Can I have been the
only one watching the news last night when Charlie Windsor started talking
about how ‘we’ defeated tyranny in the past and needed to stand up to it today
who initially wondered whether he was talking about Trump rather than to Trump
about Putin? Maybe it was one of those cleverly-crafted diplomatic criticisms
which seem to be about one thing, but are actually about something else. If it
was, such subtlety would have completely gone over the head of the target. Maybe
one day we’ll find out who wrote Trump’s speech in response – it certainly wasn’t
Trump himself – which, somewhat amazingly, he managed to read out without
digressing into one of his lengthy rants about stolen elections, losers and
morons.
One of the things
that has become clear from the visit is that the much-lauded trade
agreement allegedly reached back in May hasn’t really been agreed at all.
The detail is still under discussion, with the US president free to renege on anything
(such as elimination of tariffs on steel) if he feels like he may have given
too much away. And from what we have seen of the man so far, even if he had
agreed it, there’s no certainty that he wouldn’t change his mind on elements of
it at any time – a trade agreement with Trump is an essentially worthless
document. That knowledge won’t be enough to stop Starmer giving way even
further as and when necessary.
The remaining
potential flashpoint is this afternoon’s joint press conference where the
probability that Trump will go off at a tangent remains high, particularly if
he’s asked a question that he takes a dislike to. In theory, Starmer is the
host; in practice, he’s already banned
one broadcaster (the Australian broadcaster ABC) whose Americas editor upset Trump
earlier this week by asking some difficult questions about conflicts of
interest with Trump’s personal enrichment schemes business dealings. The
reason given was some mysterious ‘logistical’ problems, an excuse also used for
banning Al Jazeera, in whose case the weather was also mentioned as a factor. How
the weather only affects outlets not necessarily friendly to Trump is a
question which we probably are not supposed to ask. The underlying point is
that a press conference, on UK soil, hosted by the UK’s Prime Minister, is
excluding legitimate journalists at the behest of a man who thinks a free press
is such a bad thing that he’s suing
one US newspaper for having dared to support his opponent in last year’s
election.
At what point does ‘mere’
elected autocracy become the sort of tyranny about which the king of England probably
wasn’t talking after all? When attempts are made to silence a free press? When
broadcasters are bullied into axing programmes or sacking presenters? When
people are disappeared from the streets by masked government agents? When law
enforcement is deployed to pursue and prosecute political opponents? When
universities and museums are told what they may or may not teach or display?
When law firms are compelled to donate their services for free to causes chosen
by the president as a condition of being allowed to continue operating? When
companies are compelled to give a share of their profits – or even their share
capital – to the government in exchange for export licences? Tyranny doesn’t
always arrive in a single giant leap; sometimes it comes in a succession of
small steps, making it difficult to draw a line between tyranny and non-tyranny.
Are the Starmers of this world looking on with fear as they comply – or with
envy? I’m not entirely sure that I want to know the answer to that one.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment