Nigel Farage’s friend Donald Trump has little time for the sovereignty of countries other than his own. The president-elect says he wants Greenland and Panama controlled by the USA. He’s refused to rule out military action to obtain his ends.
Such is the audacity of Mr Trump’s newly announced US foreign policy that we find ourselves rubbing our eyes in disbelief that he could hold out the prospect of going to war with peaceful nations and allies. But he has.
Prime among the elements that make up the concept of the sovereignty of a state is the absolute control of its territory. At the core of the Nato alliance is the obligation on all members to go to the military aid of any member state that comes under military attack.
We now have the previously unimagined situation of Nato’s largest member suggesting it may attack the sovereign territory of another member state. In this case, Denmark, which is responsible for the sovereignty of Greenland.
The sanctity of the idea of national sovereignty, which the USA championed, in blood and treasure, in two world wars in the 20th century, has been gravely weakened by Mr Trump’s recent statements. Indeed, should his rhetoric turn to reality the US would be in breach of the United Nations Charter.
Without the commitment and determination of the US to find better ways than wars to solve disputes between states, the UN would not have come into being in 1945. It is an imperfect beast, but as Harold Macmillan, paraphrasing Winston Churchill, said, “jaw, jaw is better than war, war”.
“Refrain from threat or the use of force”
The UN Charter makes clear the responsibility of member states in respect of territorial integrity. The key clause in Article 2 reads: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” Mr Trump is already in breach of that clause.
Where does this leave Mr Farage? More than any other politician, he put the UK’s sovereignty at the heart of the Brexit debate and nothing less than the UK having 100 per cent control of its sovereignty would do.
In his view, sovereignty was the ditch to die in. The pitch to potential leave voters was that Britain could never be truly free without it. In essence, the core message was that sovereignty and Britishness were indivisible. Any weakening of sovereignty by any means created a lesser Britain.
The question now for Mr Farage is, does he distance himself from Trump’s threats of military action against friendly powers or, by utterance or silence, endorse them? Does Mr Farage hold Danish and Panamanian sovereignty to be cheaper and less important than UK or US sovereignty? Mr Trump has also suggested that Canada, a member of the Commonwealth, with King Charles III as head of state, would be better off as part of the USA.
Is the sovereignty of peaceful nations sacrosanct – a fundamental brick in the wall of international law – or is it not, Mr Farage?
UK cannot be bullied or intimidated
For the UK, Mr Trump’s threats must see us re-evaluate our thinking about foreign and defence policy. Firstly, we cannot be bullied or intimidated by Mr Trump or by the US tech giants who control the internet, and most of the satellites in orbit and the means to get them there.
We cannot indicate any support whatsoever for Mr Trump’s Greenland and Panama ambitions. Beginning with quiet diplomacy, our government needs to make clear that not only do we not support his policy, but we will also actively oppose it by all peaceful means.
Mr Trump’s new world order has profound consequences for our defence and security, our trade and financial markets, for where our businesses choose to invest, our access to the digital world and the nature of our democracy. If his America is unpalatable to our national view of the world and inimitable to our national best interests, there is only one place we can turn to secure our economic future and maintain our influence in the world. That is Europe.
We do not on our own have the resources to deal with the multiple factors that may come to our door if Mr Trump makes good on his posturing.
We are a European state. Our closest friends and allies and our closest trading partners are to be found in the European Union. We must begin the process of rejoining the European single market and the mainstream of Europe’s liberal democracies or be isolated and at the mercy of bullying and belligerent states, of which America may be one.
The Trump presidency is likely to have a broad impact on Europe and EU policies, including trade relations with the US, competition policy, product standards and consumer protections, climate change strategies, energy security and the regulation of internet and social media companies.
UK’s urgent need to improve access to European markets
The UK has an urgent economic imperative to improve access to Europe’s huge marketplace. Behind the scenes in Whitehall and Brussels, officials are working at finding ways to ease the barriers created by the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by the Conservatives that has so damaged British exports to the Continent and created friction between London and the EU.
Trump’s sabre-rattling on trade and his threats to punish governments that take regulatory action against American companies makes reaching a new accord urgent for the UK and EU. In terms of Scotland, whether we become independent or stay in the Union, our future security depends on once again becoming a full member of the European family of democratic nations.
This article was first published in The Scotsman on 15 January 2025.
More in world.
Liked the article? Why not share it on Bluesky?
