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 the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS