🔗 Share this article

Translators may not be necessary when US heads of state visit the UK, yet it's no guarantee the US President and Keir Starmer will understand one another this week. The UK prime minister will employ careful statesmanship, emphasising shared benefit and historical alliance. Many of those concepts are meaningless to a leader who speaks purely personal gain.

An Examination in Contrasts

Given the likelihood of miscommunication between two men from such different ideological backgrounds – the showbiz demagogue and the lawyer technocrat – relations have been remarkably friendly and, in Downing Street’s estimation, fruitful.

Their differing in approaches has been used beneficially. Starmer's quiet solicitousness doesn't attempt to rival Trump's public spotlight.

Compliments and Calculations

The US leader has complimented the British PM as a “good man” with a “beautiful accent”. He has agreed trade terms that are marginally less vindictive than the tariff regime on other EU nations. UK advocacy has been key in easing White House disdain for the Atlantic alliance and nudging Trump towards scepticism about Vladimir Putin’s motives in Ukraine.

Handling the transatlantic relationship is one of the few things the dwindling group of loyalists proudly mention. In confidence, some Tory opponents admit this success. But among discontented members of the Labour party, and wide segments of the electorate, Trump is seen as a monster whose unreliable concessions are hardly merit the cost in national self-abasement.

Flattery and Forethought

Those expecting the official trip may include some hint of government criticism for the honoured guest’s autocratic tendencies will be disappointed. Flattery and regal pomp to guarantee Britain’s status as Trump’s most esteemed tributary are the whole point.

Pre-cooked deals on nuclear and tech cooperation will be unveiled. Contentious disagreements on foreign policy – the UK's upcoming acknowledgement of a sovereign Palestine; the US’s continued indulgence of Moscow's hostilities – will not be aired in public.

Certainly not from Starmer's side. No amount of Foreign Office contingency planning can insure against the president's tendency for unscripted sabotage. Although the personal affection for the UK leader is sincere, it is a rare feeling in a leader whose power base is fueled by hostility to Labour Britain.

Dangers and Truths

Starmer can only pray that those prejudices don’t surface in an impromptu broadcast commentary on common nationalist topics – curtailing expression via online censorship; submersion of indigenous white folk in a growing influx of newcomers. Even if that doesn’t happen, the risk reveals a flaw in the policy of uncritical intimacy with an notoriously unpredictable administration.

The case for the UK approach is that Britain’s economic and security interests are inseparable from American influence and are likely to stay that way for years to come. To attempt separation out of distaste for the current leader would be short-sighted folly. Whatever sway a secondary partner might have over a prickly protector needs to be exercised sparingly in private. Public disagreement, sometimes showcased by the French president, is often ineffective. Besides, Paris remains in the European Union. Brexit places the nation apart in Trump’s mind and, reportedly, thus offers special advantages.

Strategy and Weakness

This perspective was presented by Peter Mandelson, just prior to his removal as ambassador to Washington. The thrust was that the current era will be shaped by great power competition between the US and China. Who prevails will be whichever leads in AI, quantum computing and other such innovations with awesome dual-use potential. Britain is disproportionately competitive in these sectors, despite being a mid-sized nation.

In short, the UK is bound by shared goals and pragmatic post-EU politics to align with America when the sole option is a global system controlled by the CCP. “Like it or not, ties with Washington are now indispensable to the operation of the country,” said Mandelson.

This outlook will continue to shape the UK's international stance regardless of diplomatic appointments. There's accuracy about the new technological arms race but, more importantly, it goes with the ingrained tendency of the UK's pro-US leanings. It dismisses any obligation to work harder at closer ties with the rest of Europe, which is a complex multi-party endeavor. It has many intricate elements and a tendency to trigger awkward conversations about labour migration. Starmer is making incremental progress in his reset of EU relations. Negotiations on farm goods, defence and energy cooperation are ongoing. But the mechanics of cosying up to the US administration are easier and the reward in political gratification arrives faster.

Volatility and Risk

The president negotiates quickly, but he undoes them just as rapidly. His word aren't reliable. Pledges are conditional. Preferential treatment for British business might be offered, but not delivered, or partly implemented, and one day reversed. Trump made deals in his initial presidency that are worthless now. His method is extortion, the classic protection racket. He inflicts pain – tariffs for foreign governments; legal actions or bureaucratic harassment for domestic companies – and proposes easing the distress in exchange for economic benefits. Paying up invites the intimidator to come back for more.

This is the economic corollary to Trump’s political assault on judicial independence, diversity and legal order. British citizens might not be immediately endangered by deployment of the national guard in US cities under the pretext of public safety or a paramilitary immigration force that kidnaps people from the streets, but it's incorrect to assume the erosion of freedoms in the US has no bearing UK interests.

Implications and Dangers

Firstly, the nationalist movement provides a template that Nigel Farage is emulating, prepared to introduce a similar system if Reform UK ever gains power. Preventing such an outcome will be easier if arguments against illiberal politics have been made in advance of the general election campaign.

That case should be made in principle, but it relates equally to practical considerations of geopolitical influence. The UK government denies there is a option to be made between restored relations with the EU and the US, but Trump is a jealous master. Allegiance toward the super-potentate across the Atlantic is an high-risk bet. There is an lost chance in terms of bolstering partnerships closer to home, with countries that honor agreements and international rules.

This conflict may be prevented if Trump’s reign turns out to be a temporary phase. His age is advanced. Perhaps a replacement, empowered by a centrist legislature, will reverse the US republic’s slide into autocracy. It is possible. But is that probable in a nation where political violence is being normalised at an alarming rate? How likely of an smooth transition away from a governing group that combines dogmatic believers, white supremacists, eccentric billionaire idealists and opportunist kleptocrats who cast all opposition in as disloyal?

Such individuals who humbly surrender power at the polls, or even run the risk of fair elections. These aren't actors on whose values and judgment Britain should be betting its future wealth or national security.