Yesterday, the prime minister advocated for “calm discussion” with the United States.
This morning, he awakens to President Trump embodying a political Catherine wheel: dynamic, erratic, vibrant, and eliciting responses from all directions.
Every perspective, particularly about the UK and specifically Sir Keir Starmer.
This moment, unprecedented in its significance, presents a substantial strategic dilemma for Sir Keir: What course of action should he pursue now?
He has sought the favour of Donald Trump and structured his foreign policy to be perceived as a reliable and trustworthy partner of the president, who would refrain from publicly criticising him.
Amid an exceptionally challenging start to his administration domestically, Sir Keir’s rapport with the US president was widely regarded as an improbable success story.
Trump publicly expressed much admiration for the prime minister, and Downing Street perceived its relationship with the White House as more robust than that of many European allies, which was advantageous for the UK.
The agreement the government reached over the president’s tariffs last year was promoted as a case study exemplifying the benefits of their established relationship.
However, this is the situation currently—initially Greenland, now the Chagos Islands.
The administration is justifying its agreement to transfer the islands to Mauritius, which was revealed last year, in response to President Trump’s vehement criticism on social media.
Senior officials emphasise that there were compelling justifications for the agreement, noting that it received public endorsement from the United States and Australia—two nations, along with the UK, that are members of the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence partnership.
Ministers have consistently argued that legal disputes over the legitimacy of the UK’s claim to the Chagos Islands jeopardise the operational integrity of the essential military base on Diego Garcia, which is valued by both the UK and the US.
The agreement purportedly guarantees the base’s long-term viability.
Reversal of sentiment
Nearly a year has passed since the president’s perspective on the agreement was first publicly solicited.
I recall being present in the Oval Office of the White House.
The media contingent felt the president would be doubtful regarding it. However, we were mistaken. Upon inquiry, he appeared to be supportive.
Several months later, in May, when the agreement was officially finalised, it received approval from the United States.
However, we now observe this monumental change of perspective, conveyed in a typical barrage of capital letters.
This may not be concluded even within this week.
A decision on a new Chinese embassy in London is forthcoming, a development that Beijing has long sought. At the same time, sceptics have long argued it would constitute a significant error and pose a security threat.
Conversations have revealed significant apprehensions in Washington about the perception that the UK is fostering a close relationship with China.
Could the endorsement of a new embassy, a few weeks before the prime minister’s anticipated journey to China, incite further presidential indignation?
That seems feasible at this moment.
