🔗 Share this article

Translators aren't necessary when American leaders come to the UK, yet it's no guarantee Donald Trump and Keir Starmer will speak the same language this week. The UK prime minister will practise careful statesmanship, emphasising shared benefit and long-standing partnership. Many of those concepts are meaningless to a leader fluent only in self-interest.

A Study in Contrasts

Considering the high chance of misunderstanding between two men from vastly opposing ideological backgrounds – the populist entertainer and the lawyer technocrat – ties have been remarkably friendly and, according to UK officials, productive.

The contrast in styles has been turned to an advantage. Starmer's reserved attentiveness makes no competitive claim Trump's public spotlight.

Praise and Pragmatism

Trump has praised the British PM as a “good man” with a “pleasing tone”. He's approved commercial conditions that are marginally less vindictive than the duties imposed on other EU nations. British lobbying has been instrumental in easing White House disdain for the Atlantic alliance and nudging Trump towards doubt about Vladimir Putin’s motives in Ukraine.

Handling the UK-US partnership is one of the few things Starmer’s shrinking band of loyalists proudly mention. In confidence, some Conservative critics admit this success. But among the restive ranks of the Labour party, and wide segments of the electorate, Trump is seen as a monster whose unreliable concessions are not worth the cost in diplomatic humiliation.

Praise and Planning

Anyone hoping the official trip may include any indication of official rebuke for the honoured guest’s authoritarian character are set for letdown. Flattery and regal pomp to guarantee the UK's position as America's favored ally are the whole point.

Prearranged agreements on atomic and digital collaboration will be announced. Awkward differences on international strategy – the UK's upcoming acknowledgement of a Palestinian state; the US’s continued indulgence of Russian aggression – will not be aired openly.

Certainly not from Starmer's side. No amount of diplomatic preparation can prevent the president's tendency for off-the-cuff disruption. Even if the individual fondness for Starmer is genuine, it is an outlier emotion in a leader 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 common nationalist topics – repression of free speech via social-media content regulation; submersion of indigenous white folk in a growing influx of newcomers. Should that be avoided, the hazard reveals a flaw in the strategy of unquestioning closeness with an notoriously unpredictable administration.

The case for the UK approach is that Britain’s economic and security interests are tied to American influence and are likely to stay that way for years to come. To attempt separation due to dislike for the current leader would be short-sighted folly. Whatever sway a junior ally might have over a sensitive superpower needs to be exercised sparingly in private. The more openly dissenting approach, occasionally demonstrated by Emmanuel Macron, is often ineffective. Besides, France is part of the EU. Brexit places the nation apart in the president's view and, it is said, thereby affords unique opportunities.

Strategy and Weakness

A version of this argument was presented by a former envoy, just prior to his removal as ambassador to Washington. The core idea was that the 21st century will be defined by great power competition between the US and China. The winner will be the one that dominates in artificial intelligence, advanced processing and other such innovations with awesome dual-use potential. The UK is disproportionately competitive in this field, given its size.

Simply put, the nation is tied by common interests and pragmatic post-EU politics to join Team USA when the sole option is a global system controlled by the Chinese Communist party. “Like it or not, ties with Washington are now essential for the functioning of the country,” noted the ex-ambassador.

This outlook will continue to shape the UK's international stance regardless of diplomatic appointments. There's accuracy about the new technological arms race but, more importantly, it aligns with the deep grain of the UK's pro-US leanings. It also brushes aside any obligation to strive more at closer ties with EU nations, which is a complex multi-party endeavor. Involving many intricate elements and a habit to start awkward conversations about worker movement. The prime minister is making incremental progress in his reset of EU relations. Talks on agricultural trade, defence and energy cooperation are ongoing. But the process of building rapport with the US administration are easier and the payoff in diplomatic gains arrives faster.

Uncertainty and Instability

The president negotiates briskly, but he undoes them just as rapidly. His word aren't reliable. Pledges are conditional. Special terms for UK firms might be offered, but not fulfilled, or partly implemented, and one day reversed. Trump made deals in his first term that are worthless now. His method is pressure, the classic protection racket. He imposes harm – tariffs for foreign governments; lawsuits or regulatory trouble for domestic companies – and offers to relieve the distress in exchange for economic benefits. Yielding encourages the intimidator to come back for more.

This represents the financial parallel to the president's attacks on court autonomy, pluralism and the rule of law. UK nationals might not be directly threatened by military mobilizations in US cities under the guise of law enforcement or a paramilitary immigration force that detains individuals from the streets, but it's incorrect to assume the corrosion of democracy in the US has no bearing British well-being.

Lessons and Liabilities

For one thing, the nationalist movement provides a template that Nigel Farage is admiring, prepared to introduce a similar system if his party ever form a government. Denying them that opportunity will be easier if arguments against illiberal politics have been rehearsed in advance of the general election campaign.

That argument should be made in principle, but it applies also to pragmatic calculations of global sway. The UK government rejects there is a option to be made between restored relations with the EU and Washington, but Trump is a jealous master. Fealty to the dominant power across the Atlantic is an all-in gamble. There is an lost chance in terms of bolstering partnerships closer to home, with states that respect treaties and global norms.

This conflict may be prevented if the president's term turns out to be an aberration. His age is advanced. Maybe a successor, supported by a centrist legislature, will halt 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? What is the probability of an smooth transition away from a ruling party that combines religious fundamentalists, racial extremists, eccentric billionaire idealists and opportunist kleptocrats who label critics in as disloyal?

These are not people who gracefully step down at the polls, or even run the risk of fair elections. These aren't actors on whose values and judgment the UK should be staking its destiny wealth or safety.