Keir Starmer needs a new attorney general

Spectator

4 hours ago

A major plank in the Labour Party's electoral platform last year was its policy of scrupulous obedience to international law. Attorney-General Lord Hermer has repeatedly pushed this view, swearing undying loyalty to everything from pyjama injunctions coming out of Strasbourg to arrest warrants from the Hague. Unfortunately this exercise in legal piety is now coming back to bite the government big-time. It is making it very difficult for Britain to play what cards it has in the new international game of thrones.
Most recently think of Midnight Hammer, the US bunker-buster strike on Iran. Britain, normally a keen supporter of the US, was unceremoniously sidelined. We could have offered help through the use of Diego Garcia or RAF Akrotiri as a staging post, or through more clandestine means best not described here. Yet we did not; nor were we asked to. Indeed, there is speculation that our diplomats may have privately told the US not to ask as a refusal might offend. Why? It seems clear that a major reason was our attitude to international law. Hermer had, it seemed, legally advised against the operation after poring over the terms of the UN Charter.
Those we have to deal with will simply note us down as being easy pickings
However principled and however uplifting to an academic legal expert with an article to write or a conference to address, this safety-first approach is dangerous. Businessmen in private practice look to their lawyers not as father confessors to tell them what they can't do, but as enablers to help them do what they want. So too should nations. If our interests lie in a particular direction, we need to look for ways to further them. Simply giving up when we receive the memo saying 'legal says no' is a road to disaster.
True, with Midnight Hammer there is no guarantee we would have been asked to help: indeed the operation was mounted at least partly to let Trump's top brass demonstrate that Uncle Sam could strike where and when he wished without outside aid. But diplomatically, an offer of assistance would have worked wonders: our cold feet on the issue of co-operation will have been noted, and will have the opposite effect.
Nor is this the first time. In the Middle East, Israel is the only power worth the name that is democratic, outward-looking and largely supportive of western values. We should be doing our utmost to support it. But we aren't. To appease an International Criminal Court of doubtful impartiality, last October Hermer peremptorily threatened to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he set foot here. And when aircraft operated by Tel Aviv took on Tehran's medieval theocrats earlier this month, we pointedly stood aside and joined the international appeasers' call for de-escalation. Why? Again, partly because of an over-cautious attitude to international law.
Yet again, all this is without considering the Chagos debacle. There was ample wiggle-room to obtain a much better deal for Diego Garcia, vital to the security of Britain and the West. But it was thought more important to avoid the possibility of a clash with the International Court of Justice, another court with increasingly anti-Western political leanings, by essentially entering into negotiations with a worryingly pro-Chinese and far-from-incorrupt ex-colonial government with an admission that it held all the legal cards.
Why are we doing this? The official line is that Britain needs to set a good example in an increasingly anarchic world; that we will be admired and respected as a result; and that other countries will be more amenable when we complain that our own rights have been infringed. Unfortunately, there is every indication that this is hogwash. Of course, other countries and the UN will on the surface be polite and even praise us for our stand: this is the language of the international diplomatic circuit. But those we have to deal with will simply note us down as being easy pickings who will not take strong steps to preserve our interests if our lawyers say no. If you don't believe this, ask the Mauritians, who, according to the Daily Mail a couple of weeks ago, funded a major tax cut on the basis of our government's pusillanimity.
Starmer is still feeling his way in the world strategy stakes. Despite having a great deal instinctively in common with Lord Hermer, he is slowly learning that principles adopted in opposition, whether on human rights, international courts or whatever, may have to bend in contact with the hard reality of Britain's interests. To avert the gentle decline of a country shackled by misplaced legalism, he needs a legal adviser who sees himself not as the sea-green incorruptible Robespierre of the International Law Reports tasked with telling the nation what it can't do, but as someone to help it achieve its strategic aims. Say it quietly, but Starmer desperately needs a new attorney general.