The
Guardian view on Trump and Johnson: a toxic alliance
Editorial
The prime
minister kept a calculated distance from the US president at the Nato summit
because he knows their similarities play badly with voters
Wed 4 Dec
2019 18.30 GMTLast modified on Wed 4 Dec 2019 22.04 GMT
Boris
Johnson shakes hands with Donald Trump. ‘The two men keeping a choreographed
distance does not dispel the perception of ideological proximity.’ Photograph:
Christian Hartmann-Pool/SIPA/Rex/Shutterstock
AUS
president’s low-key exit from a Nato summit, skipping the traditional press
conference, would once have been perceived as a snub to the host government.
But Donald Trump’s departure from London will come as a relief to Boris
Johnson. Mr Trump is a fan of Brexit and praises the prime minister as the man
to deliver it, but his presence in the country was an electoral hazard for the
Conservatives.
Some
British voters admire Mr Trump, or find him entertaining, but more do not. It
is no recommendation for the Tory leader to be liked by a man notorious for
dishonesty, ignorance, narcissism and chauvinism.
The US
president did one favour for his British counterpart. He claimed no interest in
the NHS as a subject of post-Brexit trade talks. That helped rebut a Labour
campaign attack, although the veracity of the denial is as doubtful as
everything else Mr Trump says.
The two men
keeping a choreographed distance from one another does not dispel the
perception of ideological proximity, which is problematic for Mr Johnson on
many levels. European governments have largely accepted that Brexit will
happen, but that does not mean they are reconciled to its strategic
implications. The 2016 referendum and Mr Trump’s election are associated in
continental leaders’ minds as twin ballot-box traumas. They appeared to herald
a two-pronged assault on institutional framework that has underpinned European
peace and prosperity since the second world war.
Mr Trump
has been openly contemptuous of EU leaders and engaged them in a destructive
tariff war. Mr Johnson was known in Brussels as a propagandising Eurosceptic
journalist before he was ever elected as an MP. His reputation for disregarding
facts and reckless mischief preceded his arrival in Downing Street. Realpolitik
compels continental leaders to do business with both men, but the sense that
Britain and the US have been captured by a wrecking political culture has
opened dangerous divisions.
This is a
bigger problem for Mr Johnson than Mr Trump. The US can afford to rip up the
rules of international engagement. It is an unwise path but technically
available to a superpower. The UK has no such luxury. A British prime minister
who plays Mr Trump’s game exposes the country to dangerous diplomatic isolation
and economic decline.
Mr Johnson
appears to recognise this hazard. He reassures EU audiences of his support for
their common enterprise, while seeking divergence from their regulatory
framework. At the Nato summit he has emphasised continuity with the past. He
has avoided being drawn on the question of whether Europe should pursue a more
autonomous security agenda when Washington might no longer be reliable. That is
a strategic conundrum to which Brexit offers no solution. The awkwardness of Mr
Johnson’s position has been neatly captured on film. He appears with a group of
leaders at a Nato reception, apparently all sharing a joke at Mr Trump’s
expense. He later denied any knowledge of the episode.
The
Conservatives will be glad if the whole summit is swiftly forgotten. That in
itself hints at a wider cultural fraud being perpetrated in this election: the
assertion of Brexit as a project of national emancipation when, on the terms
currently on offer, it will make Britain more subordinate to US interests and
weaker in negotiations with Brussels. Tory discomfort around Mr Trump’s visit
flows from widespread British mistrust of the man. That in turn is symptomatic
of a cultural similarity with the rest of Europe that is much neglected in
political debate. Our attachment to socialised healthcare and suspicion of US
opposition to it is emblematic of a gulf between the political traditions on
either side of the Atlantic. There is common history, and a common language,
but just as many points of divergence.
There is an
appetite in Britain to “get Brexit done”, as Mr Johnson glibly promises, but
that is a product of fatigue with the process, not a licence to turn the
country into a European franchise of Trumpism. Those Conservatives who pursue
such an agenda do so surreptitiously, knowing it is not one that appeals to the
vast majority of British voters.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário