🔗 Share this article

Translators may not be necessary when American leaders come to the UK, yet it's no guarantee the US President and Britain's Prime Minister will speak the same language during these talks. The UK prime minister will employ careful statesmanship, emphasising shared benefit and historical alliance. Many of those concepts are meaningless to a president who speaks purely personal gain.

An Examination in Contrasts

Considering the high chance of misunderstanding between two men from vastly opposing political cultures – the showbiz demagogue and the legalistic administrator – relations have been surprisingly cordial and, in Downing Street’s estimation, fruitful.

The contrast in styles has been turned to an advantage. The prime minister’s quiet solicitousness makes no competitive claim the president’s limelight.

Praise and Pragmatism

Trump has praised the British PM as a “decent fellow” with a “pleasing tone”. He has agreed trade terms that are slightly less punitive than the tariff regime on other EU nations. British lobbying has been instrumental in softening White House disdain for Nato and pushing the president towards scepticism about Vladimir Putin’s motives in Ukraine.

Managing the UK-US partnership is one of the few things Starmer’s shrinking band of supporters confidently cite. Privately, some Conservative critics admit this success. But among the restive ranks of the Labour party, and a broad swath of the electorate, the president is viewed as a dangerous figure whose flimsy favours are hardly merit the price in national self-abasement.

Praise and Planning

Those expecting the official trip may include any indication of government criticism for the honoured guest’s authoritarian character are set for letdown. Flattery and regal pomp to guarantee Britain’s status as America's favored ally are the primary objective.

Pre-cooked deals on nuclear and tech cooperation will be unveiled. Awkward differences on foreign policy – the UK's upcoming acknowledgement of a Palestinian state; America's ongoing tolerance of Russian aggression – will not be aired openly.

Not by the prime minister, at least. No amount of Foreign Office contingency planning can prevent the president's tendency for off-the-cuff disruption. Even if the personal affection for the UK leader is sincere, it is an outlier emotion in a man whose power base throbs with hostility to a progressive UK.

Dangers and Truths

Starmer can only pray that those prejudices remain hidden in an impromptu broadcast commentary on common nationalist topics – curtailing expression via online censorship; eroding native demographics in a growing influx of newcomers. Even if that doesn’t happen, the hazard reveals a weakness in the policy of unquestioning closeness with an inherently unreliable administration.

The argument supporting Starmer’s method is that the nation's financial and defense needs are inseparable from American influence and are likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. Pursuing strategic decoupling out of distaste for an incumbent president would be short-sighted folly. Whatever sway a secondary partner might have over a prickly protector needs to be exercised discreetly behind closed doors. The more openly dissenting approach, sometimes showcased by Emmanuel Macron, is often ineffective. Additionally, France is part of the EU. Brexit puts Britain in a different category in Trump’s mind and, it is said, thereby affords special advantages.

Strategy and Weakness

This perspective was presented by a former envoy, shortly before his dismissal as US diplomat. The core idea was that the 21st century will be defined by superpower rivalry between the United States and Beijing. Who prevails will be whichever leads in AI, quantum computing and similar breakthroughs with awesome dual-use applications. The UK is disproportionately competitive in this field, given its size.

In short, the UK is bound by shared goals and pragmatic post-EU politics to align with America when the only alternative is a global system controlled by the Chinese Communist party. “Like it or not, our US partnership has become indispensable to the operation of our nation,” said Mandelson.

That perspective will keep influencing the UK's international stance irrespective of diplomatic appointments. It contains some truth about the new technological arms race but, more importantly, it aligns with the ingrained tendency of Britain’s postwar Atlanticist bias. It dismisses any need 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 start awkward conversations about labour migration. The prime minister is making incremental progress in his reset of EU relations. Talks on agricultural trade, defence and power collaboration are ongoing. But the process of cosying up to the US administration are easier and the payoff in political gratification arrives faster.

Uncertainty and Instability

Trump does deals briskly, but he cancels agreements just as fast. His promises aren't reliable. His commitments are conditional. Special terms for UK firms might be promised, but not delivered, or incompletely executed, and one day reversed. The president made deals in his initial presidency that count for nothing now. His modus operandi is pressure, the classic protection racket. He inflicts pain – tariffs for foreign governments; legal actions or bureaucratic harassment for US businesses – and offers to relieve the distress in return for economic benefits. Yielding encourages the bully to come back for more.

This is the financial parallel to the president's attacks on judicial independence, pluralism and the rule of law. UK nationals might not be immediately endangered by military mobilizations in American urban areas under the pretext of public safety or a paramilitary immigration force that kidnaps people from public spaces, but it's incorrect to assume the corrosion of democracy in the US has no bearing UK interests.

Implications and Dangers

Firstly, the nationalist movement provides a template that a UK populist is admiring, ready to implement something along the same lines if his party ever gains power. Denying them that opportunity will be simpler if arguments against authoritarian nationalism have been made in advance of the national vote.

That argument should be made in principle, but it relates equally to practical considerations of global sway. Downing Street rejects there is a option to be made between improved ties with the EU and Washington, but Trump is a jealous master. Allegiance toward the dominant power across the Atlantic is an high-risk bet. There is an opportunity cost in terms of bolstering partnerships with nearby nations, with states that respect treaties and global norms.

That tension may be prevented if Trump’s reign turns out to be an aberration. His age is advanced. Maybe a successor, supported by a moderate Congress, will halt the US republic’s slide into tyranny. That could happen. But is it the likeliest scenario in a nation where political violence is being normalised at an alarming rate? How likely of an orderly transfer of power away from a governing group that combines religious fundamentalists, white supremacists, wild-eyed tech-utopian oligarchs and corrupt profiteers who label critics in as disloyal?

Such individuals who humbly surrender power at the ballot box, or even run the risk of fair elections. They are not people on whose principles and decisions the UK should be staking its destiny wealth or national security.