🔗 Share this article

Translators 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 this week. The UK prime minister will employ tactful diplomacy, emphasising shared benefit and historical alliance. Many of these ideas mean nothing to a leader who speaks purely self-interest.

An Examination in Differences

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

Their differing in approaches has been turned to an advantage. The prime minister’s quiet solicitousness doesn't attempt to rival Trump's public spotlight.

Praise and Pragmatism

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

Handling the transatlantic relationship is one of the few things Starmer’s shrinking band of supporters proudly mention. Privately, some Conservative critics concede the point. But among discontented members of the Labour party, and wide segments of the electorate, the president is viewed as a monster whose flimsy favours are not worth the price in diplomatic humiliation.

Flattery and Forethought

Anyone hoping the state visit may include any indication of official rebuke for Trump's autocratic tendencies will be disappointed. Compliments and ceremonial grandeur to secure the UK's position as Trump’s most esteemed tributary are the primary objective.

Pre-cooked deals on nuclear and tech cooperation will be announced. Awkward differences on international strategy – the UK's upcoming acknowledgement of a sovereign Palestine; the US’s continued indulgence of Moscow's hostilities – will remain undiscussed openly.

Certainly not from Starmer's side. All the Foreign Office contingency planning can prevent the president's tendency for off-the-cuff disruption. Even if the personal affection for the UK leader is sincere, it is an outlier emotion in a leader whose support network is fueled by hostility to Labour Britain.

Risks and Realities

Starmer can only hope that such biases remain hidden in an impromptu broadcast commentary on popular Maga themes – curtailing expression via online censorship; eroding native demographics in a rising migrant tide. Should that be avoided, the hazard reveals a flaw in the strategy of uncritical intimacy with an inherently unreliable regime.

The case for Starmer’s method is that the nation's financial and security interests are inseparable from American influence and are likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. Pursuing separation out of distaste for the current leader would be myopic self-indulgence. Such influence as a secondary partner might have over a sensitive superpower needs to be exercised sparingly in private. The more openly dissenting approach, occasionally demonstrated by Emmanuel Macron, doesn’t get results. Besides, France is part of the EU. The UK's exit places the nation apart in Trump’s mind and, reportedly, thus offers unique opportunities.

Strategy and Weakness

This perspective was presented by a former envoy, shortly before his dismissal as ambassador to Washington. The thrust was that the current era will be defined by superpower rivalry between the United States and Beijing. The winner will be whichever leads in AI, quantum computing and other such innovations with significant military potential. The UK is disproportionately competitive in these sectors, given its size.

In short, the nation is tied by common interests and pragmatic post-EU politics to align with America when the sole option is a world order controlled by the CCP. “Like it or not, our US partnership are now essential for the functioning of the country,” noted Mandelson.

That perspective will keep influencing the UK's international stance regardless of diplomatic appointments. It contains some truth about the new technological arms race but, crucially, it aligns with the deep grain of Britain’s postwar Atlanticist bias. It also brushes aside any need to strive more at closer ties with EU nations, which is a fiddly multilateral process. Involving many intricate elements and a habit to start uncomfortable discussions about labour migration. Starmer is making steady advances in his revamp of European ties. Talks on agricultural trade, military and power collaboration are ongoing. But the mechanics of cosying up to the White House are simpler and the reward in political gratification comes quicker.

Uncertainty and Instability

The president negotiates quickly, but he cancels agreements just as rapidly. His promises aren't reliable. Pledges are temporary. Special terms for UK firms might be promised, but not fulfilled, or incompletely executed, and one day reversed. Trump made deals in his first term that count for nothing now. His modus operandi is pressure, the classic protection racket. He inflicts pain – tariffs for foreign governments; lawsuits or regulatory trouble for domestic companies – and proposes easing the distress in exchange for some commercial advantage. Yielding encourages the bully to come back for more.

This represents the financial parallel to Trump’s political assault on court autonomy, diversity and the rule of law. British citizens might not be directly threatened by deployment of the national guard in US cities under the pretext of law enforcement or a paramilitary immigration force that kidnaps people from the streets, but that doesn’t mean the corrosion of democracy in the US doesn't affect British well-being.

Implications and Dangers

For one thing, the Maga project provides a template that Nigel Farage is emulating, ready to implement something along the same lines if his party ever form a government. Preventing such an outcome will be simpler if arguments against illiberal politics have been rehearsed in advance of the national vote.

That case should be made on ethical grounds, but it applies also to pragmatic calculations of global sway. Downing Street denies there is a choice to be made between improved ties with Brussels and Washington, but the president demands loyalty. Fealty to the dominant power across the Atlantic is an all-in gamble. There is an lost chance in terms of strengthening alliances with nearby nations, with countries that respect treaties and international rules.

That tension may be avoided if the president's term turns out to be a temporary phase. He is old. Perhaps a replacement, empowered by a moderate Congress, will halt the US republic’s slide into tyranny. That could happen. 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 orderly transfer of power away from a governing group that unites religious fundamentalists, racial extremists, wild-eyed tech-utopian oligarchs and corrupt profiteers who label critics in shades of treason?

Such individuals who humbly surrender power at the ballot box, or even run the risk of impartial votes. They are not people on whose values and judgment Britain should be betting its future wealth or safety.