Starmer's response to Trump's Greenland outburst showcases the limitations of British pragmatism in the face of a capricious leader. While Starmer has taken a cautious approach with Donald Trump, his recent break with the US president over Greenland highlights the challenges of navigating foreign policy. With Trump's address to Davos and his rejection of military force and tariffs, the UK prime minister's approach is being praised. Starmer remarked on the need for a balance between British pragmatism, common sense, and sticking to values and principles. However, the tension between pragmatism and idealism in British foreign policy is evident. Recent decades have seen British policymakers grapple with this ongoing tension. Margaret Thatcher contrasted her pragmatic approach with Geoffrey Howe's more ideological Europeanism, while Tony Blair's pragmatic credentials were tested by his flirtation with Robin Cook's ethical foreign policy. David Cameron's rejection of crusading influences and his vote on UK involvement in strikes against Syria also defined the debate between pragmatists and idealists. Starmer's foreign policy can be characterized as pragmatic, with a closer alignment with the EU and a tough stance on Ukraine. However, his cautious approach to statements on Venezuela and his hesitation to condemn Israel in Gaza demonstrate the limits of idealism in British foreign policy. Ultimately, Starmer's post-Davos remarks exemplify the seemingly contradictory melding of pragmatism with principle, where the line between the two is particularly blurry.
