US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath.
For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House meeting, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Trump reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining it.
The strategic partnership has been a cornerstone of Britain’s foreign and security policies since 1946, when former British prime minister Winston Churchill, in a landmark speech in Fulton, Missouri, famously warned that “an Iron Curtain has descended” across Europe.
Illustration: Mountain People
In what was arguably the most consequential speech in Britain’s post-World War II history, Churchill maintained that “neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organization, will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples.”
To that end, “a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States” was essential, he said.
Admittedly, that relationship has always mattered far more to the UK than to the US. Over the years, it has rested on the UK’s ostensibly independent nuclear deterrent, extensive intelligence sharing, military cooperation and a shared approach to global threats. For many — including myself — it has also been defined by deep affection, gratitude and admiration.
My lifelong involvement in domestic and international politics has been shaped by an early political baptism in the US, making me an avowed Americanophile. That is why it is so painful to see a US administration fall so far short of the values that Washington has long championed.
Since Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech, the US-UK relationship has been regarded as the linchpin of the Western-led liberal order. As its undisputed leader, the US has long served as a model for open societies worldwide.
Churchill’s vision of an open society was built on a shared commitment to democratic governance, the rule of law, judicial independence, and resistance to tyranny and oligarchy. It emphasized civility in political life; recognized the moral duty to help the world’s poor and oppressed; and championed the establishment of international organizations dedicated to maintaining world peace, along with defensive alliances committed to upholding international law and self-determination. Crucially, open societies depended on strong economic partnerships, rejecting the kind of protectionism that fueled the Great Depression.
While Trump occasionally echoes long-standing US policies, no US president has ever played as fast and loose with American values and interests. It is impossible to imagine any of his predecessors inciting an attack on the country’s democratic institutions over fabricated claims of election fraud or pardoning those who stormed the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Likewise, no US president — with the exception of Richard Nixon — used the presidency to exact revenge on their rivals. None of them would have handed a billionaire oligarch like Elon Musk free rein to fire federal workers and dismantle the US’ foreign-aid programs. And none was entangled in a web of commercial conflicts of interest as vast and complex as Trump’s.
Certainly, no US president in the past 70 years would have offered Ukraine to Russian President Vladimir Putin on a silver platter, let alone demanded that the Ukrainians hand over their mineral riches to the US.
Given this reality, Starmer must ask himself whether the UK and Trump’s America still share any values. At the very least, Britain must refuse to be complicit in Trump’s malign policies. That does not mean that the UK should be hostile toward its longtime ally, but it must not debase itself by yielding to Trump’s every demand.
To mitigate this danger, British policymakers must take four key steps:
First, to maintain credibility on Ukraine and address the threat posed by Russian aggression, they must boost defense spending — as Starmer already plans to do — despite the UK’s fiscal constraints. They should also collaborate with NATO-aligned EU member states to establish a European rearmament bank.
Second, although Brexit prevents the UK from leading efforts to secure Ukraine’s accession to the EU, it should aim to replicate any economic or trade benefits Ukraine gains from EU membership. Policymakers must heed the lesson of the 1930s: Appeasing bullies only emboldens them.
Third, British policymakers must remind their US allies that no country — not even a superpower — can make itself safe by focusing exclusively on rival major powers. History shows that great-power conflicts often originate in smaller states. Consider Serbia before World War I, Czechoslovakia and Poland before World War II and Manchuria in the 1930s.
As Mark Twain famously put it: “God created war so that Americans would learn geography.”
Fourth, the US could use a reminder of the importance of soft power. Strength alone does not inspire genuine support; when a country is viewed as relying on coercion to maintain its dominance, the long-term consequences are likely to be costly.
A Canadian friend once told me he dreads having his accent mistaken for an American one, lamenting that he could not find a lapel pin that reads: “Don’t blame me; I’m from Canada.”
I still admire the history, culture and values of the US, but with Trump in power, I am glad my accent sets me apart.
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
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
RSS