Britain On The Diplomatic Tightrope

Illustration by Will Allen/Europinion

Starmer’s trip to Washington was touted during the build up as the most important Anglo-American meeting since 1945. Perhaps now more than ever, Britain finds itself geopolitically torn, walking a diplomatic tightrope between a scrambling Europe and a United States seemingly desperate to unhook itself from military commitments to the Old Continent. 

Prior to Trump’s first electoral win in 2016, the notion of NATO’s very existence being called into question would have had you laughed out of any diplomat’s office. If anything, Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea served as a glaring reminder to leaders on both sides of the Atlantic of its continued relevance. Yet now, the leader (or ‘king’) of the Free World openly floats the idea of America’s withdrawal from Europe, seen most acutely in its effective abandonment of Ukraine. 

Despite this dramatic twist in established American foreign policy, millions of voters from Pensacola to Pittsburgh appear to be welcoming the change, enamoured by the concept of ‘America First’ and classic Trumpian jibes at “dictator” Zelensky. Debates on which sort of foreign policy would best keep Americans safe aside, it seems that the electorate’s disenchantment with the US’s role as the world’s policeman is here to stay. Images of grinding wars in Iraq and Afghanistan having long been burned into the consciousness of 21st-century Americans.  

Whatever the reason, Europe is waking up to a new reality - or perhaps an old one. A reset in Euro-American relations might see a return to the protectionist policies of the 1930s, a glimpse of which can be discerned in Washington’s plans to impose 25% tariffs on the European Union. Meanwhile, Trump’s personal leadership style and fondness for territorial acquisition and a strongman image could take us back to pre-1914 relations, with both sides viewing the other more as rivals than allies. 

The prospect of American retreatism becoming ingrained in the American psyche and outlasting Trump has disturbed Europeans enough to begin considering the impossible. Macron’s once-mocked vision of an ‘army of Europe’ now seems decidedly less outlandish, and incoming German chancellor Merz’s calls for European “independence” from Washington were not met with waves of consternation. Whilst France, traditionally a wild card within NATO, may be expected to make such remarks, Merz’s statement represents a complete reversal of Germany’s post-reunification foreign policy. 

As such, Britain is now caught between two very different visions, both for European security and Transatlantic relations. Sir Keir Starmer’s insistence  that the US retains its security guarantees to Kyiv, and his comments that British troops could be sent to Ukraine, place the UK in the European camp. Yet, the Prime Minister’s initial reluctance to offer similar military support to Denmark in the face of US interests in Greenland, leaves Britain out of step with key allies, such as France.  

During its days as an EU member state, the UK occupied the enviable position of go-between and mediator within the realms of EU-US trade and defence policies. Being part of such an enormous trading bloc also allowed Britain some much-needed leeway in its US relations, arguably keeping the so-called ‘Special Relationship’ alive for as long as it did. Outside of the EU and far less valuable to Trump’s America, Britain now finds itself in a far more unfavourable position, trapped between two great powers. 

Whilst many argue that Europe is too fragmented to form a singular cohesive foreign policy, the Ukrainian crisis, and America’s disinterest in solving it, may well serve as the final catalyst for this. Whatever the outcome, the fact remains that post-Brexit Britain does not possess the influence to act as a unilateral power as it once did at the empire’s apex. Outside the EU, it also lacks a solid multilateral foundation from which to project its power, instead relying on European crisis talks held out of necessity rather than goodwill. With this in mind, Sir Keir Starmer’s White House trip appears to have gone about as well as could have been expected.  

Whilst hardly an ideal geopolitical situation for a British leader to inherit, the Prime Minister would do well to look to historical parallels. England under the reign of Queen Elizabeth I was forced to court the superpowers of France and Spain whilst also seeking to achieve its own foreign policy objectives in supporting the independence of the Protestant Dutch. Here, 16th-century England had no choice but to accept it no longer held the superpower status that it had once enjoyed under the Angevins. It made do, and better days eventually came. Starmer may well find himself facing similar challenges; being forced to court both Europe and America whilst also building friendly coalitions which will last the schism. There is certainly potential for Britain to move towards deeper ties with similarly positioned Canada, as well as Australia and New Zealand, should ‘CANZUK’ ever take off. 

Whilst the outcome and repercussions of the Ukraine-Russia War are as yet unknown, the signs that the world is entering a new era of international relations are crystal clear. In this new world, Britain cannot rely on a United States which sides with Russia to vote against a UN resolution calling for a “comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine”. Meanwhile, it also cannot fully trust its European neighbours to share similar foreign policy objectives, when these may involve replacing NATO with an – potentially  French-dominated – EU army. Either way, the UK will need to accept that the post-1945 status quo is over and begin adopting a far more active and agile international presence if it is to survive this new era of diplomatic and geopolitical uncertainty.