Starmer must choose between ‘special relationship’ and Europe after Greenland tariffs

wattTwo weeks can make a difference. After forced transfer Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife from their Caracas palace to new york jailgentlemen Keir Starmer His ministers have devised a vague approach that avoids condemning America’s blatant violations of international norms and leaves them staunchly neutral. No tears will be shed for Mr. Madurothat’s the formula, but the legal right and wrong is decided by the United States.

The UK, and the Prime Minister himself, invests too much in ensuring security. Precious “special relationship” Upset by something that happened across the Atlantic, even though it was embarrassing. Donald Trump becomes more insistent Claims to take over Greenland In contrast, the problem from Denmark seems relatively easy to deal with. It’s up to the Danes and Greenlanders to decide what, if anything, should change.

The assumption seemed to be that such an obvious statement would not anger Washington and that such a change, if it occurred, would take a long time to materialize. This will involve negotiations regarding the lease new military base Maybe; more funding from Denmark and the EU for Greenland’s defense; then, if the objectionable subject of purchases is still on the table, well, that would be a bad thing.

It’s just that Trump’s pace is different. He doesn’t like Europe’s reaction and threatens to resort to his favorite measures tariff arms. Denmark and those European countries that sided with Greenland will Additional trade duties are payableAs long as they refuse to sell, they keep going up like traffic fines. The UK is not immune. For Sir Keir, Greenland suddenly ceases to be a simple problem and confronts him with the worst of several bad worlds.

Sir Keir has gone to great lengths to promote a “special relationship” on a political and personal level – but therein lies the rub. He courted the second president in seemingly submissive ways, starting with a special personal invitation for an “unprecedented” second state visit. As long as those investments pay off, there’s a case to be made, so be it – and for a while it seemed they did.

Britain avoided Trump’s worst trade tariffs and struck a deal that was – at least in the first phase – more favorable than the EU’s. Arguably, one of them is Brexit. Britain has also been less precise than other European countries in the timing and magnitude of increases in defense spending, or so it seems.

The administration has also done its best to compensate for its ambivalence toward Venezuela by stepping up action on other fronts. British troops back US in seizing Russian-flagged oil tanker in the Northeast Atlantic, and suggested that more such support might follow; they have also recently joined US raids ISIS base in Syria. everything seems fair Royal visit commemorates 250th anniversary of US independenceperhaps coinciding with the FIFA World Cup.

Now, with Greenland quickly becoming a transatlantic standoff, Britain’s cozying up to Trump and its cautious approach to its actions in Venezuela are unnecessary at best and disingenuous at worst. It is tempting to think that Sir Keir might have done better, forgoing sycophancy and adulation, denouncing military action against a sovereign state as illegal and maintaining a measure of national dignity.

But even this underestimates the pain of Britain’s current predicament. Leaving the EU has brought about a shift towards closer alignment with the US, particularly in the areas of defense and security, which are currently the most important areas in the US challenge to the Europeans over Greenland – a challenge in which the UK can only side with the Europeans. And at the same time Sir Keir says he wants closer ties with EU – Missing is closer Join customs union Or reverse Brexit – which may take a long time to achieve and re-emerge partisan and national divisions, even though the US is further along both in fact and in philosophy.

Thanks to the fatal combination of Trump’s presidency and Brexit, Britain finds itself more hopelessly mired in the mid-Atlantic than many doomsayers predicted, with no apparent remedy at hand. Relief, or at least respite, is likely to come from political change in the United States—either from a president reeling from this fall’s midterm elections or from having his tariffs struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Alternatively, the government could consider moving decisively towards establishing a formal European Defense Union – the strategic autonomy the European Union has long advocated. French President Emmanuel Macron. But it would raise serious questions about the UK’s nuclear deterrent, issues for which the UK is not yet ready.

Like it or not, Trump’s claims to Greenland raise questions NATO’s future itself. Given that post-Brexit risks lie somewhere in the middle, this cannot but prompt some particularly urgent reflection in the UK. More importantly, given the speed at which things are moving, speed and robustness – not exactly this administration’s significant strengths – will be crucial.