Grenville Cross says UK’s next prime minister must demonstrate to Trump and everybody else that he will be his own man and prioritize British interests

Although Andy Burnham has yet to succeed Sir Keir Starmer as the British prime minister, the United States is already interfering in his planning. On July 4, The Independent, quoting informed sources, reported that US President Donald Trump’s team, which believed it would be a “mistake” for Burnham to appoint Ed Miliband, currently the energy secretary, as the new chancellor of the exchequer, had privately made its views known to its British counterparts and senior Labour Party figures.

By way of background, Miliband’s opposition to North Sea oil drilling (“climate vandalism”) has infuriated an administration that believes in “drill, baby, drill”, and it wants to marginalize him.

Until recently, the idea that Washington would seek to influence a British prime minister’s choice of ministers would have been unthinkable. It speaks volumes about how the US views the United Kingdom since its departure from the European Union in 2020. No longer Washington’s representative in Brussels, the UK has become just another country expected to dance to its tune.

It remains to be seen if Burnham will pay heed, but the US intervention is extraordinary. It betokens an utter lack of respect by the senior partner for the junior partner in the US-UK alliance, which bodes well for neither.  

While often calling the UK its “ally”, the US increasingly treats it as a vassal state. Although Starmer sought to salvage some dignity from the situation, he got nowhere. Indeed, Trump has done little to conceal his contempt, describing Starmer as a “loser” and “no Winston Churchill”. Although Starmer tried to ingratiate himself with Trump by arranging an unprecedented second state visit to the UK for him in September, Trump told Sky News in April that the so-called special relationship between the countries was in a “sad state”.

ALSO READ: Burnham emerges as sole candidate for Britain's Labour leadership

Whereas Starmer tried to put a brave face on things, claiming the special relationship was “far bigger than any individual issue”, nobody was fooled. Starmer was delusional, and the special relationship exists only on Washington’s terms. If the UK is not compliant, it counts for nothing.

When, for example, Starmer refused to join the US in its illegal war on Iran, Trump was incensed, calling the UK (and other NATO allies) “cowards”. He said he had given the UK “a good trade deal, better than I had to, which can always be changed”. In other words, if I scratch your back, I expect you to scratch mine, and woe betide you if you do not. It has even been reported that Trump is seeking to punish Britain by supporting Argentina’s claims to the British-controlled Falkland Islands in the Atlantic, over which a war was fought in 1982 (with then US-president Ronald Reagan backing the UK).

At one time, the US and UK leaders were invariably publicly respectful of one another, whatever their private disagreements. The idea, for example, that John F Kennedy would diss Harold Macmillan, or that Richard Nixon would malign Edward Heath, or that Ronald Reagan would diminish Margaret Thatcher, was unthinkable.

When disagreements arose, as they inevitably did, every effort was made to resolve them behind closed doors rather than in front of the world’s media. Public abuse of fellow leaders was taboo.

When, for example, the US committed troops to the Vietnam War, then-US president Lyndon Johnson was frustrated that the UK, his country’s closest ally, refused to deploy its own combat troops (unlike, for example, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea). However, he did not condemn the UK, accuse it of cowardice, or threaten it in any way. Rather, when then-prime minister Harold Wilson offered to help in other ways. Johnson replied laconically that if Wilson had “any men to spare, I would be glad to have them”.

The Trump administration has made little secret of its determination to intervene in the UK’s domestic politics (and those of the European Union). The Royal United Services Institute has called its policy “a serious threat of foreign interference by a traditional ally, one which has the potential to eclipse the Russian threat in scale and effectiveness” (Feb 26). It also pointed out that Washington’s “ideological aims are closely linked to the commercial interests of powerful US technology firms, who have framed UK and European online regulation as censorship”.

ALSO READ: Brexit anniversary highlights need for visionary leadership in UK

This is why, for example, the US has sought to delegitimize the UK’s Online Safety Act, which is aimed at preventing children from accessing potentially harmful material online. The act requires online platforms and pornographic websites, including those in the US, to implement mandatory age verification and proactive content moderation. However, the US vice-president, JD Vance, does not want American tech companies to be subject to the act, and he has branded it as extreme censorship and an attack on free speech.

He undoubtedly imagines that if the act is sufficiently demonized, the British government will have no choice but to review its operations and scrap it.

The US, moreover, is also now increasingly seeking to dictate British foreign policy. In 2019, for example, the International Court of Justice decided that the UK’s continued occupation of the Chagos Islands, an Indian Ocean archipelago, was unlawful and that they should be returned to Mauritius “as rapidly as possible”.

Thereafter, in 2024, the British and Mauritian governments agreed that the UK would hand over the islands to Mauritius, while securing a 99-year-lease to continue operating the military base on Diego Garcia (also used by the US). However, Starmer had reckoned without Trump, who was not happy. In January, Trump called the agreement an “act of great stupidity”, and Starmer was obliged, in defiance of international law, to shelve the ratification process indefinitely.

Although Burnham has audaciously declared (July 11) that he plans to revive the Chagos deal, it will be fascinating to see how he responds once Trump applies the thumbscrews, as he did with his predecessors.

When the British people decided that the UK should regain its sovereignty by leaving the European Union, they never intended that control by Brussels would be replaced by subservience to Washington. The Trump administration has shown it wants to determine Britain’s domestic and foreign policies, and it has walked all over Starmer (just as it did with Boris Johnson, in Trump’s first term, when the UK was forced to abandon a deal with Chinese mainland technology firm Huawei in 2020).

For his country’s sake, it must be hoped that Burnham is made of sterner stuff and will stand tall. He must demonstrate to Trump and everybody else that he will be his own man and prioritize British interests.

It may not be easy, but the UK still has some powerful friends, including in the Far East. Although certainly not a given, they will hopefully be willing to help Burnham as he finds his feet. For example, in his short tenure, Starmer sought closer ties with Beijing, and his groundwork must be built upon. In his previous role as Greater Manchester mayor, Burnham enjoyed cordial relations with China, and, for the sake of his country, it must be hoped he appreciates that this is the way to go.

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.