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
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
The pan-blue camp in the era after the rule of the two Chiangs — former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) — can be roughly divided into two main factions: the “true blue,” who insist on opposing communism to protect the Republic of China (ROC), and the “red-blue,” who completely reject the current government and would rather collude with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control Taiwan. The families of the former group suffered brutally under the hands of communist thugs in China. They know the CPP well and harbor a deep hatred for it — the two