Interpreters may not be necessary when American leaders visit the UK, yet it's no guarantee Donald Trump and Keir Starmer will understand one another during these talks. Starmer will employ tactful diplomacy, stressing mutual advantage and historical alliance. Many of these ideas mean nothing to a leader who speaks purely self-interest.
A Study in Contrasts
Given the likelihood of miscommunication between both leaders from vastly opposing political cultures – the showbiz demagogue and the lawyer technocrat – relations have been surprisingly cordial and, according to UK officials, productive.
The contrast in approaches has been turned to an advantage. The prime minister’s reserved attentiveness doesn't attempt to rival the president’s limelight.
Compliments and Calculations
Trump has praised Starmer as a “good man” with a “beautiful accent”. He's approved commercial conditions that are slightly less punitive than the tariff regime on the rest of Europe. UK advocacy has been key in easing White House disdain for the Atlantic alliance and nudging the president towards scepticism about Russia's intentions in the ongoing conflict.
Handling the transatlantic relationship is among the rare achievements the dwindling group of supporters proudly mention. In confidence, some Conservative critics concede the point. 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 some hint of official rebuke for Trump's authoritarian character will be disappointed. Flattery and regal pomp to guarantee the UK's position as Trump’s most esteemed tributary are the whole point.
Prearranged agreements on nuclear and tech cooperation will be announced. Contentious disagreements on international strategy – Britain’s imminent recognition of a sovereign Palestine; the US’s continued indulgence of Moscow's hostilities – will remain undiscussed openly.
Not by the prime minister, at least. All the diplomatic preparation can insure against Trump’s capacity for unscripted sabotage. Even if the individual fondness for the UK leader is genuine, it is an outlier emotion in a leader whose power base is fueled by hostility to Labour Britain.
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 social-media content regulation; submersion of indigenous white folk in a growing influx of newcomers. Should that be avoided, the risk exposes a weakness in the policy of uncritical intimacy with an inherently unreliable administration.
The argument supporting the UK approach is that Britain’s economic and security interests are tied to US power 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. Such influence as a secondary partner might have over a sensitive superpower needs to be exercised sparingly in private. Public disagreement, occasionally demonstrated by Emmanuel Macron, is often ineffective. Additionally, Paris remains in the European Union. The UK's exit puts Britain in a different category in Trump’s mind and, it is said, thus offers special advantages.
Strategy and Weakness
This perspective was set out by a former envoy, just prior to his removal as US diplomat. The core idea was that the current era will be shaped by great power competition between the United States and Beijing. Who prevails will be whichever leads in artificial intelligence, advanced processing and similar breakthroughs with significant military potential. The UK is disproportionately competitive in this field, given its size.
Simply put, the nation is tied by common interests and post-Brexit realpolitik to align with America when the only alternative is a world order dictated by the CCP. “Like it or not, ties with Washington has become essential for the functioning of the country,” noted Mandelson.
This outlook will keep influencing the government’s foreign policy irrespective of diplomatic appointments. There's accuracy about the new technological arms race but, crucially, it aligns with the ingrained tendency of the UK's pro-US leanings. It also brushes aside any obligation to work harder at closer ties with EU nations, which is a fiddly multilateral process. Involving complex moving parts and a habit to start uncomfortable discussions about labour migration. The prime minister is making incremental progress in his reset of EU relations. Negotiations on farm goods, defence and power collaboration are ongoing. But the process of building rapport with the White House are easier and the payoff in diplomatic gains comes quicker.
Volatility and Risk
The president negotiates quickly, but he cancels agreements just as rapidly. His word aren't reliable. Pledges are temporary. Preferential treatment for British business might be promised, but not fulfilled, or partly implemented, and one day reversed. The president signed agreements in his initial presidency that are worthless now. His modus operandi is pressure, the classic protection racket. He imposes harm – tariffs for foreign governments; legal actions or bureaucratic harassment for domestic companies – and proposes easing the distress in exchange for some commercial advantage. Paying up invites the bully to come back for more.
This is the economic corollary to the president's attacks on court autonomy, diversity and the rule of law. UK nationals might not be directly threatened by deployment of the national guard in US cities under the pretext of public safety or a armed border unit that detains individuals from public spaces, but that doesn’t mean the corrosion of democracy in the US has no bearing UK interests.
Lessons and Liabilities
For one thing, the Maga project sets an example that a UK populist is emulating, ready to implement a similar system if Reform UK ever form a government. Denying them that opportunity will be simpler if arguments against illiberal politics have been rehearsed in advance of the general election campaign.
That argument should be made in principle, but it relates equally to pragmatic calculations of geopolitical influence. Downing Street rejects there is a option to be made between improved ties with Brussels and the US, but Trump is a jealous master. Allegiance toward the super-potentate across the Atlantic is an high-risk bet. There is an lost chance in terms of strengthening alliances with nearby nations, with states that honor agreements and global norms.
That tension may be prevented if the president's term turns out to be a temporary phase. He is old. Perhaps a replacement, supported by a centrist legislature, will reverse the nation's decline into tyranny. That could happen. But is it the likeliest scenario in a nation where political violence is being normalised at an worrying speed? How likely of an smooth transition away from a governing group that unites religious fundamentalists, racial extremists, eccentric billionaire idealists and opportunist kleptocrats who cast all opposition in as disloyal?
Such individuals who humbly surrender power at the polls, or even take the chance of fair elections. These aren't actors on whose principles and decisions the UK should be staking its destiny prosperity or national security.
