International Court of Justice has been invoked in arguments over Israel, I could make a strong bid for next year’s FIFA Peace Prize. But these international institutions—whether the UN, ECHR, ICJ or ICC— while important, have no legitimacy or power without states having the capacity to enforce them. Those violating the norms of these institutions do not stop because of ‘losing the moral argument’ but because they are faced with consequences. Independent capability is by no means a guarantee of ethical behaviour, but its absence guarantees dependence on those whose values we may not share.

The architects of post-war Labour understood this. Clement Attlee’s government built the NHS and welfare state while helping establish NATO and Britain’s nuclear deterrent. They did this because they understood that domestic progress could not be separated from international security. The abandonment of this basic principle has left Europe walking a very fine line to avoid a transatlantic rupture it cannot afford.

Take Europe’s approach to Israel. I too would like British and European governments to go further in holding Israel to account for its actions in the Middle East, as Burnham has said the government will do.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

But how can Britain and other European countries stand up to Washington while relying on it to guarantee European security? Patriot, for example, remains the backbone of Ukraine’s ballistic missile defence, and Europe currently lacks an equivalent capability at comparable scale. If America abandoned Ukraine, most foreign policy analysts agree that Europe could fill in some of the gaps, but not all, and not quickly. We risk allowing Ukraine to fall victim to imperialism because Europe lacks the capabilities to defend it, even as we seek to oppose imperialism elsewhere. This is an unconscionable dilemma.

Similarly, how can Europe be a bulwark against the madness of Donald Trump when disruption to our relationship with the United States could wipe out what meagre economic growth we can muster? Europe’s failure to prioritise energy security, industry, innovation and productivity leaves us dangerously dependent on authoritarian states to avoid economic calamity.

Foreign policy is not a wish list of moral ambitions. Our dependency limits our ability to act on them. Domestic strength means foreign policy leverage, and that leverage rests on the gritty basics — not just military spending, but energy security, industrial strength, technological leadership, and economic resilience. If we want to create more Stone Cloaks to protect our allies, or to inflict true consequences on those who violate international norms, then these basics are mandatory. These are not just tools for domestic prosperity; they are what allow a country to bear the costs of acting on its principles.  

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].