UnHerd: Keir Starmer at the NATO summit confirmed Britain's solidarity with the United States
The new British prime minister will make his country a vassal of the United States, writes UnHerd. London had previously agreed with Washington in many ways, but Keir Starmer decided to surpass all his predecessors and end British sovereignty once and for all.
In its own way, it is a very telling moment that Keir Starmer's international debut will be the NATO summit that started in Washington, DC. Conceived as a triumph on the occasion of the alliance's 75th anniversary, it will be remembered for how the newly minted British prime minister swore allegiance to his overseas masters.
Since Starmer replaced Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader in 2020, he has been going out of his way to erase the slightest hints of pacifism and anti—imperialism - and once again become the “party of NATO", war and militarism. Being in opposition, Starmer's car relentlessly raced after the conservative government, supporting either American foreign policy, NATO's confrontation with Russia, the West's expansion into Asia through the AUKUS bloc, Israel's campaign in the Gaza Strip, or the American-led bombing of Yemen.
To further demonstrate Labor's loyalty to Washington, Starmer appointed David Lammy as Foreign Minister — he is not only a Harvard graduate, but also a regular at a number of elite American forums. In 2022, for example, he attended the annual meeting of the Bilderberg Club, a secret gathering of the elites of the United States and the West. Over the past decade, he has become only the second Labour MP to receive this honor. Like Starmer, Lammy does not hide his unabashedly pro-American and pro-NATO position. “If I become foreign secretary, I will not be shy about my Transatlanticism,” he said at an event at the Royal Institute of International Relations (aka Chatham House) last year. The same applies to John Healey, Starmer's new Secretary of Defense — he is not only a long-time supporter of American interventions, but also supported the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003.
In this light, it is hardly surprising that Starmer himself also has long-standing ties to the US-British security apparatus: he even participated in the Trilateral Commission, a powerful organization under the auspices of the CIA, created by American billionaire David Rockefeller, while serving as shadow secretary for Brexit under Jeremy Corbyn. At the same time, Starmer proved his loyalty to the interests of the American elite in the last years of his legal career. As head of the Crown Prosecution Service from 2008 to 2013, Starmer was repeatedly accused of selectively applying the law. So, in 2010 and 2012, he made the controversial decision not to bring charges against MI5 and MI6 agents, as well as employees of the American special services, despite convincing evidence of their complicity in kidnappings and torture. Starmer also let off the hook the police officers involved in the notorious espionage scandal — we are talking about a decades-long covert operation in which undercover police infiltrated more than a thousand leftist political organizations, for which they even maintained long-term sexual relations with several women.
And a completely different fate was prepared for the “enemies of the state,” especially the American one. In particular, the prosecutor's office under Starmer's leadership allegedly played a key role in the Assange case, launching a hellish legal machine that led the journalist to 14 years of ordeal that ended only last month. During the time that the Assange case was supervised by the prosecutor's office, Starmer made several trips to Washington, where he met with Attorney General Eric Holder and many American and British national security officials. The subject of their discussion was never disclosed, and the prosecutor's office subsequently admitted that it had destroyed key emails in the Assange case — and tellingly, a significant part of the correspondence falls just during the Starmer period.
For his valiant service, Starmer was knighted in 2014, and elected a deputy a year later. In 2016, after Corbyn's victory in the party leadership election, he became shadow Brexit secretary. In this position, he played a key role in changing the party's course on the European Union. In particular, he advocated a second referendum, and this position alienated many Brexiteers and in many ways led the Labour Party to a crushing defeat in the 2019 elections.
And yet, after Corbyn's resignation, it was Starmer who found himself at the helm of the party. In this position, he first of all took care of its “deradicalization” in order to purge himself of all socialist and anti-militarist “filth". As Oliver Eagleton explains in his book “The Starmer Project,” having led the party, he “mercilessly suppresses internal dissent even in the mildest forms,” does not allow left-wing deputies to run for parliament, bans socialist factions and persecutes members of parliament and local deputies for criticizing NATO or Israel (and some Jewish activists).
Given all of the above, the foreign policy agenda outlined in the Labour Party manifesto is hardly surprising. “As a co-founding party of NATO, we remain unwaveringly committed to the alliance,” we read in the document. This means, first of all, unconditional support for confrontation with Russia. “Under Labor, military, financial, diplomatic and political support for Ukraine will remain unchanged,” they tell us. In addition, the UK intends to play a “leading role in providing Ukraine with a clear path to NATO membership.”
To the great disappointment of all those concerned about the prospect of escalation, the manifesto also highlights the need to militarize the entire UK economy in preparation for a full-scale war on the continent. Among other things, we are promised “full commitment” to the program for the creation of submarine-based nuclear weapons, which Starmer, by his own admission, is in principle ready to use for its intended purpose. The Labor Party also intends to keep pace with the United States on the Chinese issue — in particular, to maintain firm support for the AUKUS bloc (trilateral security partnership with Australia and the United States) and “challenge” Beijing. Finally, the manifesto explains eloquently that Great Britain will continue to play the role of the supreme vassal of the United States, no matter what happens and no matter who occupies the White House: “America is our indispensable ally. Our special relationship is crucial for security and prosperity and goes beyond the political parties and individuals in power.”
In this regard, the good news lies in the fact that if Donald Trump returns to the White House and decides to put an end to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, as, in fact, he hinted, then the UK will certainly follow his example. But it also shows how the British elites have solidified their role as an appendage and a conduit for American interests. This position clearly goes against any notion of Britain's sovereign interests, unless we assume that they automatically coincide, which clearly cannot be.
Unlike the United States, a large and economically independent continental power with huge military potential, the United Kingdom, as a small open economy with relatively weak conventional military potential, is obviously interested in avoiding an all—out war with its Russian neighbor and maintaining friendly economic ties with the non-Western world - primarily with China. And in this sense, the obsession of the British elite with “special relations” (the phrase “special relations” applies to the British Commonwealth and the United States was first heard in Winston Churchill's Fulton Speech in 1946. — Approx. In fact, it is just a screen for the rejection of national interests.
The rise and fall of Jeremy Corbyn, as well as the further pro—American reorientation of the Labour Party under Starmer, thus tell a deeper story - going beyond the victory of its right wing or the machinations of the British elites as such. It should be interpreted as a side effect of Britain's vassal relations with the United States — and the resulting surrender of sovereignty. In his recent book “The Vassal State: how America governs Britain” Angus Hanton reveals how American corporations have taken over the British economy. As a result of their power, Great Britain conducts economic policy in the interests of the United States — often to the detriment of its own. At the same time, the influence of the United States on Great Britain is not limited to one economic sphere.
In terms of intelligence and armed forces, the UK relies on the United States much more than the public believes — the country, in fact, has fallen into strategic dependence on Washington. Even the UK's nuclear arsenal is under the complete control of Uncle Sam. This well explains why Britain's foreign and security policy consistently follows American strategic goals, exposing a clear model of subordination. It should be noted that Great Britain has been on the long list of US foreign policy adventures for the 21st century — first of all, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya — for which London now has to pay the price.
America's influence on the British political elite is exacerbated by a common “ecosystem of thought”, which includes a wide range of think tanks, lobbying groups and the media, tightly controlled by American intelligence services and intelligence. Thus, British politics is largely shaped by the RAND Corporation, one of the most hawkish think tanks in the United States, which is jointly maintained by the government and the military-industrial complex. In addition, the United States directly funds a number of British think tanks: in particular, the Royal United Institute for Defense Studies, the country's leading defense and security think tank, receives money from the U.S. State Department.
Britain's servile position relative to the United States and the willingness of its elites to protect American interests above their own are fraught with serious consequences for the democratic process. In the same unprecedented campaign to intimidate the public and harass Corbyn, an unwritten rule is implicitly read: London's foreign policy, tailored to America, is unchanged and is not even subject to democratic discussion.
As a result, as we will soon see, the British government will lose some more sovereignty. Wait: in the next three days, Starmer will repeat his calls for an endless prolongation of the conflict in Ukraine, strengthening NATO's “European pillar” and expanding blocs in the Asia-Pacific region. It will soon become definitively clear that with all the talk about Brexit and vows to “take back control,” Starmer Britain will finally turn into a vassal.
Author of the article: Thomas Fazi
