🔗 Share this article

Translators may not be required when US heads of state come to the UK, yet it's no guarantee Donald Trump and Keir Starmer will speak the same language during these talks. Starmer will employ careful statesmanship, stressing mutual advantage and historical alliance. Most of those concepts are meaningless to a leader who speaks purely personal gain.

An Examination in Contrasts

Considering the high chance of misunderstanding between both leaders from vastly opposing political cultures – the showbiz demagogue and the lawyer technocrat – relations have been remarkably friendly and, in Downing Street’s estimation, productive.

The contrast in approaches has been used beneficially. The prime minister’s reserved attentiveness makes no competitive claim the president’s limelight.

Praise and Pragmatism

The US leader has complimented the British PM as a “decent fellow” with a “pleasing tone”. He's approved commercial conditions that are slightly less punitive than the tariff regime on the rest of Europe. UK advocacy has been instrumental in easing White House disdain for the Atlantic alliance and pushing Trump towards scepticism about Russia's intentions in the ongoing conflict.

Handling the UK-US partnership is among the rare achievements Starmer’s shrinking band of loyalists confidently cite. Privately, some Conservative critics concede the point. But among discontented members of the opposition movement, and wide segments of public opinion, the president is viewed as a dangerous figure whose flimsy favours are hardly merit the cost in diplomatic humiliation.

Flattery and Forethought

Those expecting the official trip may include any indication of government criticism for Trump's authoritarian character are set for letdown. Flattery and regal pomp to secure Britain’s status as America's favored ally are the whole point.

Pre-cooked deals on nuclear and tech cooperation will be unveiled. Awkward differences on foreign policy – Britain’s imminent recognition of a sovereign Palestine; America's ongoing tolerance of Moscow's hostilities – will not be aired openly.

Certainly not from Starmer's side. All the Foreign Office contingency planning can prevent the president's tendency for unscripted sabotage. Although the personal affection for the UK leader is sincere, it is an outlier emotion in a man whose power base is fueled by antagonism toward Labour Britain.

Risks and Realities

The prime minister can only hope that those prejudices don’t surface in an impromptu broadcast commentary on common nationalist topics – curtailing expression via social-media content regulation; submersion of indigenous white folk in a rising migrant tide. Even if that doesn’t happen, the risk exposes a weakness in the strategy 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 the foreseeable future. To attempt separation out of distaste for an incumbent president would be short-sighted folly. Whatever sway a secondary partner might have over a prickly protector must be used sparingly in private. Public disagreement, sometimes showcased by the French president, is often ineffective. Additionally, France is part of the EU. The UK's exit places the nation apart in Trump’s mind and, it is said, thus offers special advantages.

Strategy and Weakness

A version of this argument was set out by a former envoy, shortly before his dismissal as ambassador to Washington. The thrust was that the current era will be defined by great power competition between the United States and Beijing. Who prevails will be the one that dominates in AI, advanced processing and other such innovations with awesome dual-use applications. Britain is disproportionately competitive in this field, given its size.

In short, the UK is bound by shared goals and pragmatic post-EU politics to join Team USA when the sole option is a global system controlled by the CCP. “Like it or not, our US partnership are now essential for the operation of our nation,” noted Mandelson.

That perspective will continue to shape the government’s foreign policy irrespective of diplomatic appointments. There's accuracy about the new technological arms race but, more importantly, it aligns with the ingrained tendency of the UK's pro-US leanings. It also brushes aside any obligation to strive more at closer ties with the rest of Europe, which is a fiddly multilateral process. It has many intricate elements and a habit to start uncomfortable discussions about worker movement. Starmer is making incremental progress in his revamp of European ties. Negotiations on farm goods, military and power collaboration are underway. But the process of cosying up to the US administration are simpler and the reward in diplomatic gains arrives faster.

Volatility and Risk

Trump does deals briskly, but he cancels agreements just as rapidly. His word is not a bond. Pledges are temporary. Preferential treatment for British business might be offered, but not delivered, or incompletely executed, and one day reversed. Trump made deals in his initial presidency that count for nothing now. His method is pressure, the traditional strong-arm tactic. He inflicts pain – taxes for other nations; legal actions or bureaucratic harassment for domestic companies – and proposes easing the distress in return for some commercial advantage. Paying up invites the bully to come back for more.

This is the financial parallel to the president's attacks on judicial independence, diversity and legal order. British citizens might not be directly threatened by military mobilizations in American urban areas under the pretext of public safety or a armed border unit that kidnaps people from public spaces, but it's incorrect to assume the corrosion of democracy in the US doesn't affect UK interests.

Lessons and Liabilities

For one thing, the nationalist movement sets an example that Nigel Farage is emulating, ready to implement a similar system if Reform UK ever gains power. Denying them that opportunity will be simpler if arguments against illiberal politics have been made before the general election campaign.

That case should be made in principle, but it applies also to practical considerations of global sway. Downing Street denies there is a option to be made between restored relations with the EU and Washington, but Trump is a jealous master. Allegiance toward the super-potentate across the Atlantic is an high-risk bet. There is an opportunity cost in terms of bolstering partnerships closer to home, with countries that respect treaties and global norms.

This conflict may be prevented if the president's term turns out to be a temporary phase. His age is advanced. Maybe a successor, supported by a moderate Congress, will reverse the US republic’s slide into tyranny. It is possible. But is that probable in a country where political violence is being normalised at an alarming rate? How likely of an orderly transfer of power away from a ruling party that unites dogmatic believers, racial extremists, eccentric billionaire idealists and corrupt profiteers who label critics in as disloyal?

These are not people who humbly surrender power at the polls, or even run the risk of impartial votes. These aren't actors on whose values and judgment Britain should be betting its future wealth or national security.