By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a contentious White House meeting where Donald Trump berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, SNP MP Stephen Gethins deemed a second Trump state visit to the UK untenable. Gethins characterized Trump’s actions as bullying and stated that the UK’s response has been disappointingly silent. Zelensky’s visit to London, where he received strong support from Prime Minister Starmer and King Charles III, contrasted sharply with his treatment in Washington. The incident prompted widespread concern and condemnation from across the political spectrum, including from First Minister John Swinney.
Read the original article here
The calls to scrap Donald Trump’s state visit are intensifying, fueled by the ongoing tensions surrounding his relationship with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The sheer audacity of even considering a state visit for a figure who has demonstrably undermined international cooperation and seemingly aligned himself with Russia, especially in the context of Ukraine’s ongoing struggle, is baffling.
This isn’t merely about a difference of opinion; it’s about a fundamental clash of values. Zelenskyy, representing a nation fighting for its survival against a brutal invasion, embodies resilience and a commitment to his people’s freedom. Trump, on the other hand, has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of concern for democratic principles and international norms, even going so far as to attempt blackmailing Zelenskyy. This stark contrast makes a state visit an insult to both Zelenskyy and the principles of international cooperation.
The timing couldn’t be worse. While Zelenskyy fights for his country’s survival, facing immense challenges and war crimes, Trump’s potential visit casts a long shadow. The notion of rewarding a figure who has shown such disregard for Ukraine’s plight with a lavish state visit is deeply offensive. It undermines the efforts of countless individuals and nations who have supported Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression.
Furthermore, Trump’s history of insulting America’s allies, coupled with his erratic behavior and apparent affinity for autocratic leaders, makes him a highly unsuitable candidate for a state visit. His previous cancelled UK visit, amidst fears of widespread public protest, serves as a stark warning. The potential for massive public demonstrations, bordering on widespread rejection, is undeniable and should be a significant deterrent.
The idea of a state visit feels like a betrayal of everything that stands against autocracy and in favor of democracy. Allowing such a visit would send a dangerous message, suggesting that international norms and respect for democratic values are malleable. The world needs to send a clear message that actions have consequences, and that those who undermine international stability and democratic processes will face consequences, not accolades.
The proposed alternative of a public confrontation, perhaps on British soil, presents a fascinating contrast. While the idea of publicly humiliating a former president is unconventional, the sheer symbolic impact of such an action shouldn’t be dismissed. It would serve as a potent counterpoint to the pomp and circumstance of a state visit, sending a powerful message about the gravity of Trump’s actions.
Consider the logistical possibilities. Imagine the spectacle of Trump arriving only to be met with immediate and widespread condemnation. The image of a disgraced former president facing the music in the heart of a major world capital would send ripples through the international community. This approach could be far more effective in terms of conveying a message of accountability than a quiet cancellation.
The broader implications extend beyond the immediate situation. A decision on Trump’s visit would set a precedent for how the world deals with leaders who undermine global stability. Failing to act decisively would embolden those who believe they can flout international norms with impunity. The potential damage of such a precedent far outweighs the diplomatic niceties of hosting a contentious figure.
Finally, the legal aspects shouldn’t be overlooked. Given Trump’s past actions and legal troubles, questions arise regarding his eligibility for a state visit. The possibility of denying entry based on legal grounds should be explored thoroughly. This option offers a clean break from the diplomatic wrangling and sends a clear message that no one, regardless of their past standing, is above the law.
In conclusion, the calls to scrap Trump’s state visit are not merely expressions of personal dislike; they are a reflection of deep concerns about international relations and the importance of upholding democratic values. The potential fallout from a state visit, coupled with alternative approaches that could send a more effective message, makes canceling the visit – or even preventing his arrival – the most suitable course of action.