“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow”. Thus spoke Lord Palmerston, titan of British statecraft. 

But what if one had no interest in national interests? Might this help explain our new government’s approach to international affairs? 

Like certain governments on the left, there has been a desire to pretend that the new administration is starting from the year zero. Several diplomatic events have been styled as “resets” with other countries, despite policy remaining broadly similar to that of the government’s predecessors. It is stated that bold steps are required to restore Britain’s status in the eyes of others, despite it never being quite clear how Britain might benefit from such arrangements.  

It might be argued that British foreign policy is underpinned by the writings of our Foreign Secretary, and his concept of “progressive realism”. This doctrine takes the defensible view that states vie for power and security in an anarchic international arena and thus take decisions in the national interest. It then proposes to subvert this logic by hoping that if the UK takes decisions that are detrimental to its own interests, others might follow suit. 

Given this antipathy towards acting in the interests of the nation, would it be unfair to suggest that perhaps the government’s policy is the abdication of responsibility over it? The continuation of moribund plans from the administrations of yesteryear coupled with a determination to cede power wherever possible. 

We can see evidence of this thinking in the government’s surrender of the Chagos Islands to a foreign power, on the sole basis that it had suddenly decided that the legal status of the territory was in dispute. That the Foreign Office might simply refuse to entertain any further discussion of the Islands with Mauritius was clearly inconceivable. That Parliament was told this course of action would somehow rally others to support British aims elsewhere seems disingenuous or hopelessly naïve.   

Consider also the government’s recent acceptance of at least the possibility of Britain owing trillions of pounds in reparations to other countries at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Summit. It is remarkable that fifty-five other countries can turn up to a summit and not endorse proposals that would be financially ruinous to them. Britain could have made a point of refusing to approve the summit communique. Instead, the tweaking of language within the text which still concedes the need for discussion on reparations is presented as a diplomatic triumph, while discussions turn to what forms of “non-financial” reparations the country might make.   

We see this national indifference in the government’s desire to add new members to the UN Security Council, diluting British power and increasing the amount of veto players in a body frequently beset by gridlock. The Attorney General’s remarks that the UK would like to see permanent representation from “Africa, from Brazil, India, Japan and Germany” seems a particularly clumsy overture to the only continent on the list, and eschews the logic of national interest supposedly present in progressive realism. This too, it is worth mentioning, is a policy cooked up by a former Foreign Secretary in the previous government. 

Such thinking is also visible in the government’s approach to defence relations with the EU, and its intense desire to conclude some ambiguous form of “security pact” despite no obvious upsides and disquiet from NATO leadership about the diversion of defence resources. That the government grandstands about wanting to take part in EU defence initiatives that risk detracting from NATO while the US is becoming ever more vocal about the need for greater burden sharing within the alliance seems, again, to put the interests of Brussels above those of Britain. 

If foreign policy is an extension of domestic politics, then the government has been strikingly consistent, with the Energy Secretary’s mad dash to decarbonise the fastest at whatever the cost — again in deference to global environmental commitments — leaving the country more reliant on energy imports and the geopolitical games that accompany them. 

Why the government has chosen this path, of ceding authority to alien and often supranational bodies while choosing to present decisions as being “out of Britain’s hands”, is a difficult question, though one suspects that a dislike of the idea of the nation state sits at the heart of it. 

When it comes to Palmerston and duty, our leaders seem entirely uninterested

To act in the national interest, one must accept that Britain has a series of domestic and international priorities that concern chiefly the security and prosperity of the British people. While we are fortunate to have many allies, we cannot count on them alone to sustain our welfare. This requires prioritising resources and capacity to influence events to advance British interests, as well as taking measures that may not be in the interests of others, even if this requires confrontation. 

It is perhaps easier to pretend otherwise, that Britain has no perpetual interests, and leave the challenges of statecraft to others. When it comes to Palmerston and duty, our leaders seem entirely uninterested.