Some of the UK’s right-wing newspapers — supporters of both Brexit and its principal advocate, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson — have been quick to assure us that US President Joe Biden has already forgiven the British government for its obsequious cheerleading for former US president Donald Trump.
The new Democratic administration, they claim, will want to do business with a UK that is now distanced from the EU and ready to assume a new role as an influential global fixer.
Let us hope those newspapers are correct, but Biden and his team would have to overlook quite a lot for the sake of such transatlantic goodwill. They would certainly have to turn the other cheek and forget about the British government’s embrace of a policy that required special pleading to Trump rather than a special relationship with the US.
That dispiriting story began with an embarrassed-looking then-British prime minister Theresa May, Johnson’s predecessor, being told that the UK national interest required her to get along with the misogynist Trump. May was even prevailed upon to invite him to the UK for a sort of semi-state visit, without a carriage ride through London with the queen, but including a speech to both houses of parliament.
Then-speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow saved parliament’s dignity by vetoing this idea, a decision for which he was widely criticized. Bercow now deserves some apologies from those who doubted his ability to detect a rogue.
May, a decent and honest woman, was far outdistanced by her successor and his colleagues in the Trump sycophancy stakes.
In January 2017, Johnson’s senior fellow Brexiteer and principal ministerial fixer, Michael Gove (a former journalist with the Times), conducted an interview with then US president-elect Trump that plumbed new depths of oleaginous toadyism.
Gove wallowed in Trump’s endorsement of Brexit. It subsequently came to light that Gove’s then-employer, Rupert Murdoch, was in the room while the interview took place. And why not? The owner of Fox News as well as the Times was entitled to keep an eye on his two proteges.
However, Johnson has more substantive issues to try to explain away or forget as he seeks to build good relations with Biden. His problem is not just the contrast between what he wrote and said about Trump and his Democratic predecessor, former US president Barack Obama (under whom Biden served as vice president). What really matters is what Johnson stands for and the way he behaves, which inevitably invite comparisons to Trump.
If the US-UK relationship is to be as close and productive as all who believe in liberal democracy should want, Johnson must change three aspects of his approach.
First, Johnson has — to put it politely — a rather distant relationship with the truth, but as the Yale historian Tim Snyder has pointed out, post-truth politics can easily drift into something far more dangerous and sinister, particularly on the back of social media. Sooner or later, a political Pinocchio can do a great deal of damage.
Second, Johnson and most of his Brexit colleagues do not respect the UK’s vital national institutions. They have demeaned parliament, attacked the UK’s independent judiciary, dismissed senior civil servants for ministers’ political errors, and pilloried renowned public broadcaster the BBC for its efforts to provide balanced news coverage. In any liberal democracy, majoritarianism needs to be checked and balanced by the very institutions that ministers and the right-wing press have rubbished.
Third, Johnson’s government reflects too many aspects of Trumpian nativism — for “Make America Great Again,” read “Make England Great Again.” Johnson’s government bears the stamp of English nationalism like the words embedded in a stick of seaside rock (a hard, sugary candy sold at British coastal resorts).
We British are outside the EU now and must make the best of this self-defeating choice, but leaving Europe is an impossibility, because we remain geographically, economically, politically and culturally part of it. We must work with our European friends — our closest neighbors and largest trade partners — to advance our national interest and show others that we understand how to cooperate on the international stage.
Above all, the UK needs to show a grasp of the disciplines and manners of partnership, whether it is trying to augment its soft power, or use its hard power carefully and responsibly. The habit of cooperation is indispensable, whether addressing trade, security or the environment; seeking to constrain brutish behavior by China and Russia; or navigating the perils of Middle East politics.
To convince the Biden administration at meetings like the planned G7 summit in June and November’s climate change conference (both of which the UK will chair), the UK should first demonstrate that it is not as reckless and feckless as Trump in the way its treat allies. After all, taking cheap shots at your friends damages you more than it does them and they will remember the patronizing insults when you next ask for their assistance.
Unfortunately, Johnson still has much to do to show that the UK can be a trusted partner. Above all, it must persuade the US and Europe that it does not regard Trump as a fitting role model for a 21st-century liberal democracy.
Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, is chancellor of the University of Oxford.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
RSS