The Telegraph, 29th September 2024
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/29/david-lammys-virtue-signalling-is-an-embarrassment/
The foreign secretary’s priorities don’t seem to reflect our pressing strategic concerns
It’s a gaffe per week for our foreign secretary. First, his rogue blogging sparked a diplomatic row with Armenia, as he appeared to justify Azerbaijan’s ethnic cleansing.
Not content with that embarrassment, Mr Lammy then saw fit to invoke his ethnicity in his condemnation of Vladimir Putin at the UN General Assembly. It was cringeworthy, to say the least. Yes David, we can see that you are black.
And when you thought he would just stop, he has now claimed – with a straight face – that climate change poses a more fundamental threat to the world than either terrorism or autocratic leaders. Kissinger, he ain’t.
I guess that his latest sermon is in keeping with this virtue-signalling, feeble government that we have come to know in recent months. One that prefers to duck the tough questions in favour of modish fads. For, not content with shoving their eco-zealotry down the throats of the British taxpayer, Labour now wants to export it round the world.
In his first speech, did our foreign secretary talk about the critical juncture at which Ukraine finds itself in its fight against Putin? About the pervasive threat posed by the Ayatollahs in Tehran as they stockpile enough uranium to build two nuclear bombs, and sponsor Islamist terrorism around the world? Did he clarify the government’s defensive posture in the face of an ever aggressive China, Sino-US competition and what it means for the UK?
Did he make good on his promise to call out the ongoing genocide of Uyghur Muslims in Xingjang? Perhaps, in his first hundred days as foreign secretary, we’ve heard from him on why we need to increase defence spending urgently? Or his thoughts on the unprecedented levels of geopolitical volatility? How about the fact that 70 per cent of the security services’ work relates to terrorism? No. He chose to use his first major foreign policy speech to talk about global warming.
Of course climate change is a serious challenge with which all governments must grapple. The truth is that the transition to net zero must be gradual and affordable, rather than rushed and uneconomical. But for all his warm words about saving the planet, Lammy categorically failed to mention the elephant in the room: China’s near monopoly of clean energy supply chains and massive investment in solar cells, EVs and critical minerals – and the consequent risk of China leveraging its dominant position to penalise the UK.
Any strategy to diversify our new energy supply chains needs to be seen in the context of the broader UK-China bilateral relationship, but this was emphatically missing from his analysis. To say it was devoid of substance would be kind.
So in case you were tempted to read Lammy’s latest thoughts, don’t bother. Instead of dealing with the enormous dangers facing the West right now, the foreign secretary of a UN Security Council Member, G7 and Nato nation was busy launching the government’s next vanity project, a “Global Clean Power Alliance”. Currently consisting of an alliance of precisely one nation (us), it is highly likely that this gimmick will achieve precisely nothing in real terms.
As the Peace Research Institute in Oslo reported, 2023 was “one of the most violent years since the end of the Cold War”. It is against that backdrop that David Lammy’s first speech should have been set. And how a UK foreign policy might realistically tackle rising levels of vulnerability.
He could have explored how the UK might navigate the unpredictable tensions arising out of the alliance of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Maybe set out the government’s approach to nuclear proliferation amongst those hostile states.
Consideration of our sanctions policy would have been a fruitful place to start. He might have opined on how alliances such as the Five Eyes and the G7 might adapt to mitigate the rising threat of Islamist terrorism. How a bolstered Nato might further protect Euro-Atlantic security.
Instead of obsessing about undoing Brexit, he might have ventured policy on improving bilateral European relations and capitalising on new freedoms and opportunities, such as in the Indo-Pacific. He might have attempted to articulate a coherent policy on the Middle East, given that his actions demonstrate an anti-Israel stance. Would it have been too much to expect him to express support for Israel as it defends itself against Hezbollah?
Whilst it would have undoubtedly caused him a headache with his backbenchers, doesn’t the UK stand for more than constructive ambiguity when it comes to responding to the defining terrorist attack of recent years?
It’s a cliché that the first duty of every government is the defence of its people. Lammy, in the first chapter of his tenure, has emphatically failed to reassure us that his department takes this obligation seriously.
