🔗 Share this article

Interpreters may not be necessary when US heads of state come to the UK, yet it's no guarantee Donald Trump and Keir Starmer will understand one another this week. The UK prime minister will practise careful statesmanship, emphasising mutual advantage and long-standing partnership. Many of these ideas mean nothing to a leader fluent only in personal gain.

A Study in Differences

Considering the high chance of miscommunication between both leaders from vastly opposing political cultures – the populist entertainer and the lawyer technocrat – ties have been surprisingly cordial and, in Downing Street’s estimation, fruitful.

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

Compliments and Calculations

Trump has praised the British PM as a “decent fellow” with a “beautiful accent”. He's approved commercial conditions that are slightly less punitive than the tariff regime on the rest of Europe. British lobbying has been key in easing White House disdain for the Atlantic alliance and pushing the president towards doubt about Vladimir Putin’s motives in the ongoing conflict.

Handling the UK-US partnership is one of the few things Starmer’s shrinking band of loyalists confidently cite. In confidence, some Tory opponents admit this success. But among the restive ranks of the Labour party, and wide segments of the electorate, Trump is seen as a dangerous figure whose flimsy favours are hardly merit the price in diplomatic humiliation.

Praise and Planning

Those expecting the official trip may include any indication of government criticism for Trump's autocratic tendencies will be disappointed. Compliments and ceremonial grandeur to secure the UK's position as America's favored ally are the primary objective.

Prearranged agreements on atomic and digital collaboration will be unveiled. Contentious disagreements on foreign policy – Britain’s imminent recognition of a sovereign Palestine; the US’s continued indulgence of Moscow's hostilities – will remain undiscussed in public.

Certainly not from Starmer's side. No amount of diplomatic preparation can prevent the president's tendency for unscripted sabotage. Although the individual fondness for Starmer is genuine, it is an outlier emotion in a man whose power base throbs with hostility to Labour Britain.

Risks and Realities

Starmer can only hope that those prejudices remain hidden in some spontaneous televised riff on common nationalist topics – repression of free speech via online censorship; submersion of indigenous white folk in a rising migrant tide. Even if that doesn’t happen, the risk reveals a weakness in the policy of unquestioning closeness with an notoriously unpredictable administration.

The case for the UK approach is that Britain’s economic and defense needs are inseparable from US power and will remain so 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. Public disagreement, occasionally demonstrated by the French president, doesn’t get results. Besides, Paris remains in the European Union. Brexit places the nation apart in Trump’s mind and, reportedly, thereby affords unique opportunities.

Strategy and Weakness

A version of this argument was presented by Peter Mandelson, just prior to his removal as ambassador to Washington. The thrust was that the current era will be defined by superpower rivalry between the US and China. The winner will be the one that dominates in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and similar breakthroughs with significant military potential. The UK is unusually strong in these sectors, given its size.

Simply put, the nation is tied by shared goals and post-Brexit realpolitik to join Team USA when the sole option is a global system controlled by the CCP. “Like it or not, ties with Washington are now essential for the functioning of the country,” said Mandelson.

This outlook will keep influencing the UK's international stance irrespective of who is the ambassador. It contains some truth about the emerging tech rivalry but, more importantly, it goes with the ingrained tendency of the UK's pro-US leanings. It also brushes aside any need to strive more at closer ties with EU nations, which is a fiddly multilateral process. Involving complex moving parts and a tendency to start uncomfortable discussions about labour migration. Starmer is making steady advances in his revamp of European ties. Negotiations on agricultural trade, military and power collaboration are underway. But the process of building rapport with the US administration are easier and the reward in diplomatic gains arrives faster.

Volatility and Risk

The president negotiates quickly, but he undoes them just as rapidly. His promises is not a bond. His commitments are temporary. Special terms for UK firms might be offered, but not delivered, or partly implemented, and one day reversed. Trump made deals in his initial presidency that count for nothing now. His modus operandi is pressure, the traditional strong-arm tactic. He inflicts pain – taxes for foreign governments; legal actions or regulatory trouble for US businesses – and offers to relieve the suffering in return for some commercial advantage. Yielding invites the bully to come back for more.

This is the financial parallel to Trump’s political assault on judicial independence, pluralism and the rule of law. UK nationals might not be directly threatened by military mobilizations in US cities under the pretext of law enforcement or a paramilitary immigration force that kidnaps people from public spaces, but that doesn’t mean the erosion of freedoms in the US doesn't affect UK interests.

Lessons and Liabilities

For one thing, the Maga project provides a template that a UK populist is emulating, ready to implement something along the same lines if his party ever form a government. Denying them that opportunity will be simpler if the case opposing illiberal politics have been rehearsed before the national vote.

That argument should be made on ethical grounds, but it applies also to practical considerations of geopolitical influence. The UK government rejects there is a choice to be made between improved ties with the EU and Washington, but Trump is a jealous master. Allegiance toward the super-potentate across the Atlantic is an all-in gamble. There is an opportunity cost in terms of bolstering partnerships with nearby nations, with states that honor agreements and global norms.

This conflict may be prevented if the president's term turns out to be a temporary phase. His age is advanced. Perhaps a replacement, empowered by a centrist legislature, will halt the US republic’s slide into autocracy. That could happen. But is that probable in a country where electoral unrest is being accepted at an alarming rate? What is the probability of an smooth transition away from a governing group that combines religious fundamentalists, white supremacists, wild-eyed tech-utopian oligarchs and corrupt profiteers who cast all opposition in as disloyal?

Such individuals who gracefully step down at the polls, or even run the risk of fair elections. These aren't actors on whose principles and decisions the UK should be staking its destiny prosperity or national security.