🔗 Share this article

Interpreters aren't required when US heads of state visit the UK, but that doesn’t mean the US President and Keir Starmer will speak the same language during these talks. The UK prime minister will employ tactful diplomacy, stressing shared benefit and historical alliance. Most of these ideas are meaningless to a president who speaks purely self-interest.

An Examination in Contrasts

Given the likelihood of miscommunication between both leaders from such different political cultures – the showbiz demagogue and the legalistic administrator – ties have been remarkably friendly and, in Downing Street’s estimation, fruitful.

The contrast in styles has been turned to an advantage. The prime minister’s reserved attentiveness doesn't attempt to rival Trump's public spotlight.

Praise and Pragmatism

The US leader has complimented the British PM as a “decent fellow” with a “beautiful accent”. He has agreed trade terms that are slightly less punitive than the duties imposed on the rest of Europe. UK advocacy has been instrumental in softening White House disdain for Nato and nudging Trump towards doubt about Russia's intentions in the ongoing conflict.

Managing the UK-US partnership is one of the few things the dwindling group of loyalists confidently cite. In confidence, some Tory opponents admit this success. But among discontented members of the opposition movement, and a broad swath of the electorate, Trump is seen as a dangerous figure whose unreliable concessions are not worth the price in diplomatic humiliation.

Flattery and Forethought

Anyone hoping the state visit may include any indication of government criticism for Trump's authoritarian character are set for letdown. Flattery and regal pomp to guarantee Britain’s status as Trump’s most esteemed tributary are the primary objective.

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

Not by the prime minister, at least. All the Foreign Office contingency planning can insure against the president's tendency for unscripted sabotage. Even if the individual fondness for Starmer is genuine, it is an outlier emotion in a man whose support network is fueled by hostility to a progressive UK.

Risks and Realities

The prime minister can only hope that those prejudices remain hidden in an impromptu broadcast commentary on popular Maga themes – curtailing expression via online censorship; submersion of indigenous white folk in a growing influx of newcomers. Even if that doesn’t happen, the hazard reveals a flaw in the strategy of uncritical intimacy with an inherently unreliable administration.

The argument supporting Starmer’s method is that the nation's financial and security interests are tied to American influence and are likely to stay that way for years to come. Pursuing separation due to dislike for an incumbent president would be short-sighted folly. Such influence as a junior ally might have over a sensitive superpower must be used sparingly in private. The more openly dissenting approach, sometimes showcased by the French president, doesn’t get results. Besides, Paris remains in the European Union. Brexit places the nation apart in the president's view and, reportedly, thus offers unique opportunities.

Vision and Vulnerability

This perspective was presented by Peter Mandelson, just prior to his dismissal as US diplomat. The core idea was that the current era will be shaped by great power competition between the US and China. The winner will be the one that dominates in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and other such innovations with significant military potential. Britain is disproportionately competitive in these sectors, given its size.

Simply put, the UK is bound by common interests and post-Brexit realpolitik to align with America when the sole option is a world order controlled by the CCP. Whether desired or not, our US partnership has become indispensable to the operation of our nation,” noted Mandelson.

That perspective will keep influencing the UK's international stance regardless of who is the ambassador. 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 obligation to strive more at closer ties with the rest of Europe, which is a complex multi-party endeavor. Involving complex moving parts and a habit to start awkward conversations about labour migration. The prime minister 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 White House are easier and the reward in political gratification arrives faster.

Volatility and Risk

Trump does deals quickly, but he undoes them just as rapidly. His word aren't reliable. His commitments are temporary. Preferential treatment for British business might be offered, but not delivered, or partly implemented, and one day reversed. The president signed agreements in his first term that are worthless now. His modus operandi is extortion, the traditional strong-arm tactic. He imposes harm – tariffs for other nations; legal actions or bureaucratic harassment for US businesses – and offers to relieve the suffering in exchange for economic benefits. Paying up encourages the bully to demand further concessions.

This represents the financial parallel to Trump’s political assault on court autonomy, diversity and legal order. UK nationals 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 public spaces, but it's incorrect to assume the erosion of freedoms in the US has no bearing British well-being.

Lessons and Liabilities

Firstly, the Maga project provides a template that Nigel Farage is admiring, ready to implement something along the same lines if his party ever gains power. Preventing such an outcome will be easier if arguments against authoritarian nationalism have been rehearsed before the general election campaign.

That argument should be made on ethical grounds, but it applies also to practical considerations of geopolitical influence. Downing Street rejects there is a choice to be made between improved ties with the EU and Washington, but Trump is a jealous master. Fealty to the super-potentate across the Atlantic is an all-in gamble. There is an lost chance in terms of bolstering partnerships closer to home, with countries that honor agreements and global norms.

That tension may be avoided if Trump’s reign turns out to be an aberration. He is old. Maybe a successor, empowered by a centrist legislature, will reverse the nation's decline into autocracy. It is possible. But is it the likeliest scenario in a nation where electoral unrest is being accepted at an worrying speed? How likely of an smooth transition away from a ruling party that unites dogmatic believers, white supremacists, wild-eyed tech-utopian oligarchs and opportunist kleptocrats who cast all opposition in as disloyal?

Such individuals who gracefully step down at the ballot box, or even take the chance of fair elections. They are not people on whose principles and decisions Britain should be staking its destiny wealth or national security.