What should be the top priorities for Britain’s new Foreign Secretary?
The Big Ask | No. 39.2025
At the start of the month, His Majesty’s (HM) Government underwent a cabinet reshuffle by Sir Keir Starmer, Prime Minister. Among the ministers appointed to new positions were David Lammy, former Foreign Secretary, becoming Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Justice, with Yvette Cooper, former Home Secretary, assuming the role in his stead.
Geopolitical events throughout September have carried both positive and negative connotations for the United Kingdom (UK). The incursion into Polish airspace by Russian drones resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s (NATO) Article Four being triggered, while the state visit of Donald Trump, President of the United States (US) went smoothly, to the relief of HM Government. Considering the increasing importance of creating and strengthening international relations, for this week’s Big Ask, we asked five experts: What should be the top priorities for Britain’s new Foreign Secretary?
Senior Director of Policy, China Strategic Risks Institute
Cooper’s central priority should be offering the UK’s diplomatic and military support to European partners and defending NATO airspace. Everything else is in the second order of business. Without Britain alongside its NATO partners (including the US) offering a clear deterrence towards Russian air incursions, the UK has little chance of being viewed as a credible partner by other countries worldwide.
In terms of HM Government’s ‘Growth Agenda’ and the development of trade agreements, many of the prizes have already been secured, including a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India; membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP); a reset with the European Union (EU); and tariff relief from the US.
The Foreign Secretary should instead use her time to develop an informal loose alliance of middle powers, which some have suggested could follow the ‘Group of Seven (G7) minus one’ format. Britain would be well placed to coordinate with like-minded partners – including Canada, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea and Australia – on which international norms and rules currently under increasing pressure these countries should fight to keep in place. A good starting point would be a shared interest in economic security, and in keeping free trade flowing between trusted partners.
Much of this will be difficult. All of it will be impossible if Cooper is expected to juggle representing the UK overseas while still being required to vote and leading ministerial statements in the House of Commons.
This is why I believe she should be exempted from the whip for the remainder of her time in office, and deputised by the relevant junior Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) ministers for parliamentary questions and ministerial statements. The perilous times we live in require a full-time Foreign Secretary.
Aneurin Bevan Adjunct Fellow, Council on Geostrategy, and Member, Labour Party
The most urgent priority for the Foreign Secretary has to be keeping the US invested in the defence of Europe, and Europe united in its support for Ukraine.
Cooper’s other most important priority should be resolving the contradiction that lies at the heart of the unpublished ‘China Audit’. Is the People’s Republic of China (PRC) existentially a partner, a systemic competitor, or a threat? The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) doesn’t need to publish the answer, but the Foreign Secretary has to know it.
Her third priority should be the conflict in the Middle East. Israel’s conduct of the conflict in Gaza should be roundly, sincerely and persistently criticised, its actions characterised precisely under international law, with diplomatic pressure used to deter any further annexations in the West Bank and any attempt to transfer Gaza’s population.
Finally, I would advise Cooper to read, or re-read, some of the classic texts of British strategy. Cato’s wartime pamphlet Guilty Men can be read in an afternoon; John Baylis’ The Diplomacy of Pragmatism, covering Ernest Bevin’s role in the formation of NATO and the Western European Union (WEU), can be read in a day. Knowing where modern Britain has come from is one of the best guides to getting to where we want to be.
Policy and Projects Officer, Progressive Britain
It is something of a truism that there is never a good time to be thrown into the hot seat at the FCDO, yet Cooper’s first weeks as Foreign Secretary have seen increasing Russian aggression against NATO, the UK’s recognition of Palestine, and a Trump state visit among other high-profile incidents. Plus ça change…
In a predictably unpredictable world, with rising threats around every corner, Britain should act as a bastion of stability and consistency in its behaviour towards others. Between 2010 and 2024, the UK had eight Foreign Secretaries, whose vision for the country on the global stage vacillated wildly. This is epitomised by HM Government’s approach to the PRC, lurching between golden eras and epoch-defining systemic challenges.
Yet, changes of personnel do not have to be accompanied by philosophical overhauls. Lammy established Progressive Realism as the guiding mantra of Labour’s approach to foreign policy fit for the 2020s. Cooper should prioritise and reaffirm her commitment to Progressive Realism to face Britain’s interconnected challenges.
In contrast to the previous government, stability is the change desperately needed to restore the UK on the global stage. Through working with its allies, be they the European Union (EU), the Commonwealth or leveraging the special relationship, a dependable Britain can better meet the world of today while attempting to change it for a brighter tomorrow.
Co-founder (Research), Council on Geostrategy
The Foreign Secretary’s efforts should be directed towards implementing the updated ‘strategic framework’ of the National Security Strategy, particularly in terms of projecting the UK’s strength overseas and rebuilding its sovereign capabilities.
To that end, she should focus on what matters and ignore what doesn’t – ‘NATO first, but not NATO only.’ Intractable conflicts in the Middle East, where Britain has limited leverage and few direct interests, should be deprioritised, even if they energise particular constituencies at home.
What really matters is Russian and Chinese aggression and revisionism. With renewed vigour from the Foreign Secretary, the UK has the potential to upend the Kremlin’s agenda in Ukraine and the Black Sea. Not only would this make an example of Russia – and by extension its Chinese, Iranian and North Korean sponsors – proving to others that naked aggression does not pay, but it would also entrench Britain’s strategic indispensability within NATO and the wider Euro-Atlantic, including the Americans.
Weaving together a caucus of states supportive of a free and open international order should be Cooper’s priority beyond Europe, especially in the Indo-Pacific. Here, Japan, Australia and South Korea will be crucial, as will deeper engagement with countries such as India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Brazil, Chile, Kenya and Nigeria – the countries whose established or growing markets the UK needs to succeed in the 21st century, or whose support it requires to outmanoeuvre its authoritarian rivals.
Halford Mackinder Adjunct Fellow, Council on Geostrategy, and Senior Lecturer, School of International Relations, University of St. Andrews
Yvette Cooper is taking over as Foreign Secretary at a particularly pivotal time in the development of British foreign relations. On a day-to-day level, the UK’s Foreign Secretary has never been more in demand.
The world today – according to the Uppsala Conflict Data Programme – features three times as many wars as was the case two decades ago. Concretely, this manifests itself in Russian drones and aircraft probing NATO airspace, Israel embarking on another phase of what appears to be an endless conflict and key areas in Africa lapsing into civil war.
While these will certainly occupy Cooper’s inbox, the real challenge she faces is more fundamental. Since the Suez Crisis in 1956, Britain has been a close (arguably the closest) partner of the US in defining and defending a particular vision of global order. That vision was one of a rules-based system defined by international law and institutions.
The UK is no longer in a position to pursue such lofty goals, both because revisionist states – such as the PRC and Russia – are more powerful and assertive than was previously the case, and because the US no longer defends the same values.
Today, therefore, the challenge Britain faces is different, and can be defined as cohering a coalition of European states to manage its immediate abroad. The Foreign Secretary’s objectives should be more limited today than they were before, focused on containing Russian expansionism in Europe, mitigating the direct effects of Middle Eastern conflicts and keeping the Balkans peaceful. This is the challenge which Cooper faces.
If you enjoyed this Big Ask, please subscribe or pledge your support!
What do you think about the perspectives put forward in this Big Ask? Why not leave a comment below?
The UK needs to act consistently to be taken seriously on the international stage. The contradictory approach to the Russian treatment of Ukraine and Israel's treatment of Palestine is the most obvious example. War crimes have been committed in both conflicts however the UK refuses to condemn the dispropprtionate killing of innocent civilians in Gaza and the palestinian occupied territories. There has also been too much fawning to the US. It is no longer a reliable ally and Europe, Canada, Australia etc. need to pivot away from reliance on it.