The fundamental reason for Britain's unease with the shift in U.S. foreign strategy lies in the acute conflict between the international order Britain continues to champion and the "new order" the United States seeks to construct.

by Li Guanjie

In response to recent remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump on NATO affairs, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer issued a rare tough response, describing the comments as "insulting" and calling on Trump to apologize. Subsequently, Starmer spoke with Trump by phone, and the latter took the opportunity to make overtures to Britain, which, to a certain extent, mitigated its discontent over his NATO-related remarks. Behind this episode lies a manifestation of differences between Britain and the United States over international affairs, as their bilateral relations are taking on a new and distinctive character.

This is by no means the first time Britain and the United States have found themselves at odds over critical international issues. From the perspective of the current U.S. administration, all U.S. foreign policies must prioritize U.S. interests above all else. It holds that there is no established international order or international law in the international community, and views international organizations that fail to deliver immediate benefits to the United States as expendable.

Based on such considerations, Washington needs to redefine its boundaries with its so-called traditional allies, with the closeness of relations determined primarily by whether allies comply with U.S. foreign strategy.

The United States has staked out positions that run counter to the mainstream views of European countries over issues including NATO defense spending, Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations, U.S.-EU tariff rates and the sovereignty of Greenland. It has even adopted concrete policies that undermine European interests.

Britain, though not traditionally considered part of continental Europe, has been treated by the United States as a European nation and subjected to similar pressure. This has inflicted considerable psychological damage upon British politicians, who have long emphasized the "special relationship" between the two countries.

The fundamental reason for Britain's unease with the shift in U.S. foreign strategy lies in the acute conflict between the international order Britain continues to champion and the "new order" the United States seeks to construct. It also stems from a deep misalignment between Washington's "America First" approach and London's "NATO First" strategy.

In the view of the Starmer administration, the current international order must be strenuously defended, and Britain's international influence should be exercised through relevant frameworks. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Britain is unwilling to abandon the UN framework. Instead, it is committed to safeguarding or reforming the existing order through international cooperation.

During a recent meeting with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in London, Starmer reaffirmed Britain's long-standing commitment to a rules-based international order. This stance is inherently incompatible with U.S. foreign policy, making Britain one of Washington's targets.

From Britain's viewpoint, its comprehensive national strength is relatively limited, and its military capabilities are constrained. To participate in and sustain the current European order -- let alone the broader international order -- it must rely on collective strength. Therefore, British foreign policy must be grounded in cooperation with its allies and adherence to international rules, mechanisms and frameworks.

NATO is also regarded by the Starmer administration as a cornerstone of international security. In June 2025, Starmer reaffirmed Britain's strategic defense policy, stating that the country's national defense policy has always been "NATO First," and that all British actions are intended to strengthen the alliance. Essentially, NATO as a whole provides the military backing underpinning Britain's international influence. Britain has strived to bind itself closely to NATO because an attack on its territory would be deemed an attack on the United States and European allies, thereby securing stronger security guarantees.

Britain's security guarantees depend on NATO, whereas the United States seeks to pressure NATO to compel its member states to comply with American objectives. This dynamic has, to some extent, brought Britain-U.S. "conflict" into the open. Confronted with American pressure, the Starmer government must prioritize the British national interests. Although it cannot entirely avoid Trump's "big stick," it must at least ensure that when the "American stick" falls upon Britain, it lands as a "gentle tap."

Looking ahead, the British government will continue to firmly believe in the necessity of NATO's existence and strengthening, while also taking U.S. demands into account in guiding or pushing for reforms within the alliance. The United States is likely to continue pressuring NATO allies to reassert its once unchallenged and unshakeable leadership within the bloc.

As for Britain-U.S. relations, they will continue to waver amid America's "America First" policy of undifferentiated treatment of other nations. U.S. interests will always take precedence over those of Britain, even as London enjoys a form of "most-favored-nation" status, requiring Britain to constantly demonstrate both its red lines and its indispensability to Washington.

Editor's note: Li Guanjie is a think tank researcher at SAGGAS, a research fellow at the Center for British Studies, Shanghai International Studies University.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Xinhua News Agency.