🔗 Share this article

Interpreters may not be required when US heads of state visit the UK, yet it's no guarantee the US President and Britain's Prime Minister will speak the same language this week. The UK prime minister will employ careful statesmanship, stressing shared benefit and historical alliance. Many of those concepts are meaningless to a president fluent only in personal gain.

An Examination in Differences

Considering the high chance of misunderstanding between two men from vastly opposing political cultures – the showbiz demagogue and the legalistic administrator – relations have been surprisingly cordial and, according to UK officials, fruitful.

Their differing 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

The US leader has complimented Starmer as a “decent fellow” with a “pleasing tone”. He's approved trade terms that are slightly less punitive than the duties imposed on the rest of Europe. UK advocacy has been instrumental in easing White House disdain for Nato and nudging the president towards doubt about Vladimir Putin’s motives in the ongoing conflict.

Handling the UK-US partnership is among the rare achievements 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, the president is viewed as a monster whose unreliable concessions are hardly merit the cost in national self-abasement.

Praise and Planning

Anyone hoping the state visit may include any indication of government criticism for Trump's autocratic tendencies will be disappointed. Flattery and regal pomp to secure the UK's position as America's favored ally are the primary objective.

Prearranged agreements on nuclear and tech cooperation will be announced. Contentious disagreements 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.

Not by the prime minister, at least. No amount of diplomatic preparation can prevent Trump’s capacity for off-the-cuff disruption. Although the individual fondness for the UK leader is sincere, it is a rare feeling in a leader whose support network is fueled by hostility to Labour Britain.

Dangers and Truths

The prime minister can only pray that such biases remain hidden in some spontaneous televised riff on popular Maga themes – curtailing expression via online censorship; eroding native demographics in a growing influx of newcomers. Even if that doesn’t happen, the risk exposes a flaw in the policy of unquestioning closeness with an notoriously unpredictable regime.

The argument supporting Starmer’s method is that Britain’s economic and defense needs are inseparable from American influence and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Pursuing strategic decoupling due to dislike for an incumbent president would be myopic self-indulgence. Whatever sway a secondary partner might have over a prickly protector needs to be exercised discreetly behind closed doors. Public disagreement, occasionally demonstrated by Emmanuel Macron, doesn’t get results. Besides, Paris remains in the European Union. Brexit places the nation apart in the president's view and, it is said, thus offers special advantages.

Vision and Vulnerability

This perspective was set out by Peter Mandelson, shortly before his dismissal as US diplomat. The core idea was that the 21st century will be shaped by great power competition between the US and China. Who prevails will be whichever leads in artificial intelligence, advanced processing and similar breakthroughs with awesome dual-use potential. The UK is unusually strong in these sectors, despite being a mid-sized nation.

Simply put, the UK is bound by shared goals and post-Brexit realpolitik to align with America when the only alternative is a global system dictated by the Chinese Communist party. Whether desired or not, ties with Washington has become indispensable to the functioning of the country,” said Mandelson.

That perspective will keep influencing the government’s foreign policy irrespective of who is the ambassador. It contains some truth about the emerging tech rivalry but, crucially, it goes with the ingrained tendency of the UK's pro-US leanings. It dismisses any obligation to work harder at reintegration with EU nations, which is a complex multi-party endeavor. Involving many intricate elements and a tendency to trigger awkward conversations about worker movement. The prime minister is making incremental progress in his revamp of European ties. Negotiations on farm goods, defence and power collaboration are underway. But the process of building rapport with the White House are easier and the reward in political gratification comes quicker.

Uncertainty and Instability

The president negotiates briskly, but he cancels agreements just as fast. His word aren't reliable. Pledges are temporary. Preferential treatment for UK firms might be offered, but not delivered, or incompletely executed, and one day reversed. Trump signed agreements in his initial presidency that count for nothing now. His modus operandi is pressure, the traditional strong-arm tactic. He imposes harm – taxes for foreign governments; legal actions or regulatory trouble for US businesses – and proposes easing the distress in return for economic benefits. Paying up invites the bully to demand further concessions.

This represents the economic corollary to the president's attacks on judicial independence, pluralism and legal order. UK nationals might not be directly threatened by military mobilizations in American urban areas under the guise of public safety or a armed border unit that kidnaps people from the streets, but it's incorrect to assume the erosion of freedoms in the US has no bearing British well-being.

Lessons and Liabilities

Firstly, the nationalist movement sets an example that a UK populist is emulating, ready to implement something along the same lines if Reform UK ever gains power. Preventing such an outcome will be simpler if arguments against authoritarian nationalism have been made before the general election campaign.

That case should be made on ethical grounds, but it relates equally to practical considerations of global sway. Downing Street denies there is a choice to be made between restored relations with the EU and Washington, but Trump is a jealous master. Allegiance toward the super-potentate across the Atlantic is an high-risk bet. There is an opportunity cost in terms of bolstering partnerships closer to home, with states that respect treaties and international rules.

This conflict may be prevented if Trump’s reign turns out to be an aberration. He is old. Maybe a successor, supported by a centrist legislature, 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 normalised at an alarming rate? How likely of an smooth transition away from a governing group that combines dogmatic believers, white supremacists, wild-eyed tech-utopian oligarchs and opportunist kleptocrats who cast all opposition in shades of treason?

These are not people who gracefully step down at the polls, or even take the chance of impartial votes. They are not people on whose principles and decisions Britain should be staking its destiny prosperity or national security.