Interpreters aren't necessary when US heads of state come to the UK, yet it's no guarantee Donald Trump and Keir Starmer will speak the same language this week. Starmer will employ tactful diplomacy, stressing shared benefit and historical alliance. Most of these ideas mean nothing to a president who speaks purely personal gain.
A Study in Differences
Considering the high chance of misunderstanding between both leaders from vastly opposing political cultures – the populist entertainer and the lawyer technocrat – ties have been remarkably friendly and, in Downing Street’s estimation, fruitful.
The contrast in styles has been turned to an advantage. Starmer's reserved attentiveness doesn't attempt to rival the president’s limelight.
Compliments and Calculations
The US leader has complimented Starmer as a “good man” with a “beautiful accent”. He's approved trade terms that are slightly less punitive than the tariff regime on the rest of Europe. British lobbying has been key in easing US antipathy for Nato and pushing Trump towards scepticism about Vladimir Putin’s motives in the ongoing conflict.
Handling the transatlantic relationship is one of the few things the dwindling group of supporters 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, Trump is seen as a monster whose flimsy favours are hardly merit the cost in diplomatic humiliation.
Flattery and Forethought
Those expecting the state visit may include any indication of government criticism 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 whole point.
Prearranged agreements on atomic and digital collaboration will be unveiled. Contentious disagreements on foreign policy – the UK's upcoming acknowledgement of a Palestinian state; America's ongoing tolerance of Moscow's hostilities – will not be aired openly.
Not by the prime minister, at least. All the diplomatic preparation can prevent Trump’s capacity for unscripted sabotage. Even if the individual fondness for Starmer is genuine, it is a rare feeling in a man whose power base is fueled by hostility to Labour Britain.
Dangers and Truths
The prime minister can only pray that those prejudices don’t surface in an impromptu broadcast commentary on popular Maga themes – repression of free speech via social-media content regulation; submersion of indigenous white folk in a rising migrant tide. Should that be avoided, the hazard exposes a flaw in the strategy of uncritical intimacy with an inherently unreliable administration.
The argument supporting Starmer’s method is that Britain’s economic and defense needs are inseparable from American influence and are likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. To attempt separation out of distaste for the current leader would be short-sighted folly. Whatever sway a junior ally might have over a sensitive superpower must be used discreetly behind closed doors. Public disagreement, sometimes showcased by Emmanuel Macron, is often ineffective. Besides, France is part of the EU. Brexit puts Britain in a different category in Trump’s mind and, reportedly, thus offers special advantages.
Strategy and Weakness
A version of this argument was set out by a former envoy, shortly before his removal as ambassador to Washington. The core idea was that the current era will be shaped by great power competition between the United States and Beijing. The winner will be the one that dominates in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and other such innovations with awesome dual-use applications. The UK is unusually strong in this field, despite being a mid-sized nation.
Simply put, the UK is bound by common interests and post-Brexit realpolitik to align with America when the sole option is a world order dictated by the Chinese Communist party. Whether desired or not, ties with Washington has become essential for the functioning of our nation,” said the ex-ambassador.
That perspective will continue to shape the UK's international stance irrespective of who is the ambassador. There's accuracy about the new technological arms race but, more importantly, it aligns with the ingrained tendency of the UK's pro-US leanings. It also brushes aside any need to work harder at closer ties with the rest of Europe, which is a complex multi-party endeavor. It has complex moving parts and a habit to start awkward conversations about worker movement. Starmer is making steady advances in his reset of EU relations. Negotiations on farm goods, defence and power collaboration are underway. But the mechanics of building rapport with the White House are simpler and the payoff in political gratification arrives faster.
Volatility and Risk
Trump does deals quickly, but he cancels agreements just as fast. His promises aren't reliable. Pledges are conditional. 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 other nations; lawsuits or regulatory trouble for domestic companies – and proposes easing the distress in exchange for economic benefits. Paying up encourages the intimidator to come back for more.
This represents the economic corollary to the president's attacks on court autonomy, diversity and legal order. UK nationals might not be immediately endangered 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 British well-being.
Lessons and Liabilities
For one thing, the nationalist movement provides a template that Nigel Farage is emulating, ready to implement something along the same lines if his party ever gains power. Preventing such an outcome will be easier if arguments against authoritarian nationalism have been rehearsed before the general election campaign.
That argument should be made on ethical grounds, but it relates equally to pragmatic calculations of geopolitical influence. The UK government rejects there is a option to be made between improved ties with Brussels and the US, but the president demands loyalty. Allegiance toward the super-potentate across the Atlantic is an high-risk bet. There is an opportunity cost in terms of strengthening alliances with nearby nations, with states that honor agreements and global norms.
That tension may be prevented if Trump’s reign turns out to be a temporary phase. He is old. Perhaps a replacement, empowered by a centrist legislature, will halt the US republic’s slide into autocracy. It is possible. But is it the likeliest scenario in a nation where electoral unrest is being normalised at an worrying speed? What is the probability of an smooth transition away from a governing group that unites dogmatic believers, racial extremists, 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 ballot box, or even take the chance of fair elections. These aren't actors on whose values and judgment the UK should be staking its destiny prosperity or safety.
