If you don’t speak out against Trump, you are complicit

You cannot be on both sides of a debate about right and wrong, writes Lord Michael Heseltine. Now is not the time to turn a blind eye. Justin Trudeau has made a brave start – now it’s for others to follow suit

I do not believe that the image created by President Trump and his vice-president JD Vance reflects the America I know and admire.

To the overwhelming benefit of the world, America’s role in the creation of the United Nations, Nato, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund ensured not just a European stability – uncharacteristic of its history – but helped to create a web of international relationships designed to improve the conditions in which millions of our poorer citizens live.

Of course it was in America’s own interest to encourage peace and wellbeing just as it was ours, but never has it occurred to me that America’s prime motive was a crude economic self-interest.

There was a realisation of the enormous gulf between the living standards we take for granted and those in which the majority of the world’s population live. There were mistakes and abuses which serve to arm those who resent such concepts, but morality, compassion and the rule of law were important components of Pax Americana. Democratic government, individual freedom and the wide spread of wealth within an enterprise economy stand in stark contrast to the suppressions of communist society.

In a month, we have seen all this overturned.

US aid has been dismembered overnight, with no care for the unfortunates who depend on it. The tragic aftermath of the Hamas outrage of October 7 is presented by President Trump as a real estate opportunity to create a new “riviera” in Gaza, whilst over two million Palestinians are moved from the desolation to already overcrowded refugee camps in Jordan and Egypt.

Last month ended with the visits to Washington of President Macron and our prime minister, Keir Starmer, which passed without consequence. Many of us may have felt humiliated at Trump being offered a second state visit, but at least frank conversations took place behind closed doors that kept the door for dialogue open.

The visit of President Zelensky was the opposite. We witnessed the cold-blooded public humiliation of an ally by America’s two most powerful politicians. As President Trump said, he let the programme run so that people could see what was going on. It was deliberate.

Keir Starmer’s immediate response deserves the wide praise it has attracted, but increased defence expenditure is not sufficient. This very different American approach forces us to confront a wider agenda. The complexity of policies such as immigration, aid, terrorism, global warming and trade cannot be divorced from considerations of moral purpose. You cannot be on both sides of a debate about right and wrong.

There will be many who share revulsion at the interview but who believe you can deal with the consequences diplomatically without the glare of publicity. I fear not. Silence on these great issues is tantamount to complicity.

Indeed, to President Putin with an eye on Georgia or President Xi weighing his options over Taiwan, it serves only as an incentive.

In Europe, we must articulate our moral purpose, irrespective of whether that purpose relates to defence, aid, trade, the environment, health or anything else.

Nothing in recent history better served the values the West holds dear than America’s support for liberal democracy. It is increasingly clear that such support will not be forthcoming under the so-called America First mantra. We must choose between the complicity of silence or engage in an open debate in support of our own, and the former American, values. Prime Minister Trudeau has made a brave start which needs to be followed up vigorously.

I have no doubt that silence would be the wrong choice. And while we are speaking out, we must end the free run currently being offered to Nigel Farage – President Trump’s apologist in Britain, who believes that he is coasting to power as both major parties run scared of his crude, racially-based exploitation of immigration.

In the immediate future, we in Europe must fill in the security deficit that America is creating – but simply spending more on defence is not enough. Europe should conduct its own defence review led by the UK, France and Germany, to establish a potential command structure in case that of the Nato alliance was not available. That review should include procurement policy to secure the compatibility and interoperability of weapon systems, and secure the scale of procurement and research budgets that so benefit American and Chinese industry. Airbus is a model that demonstrates the art of the possible.

The individual member states of Europe are struggling with immigration. Sinister memories of the 1930s should warn of the dangers of racialism that lurk behind the growth of right-wing parties across Europe and the UK. We cannot allow uncontrolled immigration; Europe should define a common border that we can police together. But we should recognise the disparity of wealth and social provision that make our part of the world so attractive.

We should have nothing to do with language that depicts immigrants as “rapists” or “criminals”. They are largely young people who want to share the prosperity for their families and themselves, that they see every day on their phones.

Over many years, they have provided the essential support for our health service, caring provisions and economic activity. We should coordinate the aid programmes of Europe into a post-war Marshall Aid programme to be used to create jobs and opportunities where the potential immigrants live.

No European nation state, including the UK, can match the scale of research and development support that the defence and space programmes inject into the industrial bases of America and China. Together, we could – and should – repair the damage Brexit has done to our self-interest by rejoining Europe’s programmes.

Above all, our two main parties must articulate the interdependence of this country with Europe, encourage the free movement of our younger generation and open the way for our professional musicians to perform freely across Europe.

A united Europe is at the heart of British self-intent. We are a European power. We always have been and always will be. In sharing sovereignty, we enhance the power of that sovereignty.