For the UK, an American presidential election is hugely important – the US-UK “special relationship” is at the heart of UK foreign and defence policy. For Prime Minister Keir Starmer and David Lammy, the foreign secretary, the outcome of this knife-edge election will make a huge difference to their political outlooks.
The conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, and the differing policy positions (and temperaments) of the two main presidential candidates, make foreign policy-making very difficult. So what do Starmer and Lammy want from the next president?
The first answer is they want the same thing as most people – for this election to be over. The run-up to any election usually means the scope for active or decisive policymaking is closed down. No incumbent wants to make a decision which is immediately counteracted by their successor. Tradition dictates that tricky and divisive policy decisions are left to await the new leader.
When you have a live war zone in the Middle East and another on the edge of Europe, that kind of pause can have terrible consequences for everyone involved, including your international friends and allies.
The second thing Starmer and Lammy are likely hoping for is someone in the White House who shares their worldview and who they can work with easily. The US-UK special relationship is so ingrained, and the two nations so enmeshed, that it can withstand a poor personal relationship between prime minister and president. But a friendly relationship, where the two leaders share similar aims, makes the cogs turn considerably more easily.
Harris v Trump
For Starmer and Lammy, the easier of the two candidates to work with is Kamala Harris. To be fair, the same would almost certainly be true if the UK prime minister were a Conservative. It isn’t that Harris has identical aims to the Labour government (or the Conservative party, for that matter). It is that she shares some common ground with the new government, and is considered by many to be a “safe pair of hands”.
It is not expected that Harris would change US foreign policy objectives radically, nor change course in Ukraine or Israel. While that may be politically uncomfortable for many, particularly those who are horrified by the scenes being broadcast daily of suffering in the Middle East, it is a more palatable picture for Starmer and Lammy, and many other European nations, than the alternative.
Donald Trump is, to some extent, a known quantity. He has been president before, and therefore his priorities and aims are well-known. However, his character and allegiances are not popular among many western leaders.
His relationship with, and sympathy for, Vladimir Putin make many in western Europe nervous about his plans for further action in Ukraine. Asked whether he had spoken with Putin since he left the White House, Trump refused to say, adding: “If I did, it’s a smart thing.”
Trump’s scepticism of Nato could also prove a challenge for the UK. Others are unsure what action Trump might take in relation to Israel and the conflict in the Middle East. In early October, Trump told the Israeli-American Council that Israel had “a big protector in me”.
The US’s unwavering support for Israel is unlikely to be lessened, regardless of who takes the presidency. However, wars and foreign affairs generally require delicate negotiation and handling – something Trump is not famous for. However, there could be a case to be made that a more radical approach is needed after years of uncertainty.
The special relationship
The special relationship is embedded in both US and UK governmental structures. Foreign policy and defence policy are directly influenced by what the views of the White House and Pentagon are, and intelligence is often shared between the two nations.
While they don’t share all their intelligence or coordinate all their foreign and defence policies, the UK pays great interest in the policies and actions of the US – and the US pays some attention to the views and policies of its junior partner. It may not be an even relationship, but it is a longstanding one based on years of close working relationships and trust.
Anecdotally, Labour prime ministers tend to work better with Democratic presidents than with Republican ones. It could be that they are politically closer, it might be circumstance or personality – but it does seem to ring true when we consider the relationship of past presidents and prime ministers.
That said, the smoothest relationships, those which are rooted in friendship or demonstrate close policy alignment, tend to have been between Conservative prime ministers and Republican presidents – think John Major and George Bush Sr or, most famously, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
There are always exceptions to these “rules”, of course, so a Harris-Starmer relationship is not guaranteed to be a happy one. Conversely, a Trump-Starmer relationship does not have to be stormy, although Trump’s campaign recently accused the Labour party of having volunteers interfering in the US election – not a promising start to a potential second Trump term.
Looking at the public personas of the candidates, it is hard to see how Starmer and Lammy could easily deal with Trump. But if he prevails, there will be no option but to work with him as best they can.
Victoria Honeyman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
