Former United Kingdom prime minister Sir Winston Churchill once said, tongue-in-cheek, “I have often had to eat my words, and I must confess that I have always found it a wholesome diet.”
However, his successor Sir Keir Starmer must have choked when his ministers’ past criticisms of the US president, Donald Trump, recently surfaced. Trump is notoriously thin-skinned and rarely forgives a slight. Although Starmer, a canny lawyer, has always watched his language, the same cannot be said of his colleagues, some of whom, to public derision, are now desperately trying to row back on their earlier remarks.
Whereas the current deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, in 2020, called Trump a “buffoon” who had “no place in the White House”; the attorney general, Lord (Richard) Hermer, described him the same year as the “most brazen liar” in political history.
Not to be outdone, the energy secretary, Ed Miliband (a former Labour Party leader), said Trump was a “racist, misogynistic, self-confessed groper”, while the health secretary, Wes Streeting, called him an “odious, sad, little man”.
However, it is the Damascene conversions of two members of Starmer’s foreign office team who have to deal directly with Trump that have attracted the greatest contempt.
In 2018, the current foreign secretary, David Lammy (then a backbench member of Parliament), told Time magazine that Trump was “a woman-hating, neo-Nazi sympathizing sociopath”. He was also a “profound threat to the international order that has been the foundation of Western progress for so long”.
As if this was not bad enough, the following year, Lammy wrote on Twitter (now X) that Trump was “no friend of Britain” and “not fit to hold public office”. As then-prime minister Theresa May had invited Trump to make an official visit to the United Kingdom, Lammy declared that he was not worthy of “a banquet with the queen”, and that May was “selling out the UK to a serial liar and a cheat”.
Not surprisingly, many people wondered how Lammy could ever work with Trump (and there was surprise that Starmer appointed him in the first place, given the so-called “special relationship”). One Trump ally, Ezra A Cohen, a former undersecretary of state, mischievously compounded his embarrassment. He said he would “look forward to David Lammy’s apology to the American people who overwhelmingly chose President Trump as our leader”.
Clutching at straws, Lammy said it would be a “struggle to find any politician who didn’t have things to say about Donald Trump back in the day”. He recalled, however, that he and Starmer had dined with Trump in New York City in September and that Trump had been “very, very friendly” and “very warm”. As Trump offered him a second helping of chicken, this showed how good their relationship really was, which was cringeworthy.
However difficult, Starmer must stick to his principles and put the national interest first, even if it means alienating Trump and seeking reliable partners elsewhere
Even more pathetic was Lord (Peter) Mandelson, a former trade secretary, whom Starmer nominated as the UK’s ambassador to the US (a nomination that Trump, under the Vienna Convention, was entitled to reject). Not only is the ambassadorship the UK’s top diplomatic posting, overseeing 800 British staff and with a vast official residence provided, but the incumbent speaks for the prime minister in Washington. Unsurprisingly, Mandelson, who had been out of office for many years and was determined to stay relevant, was desperate to secure the role.
However, the problem was that, in 2019, he branded Trump as “reckless and a danger to the world”, a “bully”, and “little short of a white nationalist and racist”, and his words returned to haunt him.
Indeed, Trump’s co-campaign manager, Chris LaCivita, wrote on X that Mandelson was “an absolute moron” and “should stay home”.
Afraid of losing the prize, Mandelson performed a dramatic volte-face, going far further than Lammy. On Jan 29, he told Fox News that he considered “my remarks about President Trump as ill-judged and wrong”, and that he now had “fresh respect” for him. Although Trump has now allowed him to assume the ambassadorship, The Independent reported that he “will be kept on a short leash” (partly because of his past links with China).
The British Labour Party has always been hostile to Trump’s Republican Party, although its leading lights have never previously been so publicly abusive about a Republican leader.
During the 2024 presidential campaign, the Labour Party sent nearly 100 members to the US to campaign for Trump’s rival, Kamala Harris. Its head of operations, Sofia Patel, even told them, “We will sort out your housing in the USA.”
Not surprisingly, Trump was furious, and his campaign complained to the Federal Election Commission in Washington, demanding an urgent investigation into “blatant foreign interference”. Taken aback, and realizing Trump might win, Starmer tried to mitigate the damage. He said his party members were campaigning for Harris “in their spare time” and staying with other volunteers, although this will not have pacified Trump.
Once Trump took office on Jan 20, Starmer wasted no time in wooing him. His spokesman said, “The UK and the US have a historic and special relationship, and the US is an indispensable ally. We look forward to working with President Trump and his administration in the years ahead.”
It remains to be seen how forgiving Trump will be, although he has made some positive noises. On Jan 25, he said Starmer had done a “very good job thus far”, prompting Starmer to say they had “established a good relationship”. If, however, Starmer does not do as Trump expects, things could change rapidly, and the omens are less than propitious.
Although it appears that Trump may exclude the UK from his tariff blitz, he has the European Union (EU) squarely in his sights (he said he would hit it “pretty soon”). Whereas the trade situation with the EU was “an atrocity”, he said the UK was only “out of line”. If a trade war erupts, Trump will expect Britain to back the US over the EU (which accounts for approximately 45 percent of British trade, compared to less than 20 percent with the US). As Starmer wants closer ties with Brussels, he will not find it easy to fence-sit.
During his election campaign, Trump made clear that he wanted a deal to end the Ukraine conflict, and did not intend to waste any more public money on a lost cause. In contrast, Starmer, who wants to keep the conflict going, signed a “landmark” 100-year pact with Ukraine on Jan 17 (the UK has already given Kyiv 12.8 billion pounds ($15.85 billion) and is committed to future annual contributions of 3 billion pounds, notwithstanding its bloated national debt of 2.8 trillion pounds. As Trump and Starmer have diametrically opposed policies, the peacemaker may be less than happy with what he sees as the warmonger’s antics.
Like other European leaders, Starmer has declared his opposition to Trump’s plan to remove the Palestinians from their homeland in Gaza and turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East”. He said the Palestinians “must be allowed home”, and that “we should be with them in that rebuild on the way to a two-state solution”. As Trump finds himself increasingly isolated, he will be looking for supporters, but he will not find one on Downing Street, which may irk him.
As a former human rights lawyer and chief prosecutor, Starmer believes in the rule of law. He must have been appalled by Trump’s decision on Feb 6 to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), to punish its personnel for prosecuting Israeli leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He told Parliament that, “We support the independence of the ICC,” and the UK was one of the 79 countries that, within 24 hours, condemned Trump’s sanctions order. As the ICC’s prosecutor is the British barrister, Karim A Khan KC, a prime Trump target, Starmer is now duty-bound to spring to his defense, which will further annoy Trump.
Although Starmer agreed last year to hand the Chagos Islands (an Indian Ocean archipelago) over to Mauritius (as required by international law), all the signs are that Trump will try to scupper the plan. The US fears its British-leased base on Diego Garcia (one of the islands) could be spied upon by China. Very soon, therefore, Starmer may have to decide whether to proceed as planned, or to revoke the agreement and keep Trump happy (but alienate Mauritius). It appears that Starmer will decide to honor the UK’s legal obligations, meaning another confrontation is looming.
As Starmer knows, his ministers have not really changed their views about Trump, and nobody is fooled by their somersaults. Although hypocrisy can sometimes have short-term benefits, it cannot forever sustain a foreign policy. It is Starmer’s misfortune that he must now find ways of dealing with Trump, whose stances can change at the drop of a hat. He is fortunate that Trump has a soft spot for Britain (his mother was Scottish), and admires its history, monarchy and pageantry. However, if he shows too much independence and does not bend the knee, Trump will show him no mercy. In 2020, for example, when his predecessor, Boris Johnson, stepped out of line by allowing Huawei access to the UK’s technology market, Trump came down on him like a ton of bricks.
Although Starmer must have known it would be difficult dealing with Trump, he cannot have anticipated the scale of the task. However, he must have realized by now that if his government is to remain true to itself, it cannot always compromise with Trumpland. His perspectives, like his values, are incompatible with Trump’s, and it is impossible to paper over the cracks completely. When push comes to shove, the US always goes its own way, and expects the UK to support it, without reciprocating. For example, amid all the talk of a “special relationship”, it could not even give Britain a free trade agreement when it needed it most, after quitting the EU in 2020.
However difficult, Starmer must stick to his principles and put the national interest first, even if it means alienating Trump and seeking reliable partners elsewhere.
The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
