He can hardly be blamed for being given the brief by his Prime Minister. King Charles III is in the United States on a repair job, playing diplomatic handyman and mender for Sir Keir Starmer and the US-UK alliance so long regarded as special. On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of American independence, it was easy to forget that the British, despite losing its American colonies, gained some vengeance through the exploits of Major General Robert Ross, who, on August 14, 1814, burned down the White House, the Capitol building, and an assortment of other government facilities.
The US President Donald Trump has made it clear that alliances are only special if they serve his bullying and selfish needs, transient and fickle as they are. Otherwise, the whole notion of an alliance can be allowed to go by the wayside or stung into decay by venomous statements on social media. The UK’s ambassador to Washington, Christian Turner, who replaced the disastrously appointed Peter Mandelson in February, has even gone so far to suggest that the term “special relationship” be scrapped as dated and musty. The phrase, he unguardedly told a group of British students visiting that month, was “quite nostalgic” and “quite backwards-looking,” encumbered with “baggage.” Instead of leaving it at that, Turner proceeded to offer the only exemplar in the US diplomatic inventory that might count, whatever the baggage. “I think there is probably one country that has a special relationship with the United States – and that is probably Israel.”
Any ruffles arising from that leaked audio has been seemingly contained. On the occasion of this state visit Trump was cordial, even sprightly. “The Americans have had no closer friends than the British,” he declared on April 28. The same language was spoken, the same values shared, the “warriors” of the two nations having “defended the same extraordinary civilization under the twin banners of red, white, and blue.”
Before a joint sitting of Congress, Charles delivered a speech filled with the usual solecisms on the US political system, not to mention a few on his own. The US Congress is hardly a “citadel of democracy created to represent the voice of all American people, to advance sacred rights and freedoms,” being the republican vision of slave owning plantation owners who were nervous about the mob and ever keen to keep them at bay with a dampening system of checks and balances. The “revolutionary” notions of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” were to be kept on a firm leash. And while the United Kingdom has democratic pretensions, it exercises power through that mysterious political and legal construction known as the Crown. In a short note for the Spectator in October 1959, the conservative, at times reactionary novelist Evelyn Waugh made an abundantly clear point: “Great Britain is not a democracy. All authority emanates from the Crown.” All figures of note from judges and bishops to the Poet Laureate “exist by the royal will.” Elections are, rather, “a very hazardous process” to select ill-chosen advisors.
Starmer, as advisor-in-chief, clearly fed the monarch a rather odd assortment of dishes to temper and placate the businessman tyrant trainee. Lay it heavy with the friendship issue, talking of that “bond of kinship and identity” that is “priceless and eternal.” Accept that disagreements can happen between close allies (“no taxation without representation”, for instance, stirring the anger of the American colonists). “Ours is a partnership born out of dispute, but no less strong for it.” When the countries found ways to agree “what great change is brought about – not just for the benefit of our peoples, but of all peoples.”
A fig leaf of soothing assurance was offered to US lawmakers and the Trump administration. The UK, recognising “that the threats we face demand a transformation in British defence,” was swelling the defence budget, “the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War.” The defence of Ukraine, not high on Trump’s list but very much top of the Starmer summit, also warranted a mention.
Damnably foolish things can be said about defence, that area of spending scandalously exempt from the usual, fiscal scrutiny reserved for welfare budgets and services. And Charles was not spared the Starmer talking points about joint efforts to build F-35 fighter jets and pursuing “the most ambitious submarine program in history, AUKUS.” AUKUS was being pursued “in partnership with Australia, a country of which I am also immensely proud to serve as sovereign.”
AUKUS continues to warp the imagination of its executors, distort military planning, and, importantly, make the most telling demands on Australia, the junior yet, in some ways, most essential partner in the relationship. For one thing, it remains the most duped and witless of the three, having made staggering concessions to both the US and UK in terms of military real estate and investment. Despite turning Australia into a garrison state invigilating over the rise of China in the Indo-Pacific, the agreement makes no guarantee that the Royal Australian Navy will ever receive Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines it does not need, let alone any assurance that it will exercise control over their use and command.
The US Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, published on January 26, does much to scupper suggestions that Australian sovereignty would ever be a serious consideration, given an analysis of the “benefits, costs, and risks compare[d] with those of an alternative of procuring up to eight additional Virginia-class SSNs that would be retained in US Navy service and operated out of Australia along with the US and UK SSNs that are already planned to be operated under Pillar 1.” Even as these doubts are being expressed, the Australian taxpayer continues to invest in the US submarine industrial base.
Obsessed by the deterrent value of such boats against China, the nail-biting worry in the Pentagon and Congress is that any transfer from a navy that remains tardy in meeting the set target of 2 SSNs a year will blunt potency. “Selling three to five Virginia-class SSNs to Australia would thus convert those SSNs from boats that would be available for use in a US-China crisis or conflict into boats that might not be available for use in a US-China crisis or conflict.” Such considerations would have been unlikely to feature in Starmer’s mind when mulling over the details of the King’s speech. The British PM has shown himself to be stunningly short on political judgment and incapable in making sound decisions. However polished the performance by Charles in Washington, it may not be enough to save his prime ministership.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Please consider donating now via:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund to help secure the future of our site.
Your support will go directly toward covering essential costs like web hosting renewals and helping us bring new features to life. Every contribution, no matter the size, helps us keep improving and growing.
Thank you for standing with us – we truly couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
Be the first to comment