Speaking in the House of Lords on March 18, 2003, before the invasion of Iraq, Lord Richard stated that the then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave “unequivocal and almost unconditional” support to U.S. policy and invited reflection on this. On the other hand, Lord Ahmed emphasized that the decision to invade was taken not by the British people but by “a few policymakers in Washington.” Lord Bramall also noted that “We depended heavily on America,” reminding them that they could keep British forces out of Vietnam despite heavy American pressure and called for a similar stance. One of the most striking sentences of the day, and perhaps of the history of the House of Lords, regarding the issue of the British accepting a position under the command of the U.S., was made by Lord Jopling: “I am totally perplexed at the way in which our government has been drawn in by the U.S. and led into supporting these policies like pet sheep.”
I reminded you of these because we are around the anniversary of the invasion and because of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump at the end of February and what was written in the British press afterward.
The Times on Feb. 27 made the following analogy to British prime ministers meeting with U.S. presidents: “More often than not, these meetings resemble the junior executive reporting to the boss.” In a cartoon published on the same day, the newspaper depicted Starmer as a soldier reporting in obedience to his command, standing in salute as his boss, Trump, glared at him angrily.
On Feb. 28, Matthew Parris from the same newspaper, wrote: “Starmer crawled, and Donald Trump patronized ... Starmer simpered, like a boss-man’s clerk.” He also talked about Starmer pleasing Trump with kowtowing. Some wrote: “Starmer's creeping groveling is making me feel nauseous and sick," and such reactions were reported by Sky News as "Starmer humiliated by Trump and Vance.”
Also noteworthy are the words of John Crace of The Guardian on March 13: “At all times, Keir Starmer has remained a paragon of obsequiousness ... And what do we get for it? The occasional hint of recognition from the Donald ... Now, we have also landed 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum. A reward for obeisance.”
I agree with their comments on this matter. They have been humiliated. However, it would be wrong to see this as an issue specific to Starmer and even Trump. We read observations from 2003. And former U.S. President Joe Biden had insulting behavior, too.
In 2022, Dame Arlene Foster wrote an article for Express titled “Troublemakers Biden and Pelosi are no friends of Britain.” She also mentioned Obama’s threats to Britain. None of them are friends. Because the U.S. has no friendship with Britain, it patronizes it.
Former MI6 Director Sir Alex Younger argued that, “Trump had ushered in a rules-free amoral world order.” The Economist on Feb. 22 also wrote that if the old world did not learn how to use hard power, it would fall victim to the new world disorder. The Times on Feb. 27 also assessed the “demise of soft power in the new world order.” According to David Smith of The Guardian, the world order has fallen apart with Trump's fight with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The Guardian Weekly also wrote in its March 7 issue, “The world has turned upside down.” The article also included the following sentence from Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock: “A new era of wickedness has begun.”
The Economist published an interesting cartoon in its March 8 issue: Trump, as a gunslinger, enters town, massacring the old world order and declaring, “I’m giving the orders now,” while Europeans watch in horror. In short, the old world order is over for many Britons (and indeed many people).
However, the Economist, which was quite pessimistic on Feb. 22, was in a very different mood on March 8: they came out with a "Winston Starmer" cover and talked about Keir Starmer sketching a new role for Britain in the world.
However, the magazine also reiterated that Starmer could face a backlash from voters domestically when trying to meet Trump’s demands, such as increasing defense spending, and that even former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill faced a backlash from his people. Indeed, Starmer first faced the resignation of International Development Minister Anneliese Dodds with his decision to cut the aid budget. Then, “his plans to cut billions from the rising welfare bill” caused a backlash from dozens of lawmakers within the party.
According to the Guardian, if he took this step, “400,000 disabled people would lose 5,000 pounds a year in benefits.” There are already some bad data, such as the uninterrupted rise in house prices for six months. In short, the new period, which focuses on defense and where the British seem to take on a greater role in defending themselves, could also lead to greater dependence on the U.S. through economic shock. Indeed, according to some, Trump has a desire to “colonize” the U.K. in this way.
However, the opposite scenario is also possible. Emma Duncan from the Times covered this in her article, "Trump could actually make Europe great again.” Duncan pointed out that Trump’s economic policies negatively affected the U.S. and argued that if his mistakes were evaluated well, the EU and the U.K. could benefit. Famous British journalist Gerard Baker also stated in his article published in the Wall Street Journal on Feb. 25 that Trump's new world order could bring Europeans closer to China and cause America to pay a heavy price, which is a really conceivable possibility.
These are possibilities. However, it seems that the effort to meet Trump’s demands and the problems that arise from this will become more prominent. Furthermore, the U.K., despite all the humiliation it has suffered, does not seem to get rid of the need to rely on the U.S. and take a more independent path.
Sir Richard Shirreff wrote in the Daily Mail they “can no longer count on America.” However, as Shirreff wrote again, in the face of this situation, they “must make huge sacrifices.” Tolerating great sacrifices requires strong and convincing leadership. The U.K., in particular, and Europeans, in general, are currently deprived of such leadership. For this reason, there is a very low possibility that the government of a state that has accepted and fawned over the U.S. patronage for many years can afford to take on the audacity of turning its back on the U.S. However, depending on which of Trump’s and China’s moves yields more successful results, the possibility of a significant widening gap between Europe and the U.S. may become a reality. Trump, who pursues a policy of suffocating until a serious reaction or, especially to the point of suffocation, and then loosening the grip, is not on solid ground but hanging by a thin rope. If he gets the setting right, he can make serious gains. If he makes a mistake in measurement and calculation, he will cause serious damage to his country.
