The flourish of Sir
Starmer producing an invitation letter from the King of England from his pocket
to hand to Trump was probably intended to add a little bit of drama to the
event, but Sir Starmer hasn’t really got what it takes to be dramatic. He’d
probably fail an audition for a bit part with his local Am Dram group, even if
they were desperate for players. In any event, the idea that the letter and its
content hadn’t been agreed through diplomatic channels in advance is for the
birds – a public refusal by Trump of an unexpected invitation would hardly be
helpful as an opening to the discussions. Still, however hammy it appeared, it
ticked an important box when dealing with the narcissism of His Orangeness: it
made him feel important, respected, and uniquely better than all his
predecessors, none of whom was ever invited twice. (Whether Buck House and
Number 10 have fully thought that through is another question; future
presidents only invited once are now likely to feel slighted, especially if
they compare themselves and their contribution to world affairs to the present incumbent.
What one might call ‘State Visit Inflation’ risks devaluing the currency.)
The visit ticked a
second box as well. Since Trump sees everything in transactional terms (usually
presented as ‘what’s in it for the USA?’, but actually more about ‘what’s in it
for me?’), giving him something he wants might make him better disposed to
giving something in return. Or at least, that is presumably Sir Starmer’s
fervent hope.
I wonder, though,
whether it doesn’t rather ignore a third key characteristic of the current
occupant of the White House. It doesn’t take a very detailed look at his
business record to realise that this is a man who has never signed any deal
which he didn’t believe that he could break at any time that it suited him.
There is a long list of law suits involving stiffed suppliers and dissatisfied
customers to testify to that. And it isn’t just his business dealings. This
week, he effectively repudiated
the trade agreement with Canada and Mexico by saying that he will override
its provisions and impose tariffs anyway. His justification was that the
agreement was signed by a previous administration whose leader was a fool. In
an uncharacteristically honest way, he was right on both counts, although he
ignored the fact that the previous administration in this case was the first
Trump administration. But the real fools were the leaders of Mexico and Canada
who either assumed that he would abide by an agreement that he signed, in the
face of all the available evidence to the contrary, or else believed that he
was just a short-term phenomenon about which they didn’t really need to worry
unduly. Sir Starmer should be a great deal more wary than he seems to be about
adding his name to that list of fools.
We don’t know, as
yet, exactly what is in the ‘agreement’ with Zelensky over Ukrainian mineral
rights, and maybe Zelensky has little choice but to sign something at this
stage, but the chances of Trump honouring his side of any bargain should be
assumed to be low, to put it mildly. In his attempt to dissuade Trump from
getting too close to Putin, Zelensky is shouting very loudly that Putin is not
a man whose word can be trusted. He's right, of course, but I wonder if he
understands that Putin’s willingness to renege on any agreement probably only
adds to Trump’s admiration of Putin, rather than sowing doubts. When Trump
calls Putin ‘smart’, it’s a rather condescending statement carrying the
unstated implication, ‘…but not as smart as me’. One of the most dangerous
aspects of Trump’s unshakeable belief in his own deal-making ability is that he
thinks that he can outsmart Putin. From Trump’s perspective, compared to Putin,
Sir Starmer looks like a mere gnat.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment