THE voters of the US have spoken, even if we did not like what they said. A Donald Trump presidency 2.0 is a fact. All other political forces have to deal with that. The question is how?

The US is now the world’s second-largest economy, behind China. But it remains by far the world’s largest military power, with a military budget that exceeds the next five largest military powers combined.

It has military bases in about 80 countries, which is more than all other military powers in the world combined. It is the dominant power in Nato, the largest shareholder in the World Bank and the key ideological influence in the International Monetary Fund.

Until relatively recently, all sovereign countries had to bow down to these powers, especially if they were in economic difficulties. The emergence of the Brics group and associated institutions has changed that equation to some extent. But they have not removed the influence of the US-based global institutions and the influence of the “Washington consensus.”

As a result, what any US president says or does is of great consequence. Pretending otherwise would be childish politics.

But it is equally foolish to pretend that the US is the sole superpower in the world. In simple economic terms, there are four economic zones in the world of roughly equal size. In addition to China and the US, there is also the European Union and the global South.

The latest data show how much the British economy is struggling, and exports are the weakest area of the economy. Contrary to all the natural laws of economics, British exports to the EU are actually falling, while non-EU exports have stagnated for several years.

Both of these failings need to be addressed urgently via a coherent trade policy. They are essential for jobs and prosperity. That, in turn, requires a coherent foreign policy. From a strategic perspective, what is required is a nuanced, comprehensive and dynamic foreign policy which develops our relationships with all parts of the world for mutual benefit.

Yet we have none of this. The recent, farcically bad “free trade” deals with New Zealand and Australia are relevant only in how damaging they are to environmental and welfare standards and to farming. They serve as examples of how you should not conclude a trade deal just because there is a post-Brexit desperation to announce something.

Worse, our overall foreign policy is an extremely bellicose one without the firepower to justify the warmongering. The result is to bind this country ever tighter to the US war chariot.

It should not be forgotten that it was then prime minister Boris Johnson who scuttled to Kiev to block an emerging peace deal with Moscow in 2022. The government has also decided that British forces should be deeply involved in not only supplying material and intelligence to be used by Israel in Gaza but also in Lebanon.

The recent US/British/Israeli bombings of Yemen fall into the same category. Despite all the denials, there is clearly a division of labour among these allies for an overall assault on an entire region. It is a political choice that Britain is a part of that alliance. A very bad political choice.

To demonstrate the total subordination of this country to US war plans, the Royal Navy has previously been sent to the South China Sea with the purpose of raising the tensions in that region. This does not add to our security. It can only impede any efforts to develop a more productive relationship, including on trade.

The question is, will this government disavow such provocations and attempt a less subordinate policy, one more aligned with the needs of this country? The omens are not good.

From Ukraine to the entire region centred on Gaza, the government has proven itself a willing cheerleader and participant in US-backed wars. It has even been an outrider for escalation of conflict, as when Keir Starmer went to Washington to press Joe Biden for the use of long-range missiles inside Russia, only to be rebuffed — initially at least.

Crucially, in the midst of renewed austerity, including public services, pay and taxes, Starmer has also pledged £3 billion a year “for as long as it takes” to the war effort in Ukraine. This is more than double the “saving” from cutting the winter fuel allowance. Clearly, pensioners are subject to hard choices, arms manufacturers less so.

This government, like its predecessors, has been a significant lobbyist for a military spending target for all Nato members to be raised to 2.5 per cent of GDP. Nato leaders like general secretary Mark Rutte are clear that military spending in the European Nato countries will have to rise by cutting social welfare budgets.

Now, Trump has upped the ante dramatically. He says he wants Nato countries to raise their military spending to 5 per cent of GDP. Across Europe and including Britain, this could only be achieved by further massive austerity in the other areas of government spending. He has also previously threatened to remove US-Nato protection from any member country which “does not pay for its own defence.”

None of this will make this country safer, more prosperous or improve living standards. Therefore, the attempts to win Trump’s favour by capitulating further are not at all in the national interest. Of course, if the national interest is judged to be a close relationship between the British and US secret services or the profits of arms manufacturers, that is a different story.

With a now customary lack of political skill or foresight, Starmer appears to have set up a factional rivalry between Peter Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney as to who “really” understands the new president’s wishes and how to interpret them. This is a recipe for competing advice based on the right-wing prejudices of the two antagonists. Bringing Farage into the process confirms its reactionary character.

Instead, Britain could opt out of these costly wars; many European countries do. It could take a vigorous approach to promoting trade with all parts of the world, fix the broken relationship with the EU and promote direct investment globally. It could even occasionally agree with Trump, but only where there is a general benefit to the world. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to be very frequent.

Diane Abbott is Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. Follow her on X @HackneyAbbott.