When a dangerously unstable man who threatens to invade other countries is in charge of nuclear weapons it is important for responsible leaders to take action. That makes it hard to see how placating and appeasing Donald Trump can fall under anyone’s definition of wise and far-sighted leadership.
The threats to other countries have been explicit. He has continually said that he would like Canada to become the 51st state and that he will make Greenland part of the United States. The last time I checked, the purpose of NATO was supposed to be to defend the sovereignty of places such as Canada and Greenland. Don’t open threats to annex territory count, when they come with a smile and a knowing wink?
An unstable president
As for stability, where do we start. Should it be the on-off trade wars in which tariffs on British steel were raised one week, lowered a couple of weeks later with a big bold announcement about a wonderful trade deal, then raised overnight for no apparent reason before being lowered again when Trump’s mood changed?
Or perhaps the immense praise showered on his best buddy Elon Musk and the complete contrast of statements about his ability and his character a few days later? Or the emotional outbursts about how many cards Volodymyr Zelenskyy holds, followed by a change of heart as soon as access to minerals was on offer?
When it comes to danger, there is little difficulty in finding examples of the extreme risks that any legally entitled US resident is taking, if they make the mistake of looking like they might be undocumented when a Trump empowered vigilante decides to take against them. There is even danger in being a top US university that refuses to teach students how wonderful the dear leader is and wishes to retain some semblance of freedom of thought and action for students on its campus.
Getting elected against Trump’s wishes also comes with extreme risk. There is certainly danger for any child encountering a polio virus in a state that listens to the extraordinary advice of the man Trump appointed to be in charge of health care for an entire nation.
Trump and Gaza
Above all there is danger if you happen to be a Palestinian. Especially if you survive in the ruins of the Gaza strip. President Trump has the power to call up the Israeli prime minister and order him to turn around war planes that are already in the sky and send them home. He could therefore end the shooting of Gazan citizens in bread queues any time he liked; end the bombing of hospitals that so rightly shocked the world when Iran did it to Israel, but seems to have become routinised in Gaza under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump has chosen not to make that call and to carry on supplying arms and military intelligence to enable the death and destruction to continue. Worse, he has enthusiastically promoted a bizarre video showing the world a vision of how much fun he and his mate Netanyahu will have when they have cleaned out the Palestinians and built their beach front paradise on the ruins of other people’s hopes and aspirations. And the ruins of their land.
How stable is that?
Raising NATO defence spending
Whatever you make of Donald Trump, it is extraordinarily difficult to make a case that he is reliable and consistent and that he can be trusted to stick by his promises. So why would any British prime minister think it a good idea to spend 5% of everything we produce in Britain every year on buying arms from a US president whose political associates don’t remotely share our nation’s values.
It can be a very wise thing to share a deterrent with a reliable ally who can be trusted to stick consistently to treaties and who completely empathises with the culture of your nation. It is extraordinarily foolish to tie our nation’s defence to the coat tails of a country that is run by rulers who directly challenge every decent value that your country has always stood for.
Do we want to be on the same side of history as the Tate brothers? Do we want our defensive capabilities to depend on decisions made by leaders who think Nigel Farage is too soft and liberal or that free speech has been destroyed across Europe by liberals?
Almost all the astonishingly large increase in the UK’s defence budget is going to go on buying US weapons that cannot be fired without their permission. Is Keir Starmer so very convinced that we will always wish to be on the same side in any war as a country that has entered some very dark territory? The way things are developing in the US, there is more prospect of us needing weapons to defend ourselves against the actions of their president than of wanting to use them for shared objectives.
Stand up to fascism
When great evil is at the door you fight it with all your strength. Compromising with it helps to normalise the evil.
Does the British Labour Party under Starmer now feel confidently on side with extreme far-right policies in the States that closely resemble the early stages of German fascism? Is appeasement now the policy of the British Labour Party, or something it remains proud to oppose? Is inviting Trump to tea with the King and purchasing his weapons really the best way to handle the most unstable and unfriendly leader of the US Britain has ever dealt with?
