On-going alterations in the Special Relationship – bound for strategic divergence?

The Labour party’s return to power in July 2024 was accompanied with a lot of uncertainty, with Keir Starmer and his team adopting a deliberately ambiguous campaign strategy to present itself as the candidate of common sense and pragmatism in contrast to the instability that characterized the final years of Conservative rule. This extended to foreign policy, where the new government was faced with the challenge of redefining and according to many, revitalizing the UK’s stagnating global position. The relationship with the US, as is usually the case, was always going to be a decisive element, especially given the Trump factor which at the time of the election was still just a possibility.

Pragmatic and realist?

In the immediate aftermath of Trump’s return, Keir Starmer’s approach was as logical as it was predictable. The British Prime Minister embraced the new President, visited Washington, reinforced his unwavering commitment to upholding the Special Relationship whilst being sure to remind of the UK’s role in upholding the values around which the alliance was first established. Evidently, this period of diplomatic amiability was only the starting point of a complicated path where the foreign policy visions and priorities of the two leaders would undoubtedly collide. Even though both had arrived with the feeling that the foreign policy positions of their countries had been undermined, the path to ‘recovery’ was always going to differ. Donald Trump is deeply displeased with the state of the ‘Western’ alliance and particularly NATO, with the President repeatedly singling out the disproportionate contribution of the US and its European allies to the organization. For many months, Trump had warned that the transatlantic alliance in its traditional form would soon be a thing of the past.

Elsewhere, Labour’s vision for European (or ‘Western’, as some still ambiguously say) security was radically different. The UK’s new leadership, perhaps envisioning the void to be left by the American administration, reiterated its commitment to upholding ‘progressive’ values, albeit without adopting radical measures (an approach known as progressive realism). Within this progressive thinking is undoubtedly the country’s role in European security, and specifically the re-definition or upgrading of its strategic relationship with the EU. Whereas the new UK government was swift to categorize countries like Russia as major threats to UK national security, the Trump Administration’s rapprochement with the Kremlin unsettled many and highlighted the opportunity for the UK to re-assert itself as one of the remaining proponents of the “rules-based order”.

Following the public argument between President Trump and President Zelensky and the subsequent unwillingness of the US to engage in multilateral negotiation formats, the UK demonstrated considerable initiative in uniting European allies over supporting Ukrainian territorial integrity and countering Russia. Both through multiple security forums held in London and Paris and through enhanced engagement with Kiev, Starmer’s team demonstrated that it can and is willing to operate in autonomy and independently from Washington. This was an important development and confirmed that the Labour government was in fact serious about recovering some of the diplomatic authority the UK had lost in recent years.

Tariffs – the feared becoming the reality

However, Donald Trump’s announcement of an extensive package of tariffs to be applied to imports coming to the US presents the Trump-Starmer relationship with an entirely different kind of challenge. Although the sides have appeared determined to protect the relationship, with Trump making a point of decoupling the UK from the broader ‘Europe’ term, both leaders have made it clear in their statements that the significance of these tariffs is incontestable and powerful enough to transform the status-quo. Keir Starmer labelled the decision as the “end of the world as we know it”, a defining statement directly implying that the international trade system has entered a new era. Keir Starmer elaborated by stating that the new format represents one of “deals and alliances” whereas the now previous arrangement was shaped exclusively by “rules”. This is a major statement, essentially acknowledging that its closest ally no longer believes in the very system the UK has tried so hard to re-integrate itself into.

The nature of the UK’s response has the potential to serve as a major turning point. Initially, there was internal rejoice in Downing Street at the fact that the UK avoided the harsher tariffs that were imposed on EU and Chinese goods. This continued right until the collapse of the global stock markets, signalling that perhaps the scale of the global economic impact had initially been underestimated. Such disruption to traditional trading patterns, to be exacerbated by the already intensifying trade war between the US and China and the EU weighing up major retaliatory measures, places London in an uncomfortable position. More so, this Labour government, occasionally criticized domestically for lacking a clear ideological foundation, has regularly positioned itself on the side of the working people. Hence, considering that in 2024 alone the UK exported £60 billion worth of goods to the United States, the initially welcomed 10% tariffs will weaken an already struggling British economy. The government was swift to provide a 400-page long list of US goods, the imposition of tariffs on which will be assessed. This list represents 27% of all the UK’s imports from the US.

Geopolitical implications

This situation reflects the intensity of a deeper geopolitical shift within the international system, with profound implications for both America’s bilateral and multilateral relations. First, these tariffs will show to the Trump administration just how far certain countries are willing to go in challenging the US. Washington has taken the initiative by taking bold decisions that have unsettled its traditional allies. So far, the UK has refrained from any ‘knee-jerk’ responses whereas EU members are, once again, showing differences in opinion. Second, this episode serves as another test for the EU and regional solidarity more broadly. Many pledges and statements highlighting the need for a decisive and independent Europe ‘post-Trump’ cannot be limited to simply defence spending initiatives – the leadership in Brussels must make a bold and conclusive choice between pursuing its own independent path or continuing to play second fiddle to Washington. Hence, the response that is ultimately pursued in Brussels and London is an important litmus test.

Donald Trump’s intense efforts to resolve major on-going international conflicts appears to be accelerating the implementation of his underlying foreign policy objectives, designed for this second term. This originates from a feeling that America’s allies ‘owe’ the US (both literally and metaphorically) – Trump argues that for far too long, Washington’s military and financial power has been over-relied upon, damaging the American economy and its people. This translates to geopolitics, with the American administration adamant that leadership of military and security alliances over the past few decades has turned out to be a ‘net negative’ for American interests. Hence, changes had to be made on the ‘systemic level’, a process President Trump wasted no time in initiating. The US no longer wishes to engage in alliances and operate through institutions – it wishes to confront its challenges directly and independently to ensure that both the solution and the path towards it maximize the interests the Trump administration has defined as core.

The moment of truth?

In recent days, Keir Starmer’s rhetoric has continued to demonstrate the challenging reality facing the UK government vis-à-vis the management of the special relationship. On the one hand, Starmer is making it extremely clear that the UK will not abandon or deviate from its traditional foreign policy approach – one of adherence to progressive values shaped by international law, the fostering of traditional alliances and the countering of Russian and Chinese actions. Nevertheless, Starmer has insisted on maintaining composure and pragmatism when directly speaking of the situation. He has repeatedly stated that “ripping up arrangements” is not in the UK’s interest, highlighted further by his consistent praising of the ‘rules-based order’ as something that helped keep peace for many decades. This ‘cool-headed’ approach appears set to remain for the time-being, with Starmer mindful of the dangers of potential escalation with the US. Instead, the Prime Minister appears determined to exhaust all negotiation opportunities and is keen to negotiate a deal that would see tariffs either reversed or modified to minimise impact on British businesses.

The challenge of achieving a much desired but perhaps overly optimistic balance of protecting the country’s national interest whilst not jeopardizing relations with his American counterpart is self-evident. The interests of the sides are, in Starmer’s words, “inextricably intertwined”, which is why achieving the mentioned balance will require important trade-offs that will inevitably upset some voters and frustrate some businesses. The UK, for example, remains highly dependent on the US for intelligence sharing, with Keir Starmer refraining from making any comments after President Trump temporarily suspended intelligence sharing with Ukraine. As things stand, and in the grand scheme of things, the Labour government simply cannot afford to go at it alone, a consequence of its decade long relationship with the US.

Such realities underline that individual relations between leaders remain paramount to determining the unfolding of inter-state relations. Hence, this period of US-UK relations, and especially the path the UK ultimately pursues, will undoubtedly be determined by Keir Starmer’s ability to continue ‘disagreeing agreeably’ for the duration of the Trump presidency.