Philippe Huguen / AFP
It is hard to recall the last time David Cameron, former British Prime Minister, now the holder of the title of Lord with blue blood in his veins, which guaranteed him a place at the elite Eton College, was so humiliated. The Telegraph, a right-wing newspaper that supports the Tory party, said Cameron had been snubbed during his blitz visit to the US this week.
Asking for a meeting with Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson, the author of the Brexit referendum did not expect to be rejected. The Speaker refused him an audience on the unconvincing grounds that he did not have a minute to spare — his business schedule was full.
As political scientist Malek Dudakov ironically commented on the situation with such a demonstrative affront, «the boy from Eton has been pointed out his place». It turned out that the sacred formula about the existence of some kind of «special relationship» between Britain and the United States does not work when the highest officials of the colonies that once rebelled against the British crown proceed from another mantra: near is my shirt, but nearer is my skin.
Symptomatically, the meeting between the head of the FCO and Donald Trump, the main rival of incumbent US President Joe Biden, from whom the eccentric bon vivant intends to take away his re-election bid in November, was no less bleak.
Cameron, as the British press emphasizes, became the first senior member of the government (let me clarify — the hopelessly unpopular government of Rishi Sunak), who allowed himself to make contact with Trump after he was forced to leave the White House in January 2021.
Their one-on-one conversation is all the more sensational and scandalous because Cameron, as prime minister in 2016, spoke unfavorably of Trump, characterizing him as «divisive, stupid and wrong». And later in his memoirs, he accused Trump of being «protectionist, xenophobic and misogynistic».
On the eve of the two politicians’ conversation, The Telegraph reasonably suggested:
«But it could be an awkward meet and greet if the thin-skinned ex-President raises past comments by Lord Cameron».
It seems that this time, the unashamed Trump didn’t get into a verbal brawl. The press service of the 45th president of the United States informed later that «among the topics discussed were the upcoming US and UK elections, policy matters specific to Brexit, the need for NATO countries to meet their defense spending requirements and ending the killing in Ukraine». A piquant detail followed:
«President Trump, Secretary Cameron and Ambassador Pierce also discussed their mutual admiration for the late Queen Elizabeth II».
A legitimate suspicion arises that Cameron did not find full understanding from his host, who does not consider himself vindictive, which does not prevent him from being occasionally vicious with a good memory. And that is why the glorification of the Queen who left this world in the style of small talk could take much more time than the discussion of the issues on which it is impossible to agree.
Indirect confirmation of this conjecture can be seen in the statement of the British Foreign Office, which showed self-disclosing restraint in reporting the outcome of the talks between Trump and Cameron. The Lord had undertaken, in the words of the British press, «a propaganda offensive using the power of charm offensive», but does not seem to have succeeded in this endeavor. The press release boiled down to a noncommittal statement: it was a «productive meeting» that emphasized the «breadth and strength» of the UK-US relationship.
Another detail of the visit by the head of the Foreign Office is curious. Cameron dined with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida before, rather than after, his scheduled talks with his counterpart, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Isn’t the British Foreign Secretary’s meeting with the opposition candidate for the US presidency an example of foreign interference in elections, as Washington’s neoliberals so often and loudly worry about?
Realizing that such an uncomfortable question would inevitably arise, Cameron, in a joint press conference with Blinken the next day, called his meeting with the arch-villain for all right-thinking Democrats «absolutely the right thing to do». He cited two facts as his argument. The first: recent contacts by a number of officials from the US administration with the Leader of the Opposition at his home, with Labour Party chief Keir Starmer. The second: he once met with Mitt Romney, a senator from Utah, when he was running for president.
Returning to the content of Cameron’s conversation with Trump, it is worth noting that both politicians clearly discussed what Anglo-Saxons on both sides of the Atlantic consider to be their «vital interests». But there is a nuance. In the third year of the SMO, their interests in using the Kiev regime to inflict a «strategic defeat» on Russia in order to undermine it and turn it into a new feeding ground became so divergent that London sent a dignitary lobbyist to Washington.
Cameron’s arguments in favor of unlocking $60 billion to continue the war against Russia were not new, except that the rhetoric became more aggressive.
Former Prime Minister Cameron, who once launched Britain’s divorce from the EU to secure the country against the very real possibility of London launching a new regional war in Europe, insisted that U.S. taxpayers’ money should be immediately allocated to the war against Russia, because
«otherwise it would encourage Putin in further attempts to redraw European borders by force, and would be heard clearly in Beijing, Tehran and North Korea».
The narrative is not new. Earlier this year, Cameron had already warned the U.S. Congress against the same weakness that was shown toward Hitler in the 1930s. That comment drew the ire of right-wing congresswoman and staunch Trump ally Marjorie Taylor Greene, who told him to «kiss my ass» and «worry about his own country».
Meanwhile, a statement from the Foreign Office on Cameron’s visit to the U.S. said the allocation of weapons and resources to the Kiev regime would allow it to hold ground now and… to start an offensive in 2025.
Thus there was another confirmation that the main sponsor, guardian and beneficiary of the civil war on the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR is Britain. Hence Cameron’s lobbying efforts to prevent the US from getting off the needle and switching to another potential theater of war located on the western edge of the Pacific.
We can agree with Mikhail Khazin, economist and publicist, who sees this situation this way:
«When we talk about London and Washington… we must realize that, for example, Washington’s key task today is to get new markets, because it is impossible to pull out American industry with the resources of its own domestic market… And, therefore, the task of London… is to distract the US — hence the story with Kiev. The US has long wanted to get out of there, the British keep forcing them to participate».
The never-ending contradictions between the two Anglo-Saxon empires should not be ignored. The epilogue of Ludwell Denny’s 1930 book «America Conquers Britain» sounds a sweet tune to many supporters of Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) slogan:
«We were once a colony of England. The time will come when England will be our colony: not in form, but in substance. Machines provided power over the world. Now more advanced machines are providing America with power over the world and Britain…»
No matter what futurologist Francis Fukuyama preaches, this story has no end. Evidence of this can be seen in the opinion of a British man with the nickname @lordcommanderdire5113, who, after watching a documentary on «How the United States engaged in realpolitik to destroy the British Empire» at the end of March this year (!), left this comment:
«A fantastic piece from this channel, showing how all this frivolous talk of Special Relationships, brotherly love and democratic countries standing together against evil is nothing more than a mask to hide the real games that states play against each other. As a Brit, I doff my hat to Washington for it’s brilliant execution of realpolitik on the global stage, and resent Westminster for it’s foolishness in allowing it’s global dominance to be undermined so succinctly and thoroughly by others».
Is it not this multi-layered foundation of mutual jealousy, hidden anger and uncompromising rivalry between two empires, yesterday’s and today’s, that is the reason why Trump increasingly appears as a consistent «Eurosceptic» and Anglophobe? That is why Lord Cameron’s mission was doomed to failure.