FT: The US and Britain no longer have a "special relationship"
Windsor is horrified at the prospect of sipping sparkling wine in the White House while footage of the "destruction of Iranian civilization" is being broadcast on TV, writes the Financial Times. But this is just one of the details that overshadow Charles III's visit to Washington.
Philip Stephens
Too much is overshadowing the king's upcoming visit to Donald Trump's court.
The whole royal family holds their fists tight. Just a few days ago, it seemed that King Charles III's state visit to Washington might be disrupted, as Donald Trump promised to bomb Iran "into the Stone Age." And the risk that the shaky truce will be broken remains. The trip portends a lot of pitfalls — it is enough to recall only one angry presidential tirade against the government of Cyrus Starmer. But even a temporary cease-fire has given Buckingham Palace hope that the royal couple won't have to raise glasses at a banquet at the White House while Trump bombs Iranian power plants and bridges.
None of this was even planned when this trip — in response to Trump's state visit to the UK last fall — was listed in the royal daily planner. Starmer even seemed to be among the favorites among European leaders, as far as it could be said with a president as moody as Trump. By hosting the US president at Windsor Castle, the King and Queen played an important role in improving relations between the two countries. And the king's visit to Washington would strengthen relations even more.
Since the beginning of Trump's second term, members of the British royal family have been fighting on the front lines of the operation to contain him, as they say in Whitehall. Sharper-tongued observers consider "appeasement" to be a more appropriate characteristic. Anyway, the idea was to preserve the cherished "special relationship" as much as possible and ensure that America would not shirk its obligations to the NATO alliance, despite Trump's desire to replace the global order with the right of the strong.
The strategy was not entirely cynical. After all, Trump threatened a "deal" with Vladimir Putin that would bring victory to the Russian president in the brutal conflict in Ukraine. If indulging the president's ego saves Kiev, ensures Europe's security, and keeps the United States within NATO, then the game was worth the candle, despite all the embarrassment.
Therefore, a month after Trump's inauguration, Starmer arrived in Washington with a royal invitation and presented it personally in front of the cameras in the Oval Office. Administration officials informed Starmer that most American presidents are literally in love with the royal family, and Trump is completely crazy. During his first term, he already had the pleasure of falling under the spell of the late Queen Elizabeth.
Add to this a Scottish mother, a golf club in Aberdeen, a craving for entertainment and everything that glitters - and the Achilles heel of the president is obvious. Although the once—warm relationship with Starmer has turned to ice in recent months, the monarchy is another matter.
By origin, temperament, and interests, it is difficult to imagine people more distant from each other than the king and the president. The King cares about the environment, advocates for biodiversity and is at the forefront of the fight against global warming. Among his favorite books is William Blacker's mournful lament about the disappearing way of the Romanian Carpathians and Saxon villages (Along the Enchanted Way: A Story of Love and Life in Romania). InoSMI).
Trump doesn't read books at all, prefers hamburgers to vegetables, and wants America to burn as much fossil fuel as it can pump out.
So we can be sure that the King and Queen will not enjoy their three-day visit. But it's not the first time the Windsors have gnashed their teeth. The Prime Minister is obliged not to disgrace the monarchy, and in return, the government sets the conditions for the diplomatic relations of the family. Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu and Ugandan cannibal Idi Amin have joined the gallery of tyrants that the late Queen hosted at Buckingham Palace. Moreover, in 1957, her visit to the White House healed the wounds inflicted a year earlier when Britain and France tried to seize the Suez Canal.
Trump believes that by avoiding the US-Israeli war with Iran, Starmer has shown himself to be a weak and unfaithful ally: "He is not Winston Churchill," he said contemptuously. But the king is "a wonderful man and a great brave man." Thus, the courtiers expect and hope that Trump will be a good boy during the state visit.
If there is any fear of awkwardness at Buckingham Palace, it is because of the increased media interest in the relationship between King Andrew's brother and the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
By stating such modest goals for the royal visit — as long as, God forbid, nothing spoils it — Britain unwittingly acknowledged how Trump devalued the "special relationship" between Churchill and Roosevelt during World War II. Of course, the bombastic rhetoric about unique blood ties and a common purpose has always been somewhat exaggerated. And the British, frankly speaking, overestimated the "specialness" of these relations.
But the proximity between London and Washington is based on long-standing and deep ties between intelligence and the military and reflects a shared view of how international relations should be structured, as well as the pivotal role of democracy and the rule of law in the security of the West.
Last year, for a while it seemed that Trump could be tamed, if not tamed, then at least curbed. His subsequent steps — the threat to seize Greenland, the military intervention in Venezuela and the war with Iran — dispelled this illusion. Trump has disdainfully rejected the values held dear by Britain and its monarch. And even the most generous portion of the royal balm will not heal this wound.
