In a recent opinion piece, Simon Jenkins expresses unease at the stance taken by the Prime Minister, sensing what he feels is war cheerleading and drawing parallels to Iraq under new leadership. Jenkins raises the complex foreseeable effects of such a stance, calling on careful consideration and diplomacy in the handling of international relations.
Jenkins starts with the gravity of the situation, using a barristerial flourish to underline that the prime minister possesses the power to chart the course of foreign policy. He attacks this apparent hawkish stance and, in relation to the crisis, warns of allowing tensions to rise and, with them, the terrible human cost that follows war. Drawing from across the historical frame, Jenkins conjures the ghosts of past conflicts, more particularly that of the Iraq War during Starmer’s time, to ram home the risks of glib decisions and undeterred aggression.
More Read
The paper then goes on to grapple with the geopolitical order of the present day, mainly with the crisis in Ukraine. Jenkins unpacks a very complicated system of alliances, interests, and historical grievances underpinning the conflict at its core, epitomizing the requirement for nuanced diplomacy and international cooperation. He argues that standing up for principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity is central, but military action should be a measure of last resort, with all avenues of diplomacy fully exhausted.
Central to Jenkins’ critique is the role that leadership can and must play in navigation through these turbulent international waters. He calls for restraint and prudence on the part of leadership and urges them towards dialogue and compromise, not saber-rattling and brinksmanship. It indicates that the
