Theresa May was right to see Donald Trump. But she has to condemn him too
|
Version 0 of 1. Dick Cheney and I were never soulmates. He used to eye me with suspicion. Once, during a routine meeting in the White House, the then vice-president suddenly said to me, “This is confidential,” as though, but for this caveat, I was likely to immediately brief the press on his inner thoughts. But let us give credit where it is due. In an interview with a conservative radio show host in 2015, Cheney said: “This whole notion that somehow we can just say no more Muslims, just ban a whole religion, goes against everything we stand for and believe in. I mean, religious freedom has been a very important part of our history and where we came from.” Cheney is absolutely right to assert that Donald Trump’s then threat, now a reality, of a ban on visas for anyone from one of seven Muslim-majority countries was – and is – wrong. It’s amoral. Like many policies that are wrong on one count, it has the overwhelming practical objection to it that it will almost certainly be counter-productive. For the skilled propagandists of Islamic State, last Friday’s executive order will have been an answer to their prayers. These ruthless jihadis prey on the vulnerable, on those feeling marginalised from western society, to move them first to alienation, then to violent hatred of everything the west stands for. And Trump has given them a rich diet of hatred. Add to that the absurdity of Trump’s choice of countries, with Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned the 9/11 terrorists, and which has since shown a monumental ambiguity towards some Sunni jihadi groups, left off. Just five days ago, a Washington friend of mine, well plugged into the Republican party, was venting about the “nutters of the far right” who had now taken over the west wing of the White House. “Are you saying,” I asked, “that these people are worse even than the one or two around Dick Cheney?” “Oh yes,” came the reply. “These Trump people are completely different from anything previously experienced in Washington, ever.” For the past 75 years, and as far into the future as one can see, Britain’s relationship with the United States will remain the most important one of all. Despite, or perhaps because of, its importance, it has never been easy. “There is no clear hierarchy of authority … There is perpetual internecine warfare between prominent personalities,” complained John Maynard Keynes of his wartime negotiations in Washington to secure financial support for Britain. He went on: “No work seems to be done on paper … no one seems to read a document and no one ever answers a document in writing. Suddenly, some drastic clear-cut decision is reached, by what process one cannot understand.” I kept this quote on my desk when I was foreign secretary. But it has to be said that the administrations of Franklin D Roosevelt, with whom Keynes dealt, and that of George W Bush, were paradigms of good practice compared with the early days of President Trump. I would never have voted for Bush (nor he for me), but in international relations, that is never the point. You identify your interests, and the other side’s, and how to maximise both. There were important differences of policy – some of which were public. Bush had serious, experienced people working with him, including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Belying his public image, in private George W Bush himself was remarkably willing to listen and to engage in sensible argument. On Iran, for example, I and my French and German counterparts, Dominique de Villepin and Joschka Fischer, had to face early hostility from parts of the US administration to our “E3” negotiations over Iran’s nuclear holdings (Donald Rumsfeld said it was a “disaster”). But, later, persuaded by Rice, Bush brought the US into the negotiations. Contrast all this with the challenge faced by Theresa May, Boris Johnson and colleagues. Trump’s new secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, and his defence secretary, General James Mattis, are generally thought to be competent individuals. But so far they seem to have remarkably little influence on the true believers in the White House and their boss who, we are told, dislikes both oral and written briefings, and relies on Fox News for his information. May was, in my view, right to go to meet Trump at the first opportunity. But her refusal to condemn his seven-country ban was unimpressive, and she needs to exert much more pressure to persuade Trump to abandon this awful, self-defeating policy altogether. The invitation for the state visit to the UK may well stand, despite the million-plus petition against it. But it would be wise if the arrangements took a long time to settle. After all, both George W Bush’s and Barack Obama’s state visits took place over two years after their elections. Critically, the prime minister now has to reassure the British Muslim population that we value them for who they are and for their faith. However crucial a post-Brexit trade deal is, some things – like common humanity, decency, and respect for those of other religions – are more important. |