The world is a more uncertain place today than it has been for decades. We now face a period of renewed – and unexpected – confrontation between the United States and Russia, a civil war in Syria that seems only to be getting worse, and a renewed threat of nuclear sabre-rattling in North Korea.

Russia, US and military intervention in Syria: what next after missile strikes? Read more

And all of this at a time when the UK is struggling to come to terms with what it means both for Donald Trump to be in the White House, and for Britain to be out of the EU.

When I think of every new US president over the past 30 years, the concern has always been how close they will want to be to Britain. But when I look at Trump, the real question is: how close do we want to be to him?

Does it mean the risk of getting sucked into another reckless war in the Middle East, at a time when the lessons of Iraq and Libya mean that we ought to know better?

Does it mean a return to the kind of go-it-alone, shoot-from-the-hip unilateralism in the US, which we thought had been left behind with the Bush administration?

Does it mean cosying up to climate change deniers? Or scrapping the nuclear Iran deal? Or for that matter, a new nuclear arms race between the superpowers?

If it means any of those, then the postwar era of Britain and America operating in lockstep on foreign policy will be in severe jeopardy.

Of course, some will argue that when we are losing one anchor of diplomatic stability because of Brexit, the last thing we can afford is to lose the other by letting the special relationship crumble.

But we must not forget that our historic ties to America have always been built on our shared values and mutual respect. We should also understand that in the age of Trump, blind loyalty is unlikely to earn us the respect we will need to have a realistic chance of influencing policy in Washington.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest ‘Will the special relationship mean getting sucked into another reckless war in the Middle East?’ British troops in Iraq, 2003. Photograph: Jon Mills/AP

We need to put human rights, a belief in multilateralism and respect for international law back at the heart of foreign policy. We need to build on our diplomatic networks, and the unrivalled expertise of our Foreign Office, to project a positive image for Britain as a force for good in the world.

Sadly, however, this Tory government is taking us in exactly the opposite direction. In the midst of unpredictable and potentially reckless policymaking in the White House, we need caution more than anything else. So to see Boris Johnson trying desperately to ingratiate himself with the Trump administration, whatever the cost, isn’t just embarrassing. It’s downright scary.

Almost as bad is the spectacle of Liam Fox cosying up to authoritarian leaders such as Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines – a man who has proudly presided over a “war on drugs” in which thousands have been killed, and who freely admits that he doesn’t “give a shit about human rights”.

For her part, our prime minister is setting the rest of her cabinet a bad example. It wasn’t just her love-in with Trump earlier this year that illustrated the point. It was also her speech to the Gulf states, in which she continued to turn a wilfully blind eye to the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen.

The fundamental problem with that approach is that if we turn a blind eye to Saudi abuses in Yemen, how can we expect anyone to listen when we speak out against atrocities such as chemical weapons attacks in Syria? There can be no room for double standards in foreign policy.

Carving out our own role, distinct from America’s, might not be easy. But we must ask ourselves: what alternative is there? Unthinking, uncritical loyalty to the US under Donald Trump is a far less appealing idea.

• Emily Thornberry MP has written a contribution to the Fabian Society pamphlet, The Age of Trump: Foreign policy challenges for the left, published today.