🔗 Share this article

Interpreters aren't necessary when US heads of state visit the UK, yet it's no guarantee Donald Trump and Britain's Prime Minister will speak the same language this week. Starmer will practise careful statesmanship, stressing shared benefit and long-standing partnership. Many of those concepts mean nothing to a president who speaks purely personal gain.

A Study in Contrasts

Given the likelihood of miscommunication between both leaders from vastly opposing political cultures – the showbiz demagogue and the legalistic administrator – ties have been surprisingly cordial and, according to UK officials, fruitful.

The contrast in approaches has been turned to an advantage. The prime minister’s quiet solicitousness doesn't attempt to rival the president’s limelight.

Compliments and Calculations

Trump has praised the British PM as a “decent fellow” with a “beautiful accent”. He's approved trade terms that are slightly less punitive than the duties imposed on the rest of Europe. British lobbying has been instrumental in easing US antipathy for the Atlantic alliance and pushing the president towards scepticism about Vladimir Putin’s motives in Ukraine.

Handling the transatlantic relationship is among the rare achievements the dwindling group of supporters confidently cite. Privately, some Conservative critics concede the point. But among the restive ranks of the Labour party, and wide segments of public opinion, Trump is seen as a dangerous figure whose unreliable concessions are not worth the price in national self-abasement.

Flattery and Forethought

Those expecting the official trip may include any indication of official rebuke for the honoured guest’s authoritarian character will be disappointed. Flattery and regal pomp to secure the UK's position as America's favored ally are the primary objective.

Pre-cooked deals on atomic and digital collaboration will be announced. Contentious disagreements on international strategy – Britain’s imminent recognition of a Palestinian state; America's ongoing tolerance of Moscow's hostilities – will remain undiscussed in public.

Not by the prime minister, at least. No amount of diplomatic preparation can insure against the president's tendency for unscripted sabotage. Even if the personal affection for Starmer is genuine, it is an outlier emotion in a leader whose support network is fueled by antagonism toward Labour Britain.

Dangers and Truths

The prime minister can only pray that such biases don’t surface in some spontaneous televised riff on common nationalist topics – repression of free speech via online censorship; submersion of indigenous white folk in a growing influx of newcomers. Even if that doesn’t happen, the hazard reveals a weakness in the strategy of uncritical intimacy with an inherently unreliable administration.

The argument supporting the UK approach is that Britain’s economic and security interests are tied to US power and will remain so for years to come. Pursuing separation out of distaste for an incumbent president would be myopic self-indulgence. Such influence as a secondary partner might have over a prickly protector needs to be exercised sparingly in private. Public disagreement, sometimes showcased by Emmanuel Macron, is often ineffective. Besides, France is part of the EU. The UK's exit places the nation apart in Trump’s mind and, reportedly, thereby affords special advantages.

Vision and Vulnerability

A version of this argument was presented by Peter Mandelson, shortly before his removal as US diplomat. The core idea was that the current era will be defined by great power competition between the United States and Beijing. The winner will be the one that dominates in artificial intelligence, advanced processing and other such innovations with awesome dual-use potential. Britain is unusually strong in these sectors, given its size.

In short, the nation is tied by shared goals and pragmatic post-EU politics to join Team USA when the only alternative is a world order dictated by the CCP. Whether desired or not, our US partnership are now indispensable to the functioning of the country,” said Mandelson.

This outlook will keep influencing the UK's international stance irrespective of diplomatic appointments. It contains some truth about the new technological arms race but, crucially, it goes with the deep grain of Britain’s postwar Atlanticist bias. It dismisses any obligation to work harder at reintegration with the rest of Europe, which is a fiddly multilateral process. Involving complex moving parts and a habit to start uncomfortable discussions about labour migration. The prime minister is making steady advances in his reset of EU relations. Negotiations on farm goods, military and energy cooperation are underway. But the mechanics of building rapport with the US administration are simpler and the reward in political gratification comes quicker.

Uncertainty and Instability

Trump does deals quickly, but he cancels agreements just as fast. His promises aren't reliable. Pledges are temporary. Preferential treatment for British business might be promised, but not fulfilled, or incompletely executed, and eventually withdrawn. 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 – taxes for foreign governments; legal actions or regulatory trouble for domestic companies – and proposes easing the distress in return for some commercial advantage. Paying up encourages the bully to come back for more.

This represents the financial parallel to the president's attacks on judicial independence, diversity and the rule of law. British citizens might not be immediately endangered by deployment of the national guard in American urban areas under the pretext of law enforcement or a armed border unit that detains individuals from the streets, but it's incorrect to assume the erosion of freedoms in the US doesn't affect UK interests.

Implications and Dangers

For one thing, the Maga project provides a template that a UK populist is emulating, ready to implement a similar system if his party ever form a government. Denying them that opportunity will be easier if the case opposing authoritarian nationalism have been rehearsed before the national vote.

That case should be made on ethical grounds, 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 the US, but the president demands loyalty. Fealty to the dominant power across the Atlantic is an all-in gamble. There is an opportunity cost in terms of bolstering partnerships closer to home, with countries that honor agreements and global norms.

This conflict may be avoided if the president's term turns out to be an aberration. He is old. Maybe a successor, empowered by a moderate Congress, will reverse the US republic’s slide into autocracy. That could happen. But is that probable in a nation where electoral unrest is being accepted at an alarming rate? How likely of an smooth transition away from a governing group that unites religious fundamentalists, racial extremists, wild-eyed tech-utopian oligarchs and opportunist kleptocrats who label critics in as disloyal?

Such individuals who gracefully step down at the polls, or even run the risk of fair elections. They are not people on whose principles and decisions Britain should be betting its future prosperity or national security.