🔗 Share this article

Interpreters may not be required when US heads of state come to the UK, but that doesn’t mean the US President and Keir Starmer will understand one another during these talks. Starmer will practise tactful diplomacy, stressing shared benefit and long-standing partnership. Most of those concepts mean nothing to a leader who speaks purely personal gain.

An Examination in Contrasts

Given the likelihood of misunderstanding between two men from vastly opposing political cultures – the populist entertainer and the legalistic administrator – relations have been remarkably friendly and, in Downing Street’s estimation, fruitful.

The contrast in approaches has been used beneficially. Starmer's reserved attentiveness doesn't attempt to rival Trump's public spotlight.

Compliments and Calculations

Trump has praised Starmer as a “decent fellow” with a “pleasing tone”. He's approved commercial conditions that are slightly less punitive than the duties imposed on the rest of Europe. British lobbying has been instrumental in easing White House disdain for Nato and pushing Trump towards doubt about Vladimir Putin’s motives in Ukraine.

Managing the UK-US partnership is among the rare achievements Starmer’s shrinking band of loyalists confidently cite. In confidence, some Tory opponents concede the point. But among the restive ranks of the opposition movement, and a broad swath of public opinion, the president is viewed as a dangerous figure whose flimsy favours are not worth the cost in diplomatic humiliation.

Flattery and Forethought

Those expecting the state visit may include some hint of government criticism for Trump's autocratic tendencies will be disappointed. Flattery and regal pomp to secure Britain’s status as Trump’s most esteemed tributary are the whole point.

Pre-cooked deals on nuclear and tech cooperation will be announced. Contentious disagreements on foreign policy – Britain’s imminent recognition of a Palestinian state; America's ongoing tolerance of Russian aggression – will not be aired openly.

Certainly not from Starmer's side. All the diplomatic preparation can insure against Trump’s capacity for off-the-cuff disruption. Even if the personal affection for Starmer is sincere, it is an outlier emotion in a leader whose support network throbs with antagonism toward Labour Britain.

Dangers and Truths

The prime minister can only hope that such biases don’t surface in an impromptu broadcast commentary on popular Maga themes – curtailing expression via social-media content regulation; submersion of indigenous white folk in a rising migrant tide. Should that be avoided, the hazard reveals a weakness in the strategy of unquestioning closeness with an inherently unreliable administration.

The argument supporting Starmer’s method is that the nation's financial and security interests are inseparable from US power and are likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. To attempt separation out of distaste for an incumbent president would be myopic self-indulgence. Such influence as a secondary partner might have over a sensitive superpower needs to be exercised discreetly behind closed doors. Public disagreement, sometimes showcased by the French president, doesn’t get results. Besides, France is part of the EU. Brexit places the nation apart in the president's view and, it is said, thus offers special advantages.

Vision and Vulnerability

A version of this argument was presented by a former envoy, shortly before his dismissal as ambassador to Washington. The thrust was that the current era will be shaped by superpower rivalry between the US and China. Who prevails will be whichever leads in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and similar breakthroughs with awesome dual-use potential. Britain is unusually strong in this field, given its size.

In short, the UK is bound by shared goals and pragmatic post-EU politics to join Team USA when the sole option is a world order controlled by the CCP. “Like it or not, our US partnership has become essential for the functioning of our nation,” noted the ex-ambassador.

That perspective will continue to shape the government’s foreign policy regardless of who is the ambassador. It contains some truth about the new technological arms race but, crucially, it goes with the deep grain of the UK's pro-US leanings. It also brushes aside any need to work harder at reintegration with the rest of Europe, which is a fiddly multilateral process. Involving many intricate elements and a habit to trigger awkward conversations about worker movement. Starmer is making steady advances in his reset of EU relations. Negotiations on agricultural trade, military and energy cooperation are ongoing. But the process of building rapport with the White House are easier and the reward in diplomatic gains arrives faster.

Volatility and Risk

The president negotiates briskly, but he undoes them just as rapidly. His promises aren't reliable. Pledges are conditional. Preferential treatment for British business might be offered, but not fulfilled, or incompletely executed, and one day reversed. The president signed agreements in his initial presidency that count for nothing now. His modus operandi is pressure, the classic protection racket. He imposes harm – taxes for other nations; legal actions or bureaucratic harassment for domestic companies – and proposes easing the suffering in exchange for some commercial advantage. Yielding encourages the bully to demand further concessions.

This represents the economic corollary to Trump’s political assault on court autonomy, diversity and legal order. UK nationals might not be immediately endangered by military mobilizations in US cities under the pretext 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 doesn't affect British well-being.

Implications and Dangers

For one thing, the nationalist movement provides a template that a UK populist is emulating, prepared to introduce a similar system if his party ever form a government. Preventing such an outcome will be simpler if the case opposing authoritarian nationalism have been rehearsed before the general election campaign.

That case should be made in principle, but it applies also to practical considerations of geopolitical influence. Downing Street denies there is a option to be made between restored relations with the EU and Washington, but the president demands loyalty. Allegiance toward the dominant power across the Atlantic is an high-risk bet. There is an lost chance in terms of strengthening alliances closer to home, with states that honor agreements and global norms.

This conflict may be avoided if the president's term turns out to be a temporary phase. His age is advanced. Perhaps a replacement, supported by a centrist legislature, will reverse the nation's decline into autocracy. That could happen. But is it the likeliest scenario in a nation where political violence is being accepted at an worrying speed? What is the probability of an smooth transition away from a governing group that unites religious fundamentalists, white supremacists, wild-eyed tech-utopian oligarchs and corrupt profiteers who label critics in shades of treason?

These are not people who humbly surrender power at the ballot box, or even take the chance of fair elections. They are not people on whose principles and decisions Britain should be betting its future wealth or national security.