During Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s recent White House summit with re-elected President Donald Trump, the UK’s shrinking geopolitical influence was laid bare.
Despite the optical success for the Prime Minister, our reliance on an unreliable US and growing distance from Europe has left us at a crossroads. The country doesn’t have the influence it believes it has and must reorient towards its closest neighbours.
Historically, the UK has attempted to establish itself as an intermediary, a ‘pivotal power’ that seeks to convey US interests to the EU. Our politicians frequently praise the ‘Special Relationship’ between our two countries, but it is only special to us.
While we indeed project more than our fair share of soft power globally through our language and culture, it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that the UK has lasting influence.
We attempt to maintain a veneer of military power, but style struggles to justify a lack of substance. We are more interested in spending on expensive and often unreliable aircraft carriers than on anything of operational use. The prospect of tangible naval capability in the Pacific and Persian Gulf is an illusion. We famously have more Royal Navy admirals than ships, and our army personnel can scarcely fill a football stadium.
We remain entirely reliant on the American security umbrella. Our Trident missiles are leased from and jointly operated by the US. The Five Eyes (FVEY) alliance facilitates essential collaboration between the UK, US, Canadian, New Zealand, and Australian security services. However, this specialisation and increased reliance on the CIA have led to a decline in overall intelligence capability.
The recent decision to cut the UK’s aid budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP while increasing defence spending from about 2.3% to 2.5% by 2027 will only accelerate Britain’s global decline. As Britain and the US step back, Russia and China will step in in the shorter term, no matter how marginally better our military becomes. While the increased defence budget is undoubtedly needed, we sacrifice long-term interests for short-term gain, and the shift has already led to the resignation of International Development Minister Annaliese Dodds.
Perhaps the most significant miscalculation of our global reach was embodied by Brexit, driven by emotion and false promises. Brexit tapped real discontent among the working class, the primary losers in increased globalisation and migration. Older generations hoped Brexit would allow us to return to a time of imperial glory for Britain, a time that has long since, and rightly, passed. Paradoxically, the Brexit split only pushed us further from so-called ‘Global Britain’, severing us from the forum that allowed us such a voice, leaving us isolated.
Misinformation played a considerable role. The famous ‘£350 million’ bus disregarded the substantial reverse flows in investment. Fear was stoked of impending Turkish membership and the associated freedom of movement that was already controversial among Eurosceptics. Still, this would have been doubtful given Türkiye’s dubious record.
Nothing better illustrates the UK's dependence on the US than Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s recent meeting with US President Donald Trump at the White House.
The meeting went as well as the Prime Minister could have hoped but therein lies the problem. Starmer’s great success wasn’t in achieving any material end, but simply in the fact that Trump has not yet turned his back on him.
Positively, their rapport seemed almost genuine, and Trump called Starmer a tough negotiator. Trump’s references to a potential trade deal, which the UK has pursued for years, were encouraging. He also suggested favouring the Chagos Islands deal, which Starmer has been struggling with politically, but stopped short of firm commitments. Trump is highly unpredictable, of course. He might change his stance on any issue raised the very next day. However, optics-wise, it’s safe to say that Starmer had one of his best days as Prime Minister yet.
Despite this, Trump dominated the event. At one point, he interrupted Starmer’s response to a question with a determined ‘that’s enough’. Trump’s decor felt like a palace: classic Trump gold smothered the room. As such, when Starmer presented his ace card - an invitation for an unprecedented second state visit - it almost felt like a tribute payment to placate the president, which it almost certainly was, given Trump’s admiration for our royal family.
Despite this deft diplomatic manoeuvre, we wonder whether Starmer made the offer too soon, given Trump's lack of substantial commitments.
Perhaps the one thing missing from the meeting was the significant shift in attitude toward Ukraine that Starmer sought. Trump maintained that Ukraine could not have a future in NATO. Trump’s negotiation strategy with Russia (conceding everything and expecting nothing) has undoubtedly been intriguing, though that is a topic for another day.
The meeting was a microcosm of our broader role: deferential, hopeful, but ultimately powerless when alone. If we continue to prioritise American favour over a pivot toward our closest European neighbours, chasing a spectre of past influence, we will continue to fade into global obscurity. Our future lies on our European doorstep, not in past, mythical glory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not long after this article was completed, the world witnessed a fiery public exchange between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Trump in their Oval Office meeting - a unique historic moment.
Subsequently, Western leaders have piled on support for Ukraine and Zelensky, and Starmer’s short-lived success has all but faded. Therefore, he must choose whether to continue deferring to President Trump or rallying around his European allies and demonstrating the leadership the UK believes it can but can never quite muster.
コメント