Yesterday, the Prime Minister gave his first speech as Prime Minister to the UN Security Council. The speech was Starmer’s chance to outline Britain’s priorities in this year’s session of the UN.
Here are the main takeaways:
Israel-Gaza War
As with his conference speech, Starmer started by acknowledging the scale of the October 7 attack and calling for Hamas to return hostages, before shifting to a stance more critical of Israel.
The Prime Minister said that aid delivery was a “bare minimum” that the international community is still “falling short” of. The Prime Minister then singled out Israel specifically, stating that there were “no more excuses” for blocking aid, and renewed calls for humanitarian channels to reopen.
These comments come following the gradual deterioration of British-Israeli relations over the last several months.
Whilst most UN states have mirrored this line, it remains at odds with America. Despite the American government’s own AID agency (USAID) finding that Israel was intentionally blocking aid, the US state department officially rejects this characterisation.
However, Starmer did mirror American rhetoric by expressing support for the UN-backed ceasefire deal in Gaza.
Russia and Ukraine
Starmer once again condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Starmer recommitted himself to the plan laid out in July’s Peace Summit in Switzerland, stating that “Ukraine’s territorial integrity must be the basis of any just and lasting peace”. The Prime Minister rejected “any process that does not recognise this”.
Although Russian officials still publicly advocate the total elimination of Ukraine to the Russian people, Putin has expressed openness to a settlement that would allow Ukraine to exist as a neutral rump state.
Starmer’s speech went on to criticise Russia’s role in the UN, stating:
“The greatest violation of the [UN] Charter in a generation has been committed by one of this councils’ permanent members”
Starmer questioned the legitimacy of Russia’s continued membership on the UN security council, questioning “how Russia can show its face in this building”.
Starmer’s rhetoric is nothing new. In the first year of Russia’s invasion, criticism of Russia’s continued membership of the Security Council was widespread.
During the 2022 emergency UN session, Ukraine argued that Russia had lost the right to be considered the legitimate successor to the Soviet Union due to its violation of the UN charter. As such, Ukraine called for Russia to lose its inherited spot on the Security Council.
Several world leaders have backed this view, and the EU Parliament passed a non-binding resolution calling for Russia’s ejection.
Since 2022, these demands have largely subsided, likely due to fears that Russia would veto attempts to strip them of permanent security council membership.
Dr Thomas D. Grant, a professor of International Law at Cambridge has argued that this plan is technically feasible. Grant has pointed out that Ukraine could assume Russia’s seat as the legal successor to the USSR in a way that bypasses Russia’s veto. The UNSC could initiate a procedural vote, a vote that would only require an absolute majority of the Security Council.
Although theoretically possible, the practicality of this move may be difficult. Although only five of the fifteen Security Council members have consistently supported Russia in the United Nations, even many pro-Ukrainian states would likely have strong reservations as to the legitimacy of such a move.
Resolution ES-11/3, which ejected Russia from the UNHRC resulted in many abstentions, even among states like Brazil, Egypt and Thailand who had voted in favour of the Resolution calling for Russia to withdraw from occupied territories.
A successful suspension would likely cause some to question the authority of the United Nations itself, as happened during the west’s stonewalling of Chinese Security Council membership until the 1970s.
Starmer’s comments on Russia are likely designed to signal general disapproval of Russian actions rather than an actual diplomatic push to remove Russia from the security council.
Tension Between Israel and Hezbollah
The Prime Minister called for an “immediate ceasefire” between Hezbollah and Israel. An attempt to push a resolution through to this effect backed by both the UK and France in the UNSC meeting was blocked by the United States.
Starmer’s speech highlights diverging European and American attitudes to the rapid escalation of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. Whilst Starmer has followed other European allies in calling for an immediate ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel, the Biden administration has been more hesitant.
Official American statements have consistently rejected an immediate ceasefire. Anthony Blinken has acknowledged that Hezbollah presence in Southern Lebanon is a “legitimate problem” for Israel. According to official IDF numbers, 26 civilians and 22 IDF personnel have been killed since Hezbollah strikes began on October 8 of 2023.
America has warned against escalation, but argues that Israel’s security concerns should be addressed, something an immediate ceasefire would not do.
Biden appeared to reiterate this position to the UN on Monday, stating that “full-scale war is not in anyone’s interest” but fell short of calling for an immediate ceasefire.
Final Thought
Yesterday’s speech showed the degrees to which Starmer had shifted away from his predecessor. Starmer has certainly adopted a more critical line on Israel than his predecessor, however, the PM has once again expressed his commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty.