Burnham will have to master something Starmer couldn’t: the art of dealing with Donald Trump

Burnham Faces the Trump Challenge: A New Era for British Foreign Policy

The Transition of Power

Burnham will have to master something - Andy Burnham recently declared that the moment feels increasingly tangible. Speaking on the day he effectively assumed the role of Britain's prospective prime minister, he captured both the excitement and gravity of the occasion. With official documents now signed and decisions finalized, the transition appears complete. While Keir Starmer has not yet departed his position entirely, his party has already begun discussing him as though he were beyond earshot. This Friday marked Burnham's initial significant divergence from his predecessor, as he offered an apology on behalf of Labour regarding their approach to the Gaza conflict.

According to Burnham, the administration ought to have demanded a truce sooner and must now intensify pressure upon Israel. Given that the Foreign Office is already evaluating additional sanctions, this represents perhaps less of a dramatic foreign policy transformation than a shift in domestic messaging. Acknowledging the profound distress felt by Labour's left wing over Gaza—distress that undoubtedly pushed certain voters toward the Green party—Burnham indicates he will heed grassroots voices more attentively than Starmer did. Nevertheless, some observers remain unconvinced until he labels the conflict a genocide and prohibits arms exports.

Trump's Unpredictable Presidency

However, any effort to strengthen Britain's stance on Israel inevitably raises compelling questions regarding Burnham's future relationship with the White House. How will the individual whom Donald Trump once belittled as "the mayor of a town" navigate this formidable president while in office? Certain aspects remain conventional—Burnham pledged this week to maintain the 3.5% NATO defense spending commitment, albeit without clarifying the funding mechanism, and confirmed his intention to retain Jonathan Powell as national security adviser.

"The old America isn't coming back," Canada's prime minister has declared.

Yet Burnham enters his new role at a critical juncture for America's relationship with Western nations. Mark Carney, Canada's prime minister, has been informing anyone willing to listen—including members of Burnham's team, with whom he maintains strong connections through his adviser Andy Haldane, his former deputy during his tenure leading the Bank of England—that the previous American era is ending. Even Giorgia Meloni, Italy's leader and once Trump's preferred ally, appears to have exhausted her patience.

Global Tensions Mount

Discontent was evident at this week's NATO gathering in Ankara, where Trump threatened to prohibit trade with Spain unless it complies with his demands for increased defense expenditure. He also reaffirmed his ambition to acquire Greenland and dismantled a delicate Gulf ceasefire by restarting aerial bombardment of Iran. More unsettling than the subsequent increase in oil prices is the possibility of a novel form of ongoing conflict in the Gulf region—one that mirrors Trump's perpetual trade disputes but carries lethal consequences, conducted with minimal consideration for established norms or harm to allies.

Tobias Ellwood, a former Foreign Office minister and military officer, illustrates this potential future in his recently published work, Ten Steps to Prevent World War Three. The book envisions a scenario set in 2040, where Western nations reflect with regret upon opportunities squandered during the mid-2020s to prevent catastrophe. By that time, it would be too late: Trump's systematic dismantling of the rules-based international system would have enabled China to fill the void, constructing an alternative order through strategic partnerships with Russia and other nations, one founded on coercion, destabilization, and plausible deniability in attacks.

A Vision for Stability

Ellwood's envisioned third world war would not involve a single territorial confrontation but rather a succession of regional and proxy conflicts worldwide, generating an atmosphere of sustained violence and uncertainty where traditional battlefield restrictions—including those concerning tactical nuclear weapons—would be routinely violated. Greenland would be lost, NATO would crumble, and Western governments would find themselves merely managing their decline. Climate catastrophes and pandemics would strike with greater severity, as nations would fail to collaborate against common dangers.

Ellwood emphasizes that this represents merely one conceivable outcome, not an inevitable prediction. His proposed solution begins with clearly identifying which elements of the rules-based international order the West intends to protect, then assembling a coalition of compatible nations around those principles. He advocates rejoining the single market, distributing renewable energy technology to developing countries, expanding European military involvement in quickly deployable forces, and establishing a new "stability alliance" comprising mid-tier powers ranging from Europe to Canada and India to Brazil, all dedicated to preventing and de-escalating conflicts before they escalate into full-scale warfare.

This framework aligns reasonably well with Burnham's strengths, whose expertise as a mayor involved bringing together alliances of like-minded individuals, and who already champions early intervention in domestic matters. However, it leaves unanswered how extensively Burnham should challenge the very leader at the center of these global uncertainties.