Britain is caught betwixt and between emerging international power lines. It supports Ukraine against Russia and Denmark against America. Whitehall is all for a European defense build-up.
It wants free trade and hates tariff. MAGA, the cult of Trump and the American swing to authoritarianism is extremely distasteful.
Mark Carney’s middle countries bloc appeals, and the UK is likely to sign up to a Carney-proposed trading bloc that includes Canada, the EU, Britain, and the Pacific Rim countries and excludes the US.
But the British “Establishment” can’t bring itself to break with the US. Britain and America’s economies are too intermeshed. So are the military and intelligence establishments. But perhaps most telling of all, the “independent” British nuclear deterrent—the deterrent which allows the UK to lay claim to reduced great power status—is dependent on American made Trident missiles.
Britain may no longer be a member of the European Union but the EU is still the UK’s largest trading partner and geographic realities dictate that Britain’s security is inexorably tied to the continent. In fact, British trade, prosperity and security is tied to both Europe and America and it prospers most when the two sides of the Atlantic work together.
So the Foreign Office mandarins are likely to fall back on the traditional strategic narrative of UK acting as the link between Europe and America; calming troubled waters one day, offering wise counsel another and shifting its limited political weight back and forth to achieve an equilibrium. In short, the UK will “muddle through” with strategic anchors in lands to the East and the West.
It was clear from the recent Munich Security Conference and the NATO defense ministers meeting that an honest broker between Europe and America is becoming increasingly essential. A furious Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told the Munich conference that trilateral talks between the US, Denmark and Greenland are floundering as President Trump continues to demand ownership of Greenland.
Meanwhile, in Brussels, US Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby told NATO defense ministers that Europe was no longer a defense priority and that “the US would be reducing its capabilities in Europe to a more limited and focused presence” in order to move troops to the Indo-Pacific region.
Back in Munich, Secretary of State Marco Rubio tried to unruffle European feathers and failed in the attempt. His 30-minute speech was a pleasant change from J.D Vance’s anti-European rant last year. He started off well by focusing on “the deepest bonds that nations could share.”
But Rubio then went on to sound the siren call of Christian nationalists. “Mass migration,” he warned, threatens the cohesion of our societies; the continuity of our culture and the future of our people.”
Rubio then he went on to say that the free trade favoured by Europe has ruined American industry; international institutions have undermined US sovereignty and a “climate cult” has imposed energy policies that are “impoverishing our people.”
Rubio added that the US “had no interest in being the polite and orderly caretakers of the West’s decline.” And then came the stinger. He invited Europe to work with American for “Western dominance.” Not the traditional call for the protection of democracy, but a call for American-led global control alongside the strongman values of Donald Trump.
Germany Chancellor Friedrich Merz was not buying Rubio’s package. He told the conference: “The leadership claim of the US is being challenged. It is perhaps already lost.”
In a clear rebuke to Trumpian values, Merz added: “Freedom of speech ends here with us when that speech is turned against human dignity and the constitution. And we don’t believe in tariffs and protectionism but in free trade and we stand by climate agreements, the World Health Organisation and the rule of law.”
Also walking through the Munich corridors were some of America’s leading Democrats. The message of California Governor Gavin Newsom and Congresswoman Alexandria Gavin was clear: Be patient. Tump will be out of office in three years and we will be back. So, be patient, we will turn back the clock and return the global order to status quo ante.
But Europe is sceptical. They fear that Trump has affected a sea change from which it would be difficult to return. The conference organixers wrote: “The world has entered a period of wrecking ball politics….As a result, more than 80 years after construction began, the US-led post-1945 international order is now under destruction.
To the British diplomats at the conference the transatlantic rift creats both opportunities and difficulties for in-between Britain. As one mandarin told the BBC: “The key is to have a really strong grasp of the national interest and our instruments of power and influence. This requires a much more competitive approach that has not always felt natural to Britain which has pursued its diplomacy in elegant consensus-focused and invisible ways.”
In short, muddle through with a bit more effort.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
cim
Iain Donaldson
Jennie
Simon
Geoff Reid
11 Comments
“But Rubio then went on to sound the siren call of Christian nationalists”…
Seeing as you mentioned Mette Frederiksen who described immigration as “the greatest internal threat to the Nordic region”
Who could blame her looking at some of the EU capitals.
What’s the difference ? ….
Globalization has hollowed out post industrial communities across the West and Lutnick was absolutely correct “why on earth would Europe commit to net zero when they don’t produce a battery”.. We’ve outsourced our emissions for an illusionary goal that’s crippling UK industry. The status quo has got to where we are now – that seems lost on some progressives.
We’ve outsourced our emissions for an illusionary goal that’s crippling UK industry”
The goal of net zero is not illusionary: it is essential. The alternative is huge damage to our environment and the way we live. And you are overlooking (either deliberately or through ignorance I don’t know) the carbon border adjustment mechanism which should help level the playing field for UK industry.
One bit of good news is that China seems to have peaked on CO2 emissions.
UK is responsible for less than 2% of global emissions. Like most things in the EU let’s see how it works in practice. China is way off it’s 2030 target and continues to bring fossil fuel power plants online. Back in the real world Tristan energy prices are crippling UK industry as our costs soar. People going to the local corner shop to put £10 on their electric key couldn’t give a stuff about global emissions they want to know how they are going to sfford heat their homes .
@Craig: The UK Is less than 1% of the World’s population (about 0.84%) so it’s hardly news that we are responsible for less than 2% of the World’s emissions!
You seem to be suggesting that we should not worry about cutting our emissions because (unsurprisingly) the 99% of the World’s population who don’t live in the UK produce more emissions in total than the <1% who do. What do you think would happen if every country in the World followed that logic?
Trouble is Simon the biggest polluters are not following that logic -: and in the meantime our industries are having to endure some of the most expensive energy prices in the world.
It’s impoverishing those near the bottom earning a living and getting a salary that most who post on here could envisage or survive on.
I wrote this blog. I took three days to research and write it. I wrote an article on the difficulties of developing a British foreign policy when are two closest allies are at loggerheads. That is an important topic which, I believer is worthy of discussion and comment. Please discuss. The issues around climate change are also an important problem, but they are, at best, tangental to the subject of this blog.
Considering the parable of the Good Samaritan amongst many other pieces of evidence “Christian nationalist” is surely an oxymoron … how about “nationalists pretending to be Christians” or even “nationalists who erroneously believe they are Christians”.
@Richard
The term ‘Christian nationalist’ does not mean a nationalist in any conventional sense – it means Christians who seek to promote the values and beliefs of Christianity within the public sphere within their country. I suspect the phrase was really coined by those who really oppose their agenda and believe their devotion to promoting the beliefs of their religion is like a form of nationalism.
Anyway, to come back to Tom’s article, I agree that the UK finds itself in a tricky position in terms of how to position itself in global affairs. Maybe, rather than having to choose between the EU or the USA, it should be seeking to develop the role of the commonwealth as a body that seeks to work together to maximise influence in the world? This would give us an alternative that would include India, with over 1 billion people.
I think Mark Carney of Canada has brought up an excellent idea of close cooperation of all middle powers. It has positive long term benefits in bringing together resources and cultures of wide diversity. I would add that we include African countries, even though their help would take longer to provide what we need. However, the fact that South Africa has recently said it is willing to do what it thinks is right and ignore Trump; that surely is a good reason to include them. This would also help African countries who have long started to be influenced too much by China, who are still intent on gaining African support through the help they are giving those countries. We should be part of Mark Carney’s project.
Craig has been looking at some of the EU capitals. Which? And what did he see there? Rome? Ljubljana? Lisbon? Oslo? Paris?
This isn’t meant as an endorsement of Trump, but for a while those in the US who have wondered why they are paying for EU security long past the time when it has been needed do have a point.
I’ve posted some figures on here before which are that the EU has a GDP nearly ten times larger that of Russia and a population some three times the size.
Of course we in the UK should do our share to support the EU but we needn’t do more than our share. We are meant to be increasing our defence spending to 3.5% of GDP. For years Germany fell short of its NATO obligation to spend 2% of its GDP on defence. It’s almost there now according to Google.
But are they serious about going to 3% or 3.5%?