The Sánchez Doctrine: How The Greens Are Remaking Their Foreign Policy Offer
Zach Polanski in October 2025 (Imageplotter/Alamy)
7 min read
The left insurgent party has swelled with those backing its stance on Gaza, but how will the Greens formulate a new foreign and defence policy that will satisfy members and attract swing voters? Harriet Symonds investigates
Unilateral nuclear disarmament, diplomacy accented on human rights, global justice and climate change, and rejoining the EU – until recently, these were the pillars of Green Party foreign and defence policy. But the Gaza war, which has seen the party’s support and membership swell because of its stance against the Israeli government, is remaking its outlook.
Deep division over fundamental questions like Nato membership and defence spending, combined with a cumbersome policymaking process and a higher level of media scrutiny, seems likely to make the process of formulating a new foreign and defence policy painful.
The party’s International Working Group is in the process of conducting a substantial review of foreign policy, with final proposals expected to come before members at the autumn conference if completed in time.
Those involved say the review is intended to reassess Britain’s place in the world in terms that will “stand the test of time”, rather than focus narrowly on individual conflicts such as Palestine.
“We have something on international institutions, conflict prevention, and peace building, but I’m not at liberty to say what’s in it because it’s still in draft stage at the moment,” says Animah Kosai, a member of the policymaking group.
The review is also taking place against a backdrop of growing hostility within the party towards the United States under Donald Trump. Senior Greens argue Britain’s relationship with Washington requires fundamental reassessment.
A senior Green source tells The House: “Is it smart to be dependent on the US when Donald Trump can be making demands threatening to annex Greenland, threatening to withdraw Nato protection if people won’t join his insane, illegal war on Iran?”
“We’ve benefited from being very close to the US in many ways, and I think now it’s time to reassess that relationship,” says Kosai, adding: “The UK needs to claim back its own sovereignty because we’re so reliant in many respects.
“The US, whether it’s Trump or whoever, holds an inordinate amount of power compared to the rest of the world, and we can see that they overreach that power too. Whether we’re talking about the United Nations or anywhere else, that’s something that we’re highly aware of in the policy working group and in the party.”
Polanski himself has recently called on the British government to end military alliances with the US in response to the war with Iran, echoing positions adopted by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. Senior party figures say Polanski greatly admires Sánchez’s willingness to challenge Trump publicly.
“We see Pedro Sánchez as someone who’s really stepped up to the moment,” says a senior Green Party source.
“He’s said no to Trump using Spanish bases, he’s investing big domestically, he’s someone who really talks about investing in defence and is recognising that that can be quite a broad thing.
"You can be talking about energy independence and resilience and freedom of resilience – defence is about more than just weapons.”
Senior sources say Polanski has yet to meet Sánchez but do not rule out a meeting between the pair in the future.
With the Labour government already making the case for stronger ties with Europe, Green Party peer Baroness Bennett says a Green Party European defence group has been set up to discuss major security issues and describes it as “a natural way forward” for shaping future defence policy.
The party typically has two conferences each year, the first taking place in spring and the second in autumn, alongside the other party conferences. This year’s spring conference in March was trialled online to make it more accessible to members. It only lasted half a day, but attendees told The House it was “a disaster”.
A contentious motion that would have designated Zionism as racism was put forward for debate but failed to pass due to “filibustering by people in the Israeli lobby”, according to one.
“Emotions were high, and it was very binary and divided,” they explained.
The motion is expected to return at the autumn conference, where members anticipate similarly fierce divisions. For some within the party, the dispute has prompted broader questions about whether the Greens’ existing system for determining policy remains fit for purpose.
We see Pedro Sánchez as someone who’s really stepped up to the moment
The Greens’ internal policymaking system, largely unchanged for decades, is widely viewed as cumbersome and increasingly strained by the party’s expanding membership.
“The process is incredibly long-winded,” one source says, adding that the growth in membership has made it “unwieldy”.
“There is a lot of consultation. It is relatively inflexible. People are quite conscious that you shouldn’t put too much detail in [the motions] so that leadership can widely interpret,” explains Paul Ingham, a member of the Peace, Security and Defence working group.
Support for the Green Party has grown rapidly under Polanski’s leadership and now boasts over 200,000 members. It is widely attributed to the party’s uncompromising stance on Gaza, an issue that has increasingly eclipsed climate policy at the centre of the party’s identity.
Senior figures within the party do not dispute that shift. Instead, they argue that the conflict is inseparable from the Greens’ wider environmental agenda, pointing to what they describe as “the environmental impact of the genocide in Gaza”.
The issue has become increasingly visible at a local level, too. Following gains in last month’s local elections, a number of councils – including those in Lewisham, Tower Hamlets and Hastings – have passed motions to twin with Palestinian towns or establish partnership links, reflecting the prominence of the issue among Green activists and voters.
Prime Minister of Spain, Pedro Sánchez (Associated Press/Alamy)
“I joined the party towards the end of 2024 because I was very attracted by its position on Palestine,” Kosai says.
Kosai is among those backing a motion that would permit Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) measures being adopted by Green-run local councils. If endorsed at the party’s autumn conference, councils could be empowered to terminate contracts with businesses deemed “complicit in genocide and Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine”.
“It’s got quite a strong support,” she explains.
The party last reviewed its defence policy in 2023, in a process heavily influenced by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That review marked a significant shift away from the party’s long-standing support for withdrawing from Nato, with the Greens instead adopting a position calling for reform of the alliance.
However, Polanski’s view of Nato remains sceptical. In an interview with Channel 4 earlier this year, he said: “I don’t think it’s possible to reform Nato from within.”
Green sources say the leader would prefer a European equivalent that does not involve the US. Yet Green Party policy is determined by members rather than the leadership, leaving Polanski unable to impose his own position unilaterally.
A motion on Nato is due to be debated at the autumn conference, though party figures say the issue has already become deeply contentious. According to insiders, divisions within the defence working group have grown so severe that the group has been removed from the process altogether.
Defence spending has emerged as another fault line. Current party policy supports reducing expenditure, but the pressures of two major international conflicts have intensified calls within the party for a reassessment to potentially back a boost in spending.
“If there were to be a debate around defence spending, there would be huge and vigorous pushback,” says Ingham.
“If we don’t have that debate in the next year or two, then there is going to be a lot of discomfort in the party. There are some who will be legalistic. There will be others who say it is a bit outdated. Then there will be some who say a debate will be unavoidable. Passions and beliefs are so strong in this area.”
