Trump, the trampler

The global order was first conceived in Bretton Woods in September 1945. It was pillared on two basic tenets.

First, that post-WWII the world should find widespread peace and a cooperative existence to encourage societies, cultures and economies to mutually benefit in interdependencies.

This, in itself, would perpetuate order and sustain it over decades so it is not undone again by revolutions based on the idealism of nationalistic fervour. Remember, the world, at the time, was just about overcoming a revolution unleashed by Hitler in Germany.

The second facet called for ending an exploitative, imperialistic order that had supplied both men and material to post-WWI imperialistic powers like Britain and France. The US entered the war with the understanding that colonies would be set free once the war ended and become a part of a system that will seek cooperation and coexistence in an allied order which complemented global societies, cultures and economies. The world – which was dependent on American military prowess to face-off with Nazi Germany and eliminate it – had to subscribe to the American thought, even if it wasn’t fully convinced of the idea of a post-war order.

Freshly independent states settled into bilateral and multilateral relationships with the vision of being cooperative rather than competitive. As a consequence, the world hasn’t seen a longer period of sustained global peace as the one delivered by the current order. 

There had to be a guarantor of such an order to ensure that it was not easily upended. The US has since led the world by its unquestioned military domination, a society and an economy that exists on the cutting-edge of research, innovation and technological creativity, which has multiplied value and expanded the size of its economy, making it larger than the cumulative value of the next three countries in line – China, Japan and Germany. This guarantee has retained the global stability that is so essential for prosperity to accrue. 

Militarily, it placed three of its complete naval fleets at critical points in the world, with the rest available on flotillas to not only respond to immediate crises but also project American power across the world. These have also helped maintain open sea-routes and trade corridors for the world to intermingle freely with their wares, ideas and capital. A global culture has thus evolved which is interdependent and complementary. It also so happens that the American economy is consumer-based and most of the world’s industrial output is headed in this direction. American policing ensures there is no hindrance to such movement.

The one impediment to the country’s comprehensive domination of the world surfaced in the immediate follow-up to WWII, when a Soviet bloc emerged, imposing a period of cold war between the US and the Soviet bloc. Cold-war fatigue, ill-conceived adventurism by the Soviet Union along with guile saw the end of the cold war in America’s favour and the world became euphemistically one. Politics of democracy and a single market-driven economy around free capital finally began to define the unipolarity of the world and its growing amalgamation into a global village. This surely would have been beyond what the Bretton Woods System may have envisaged. But this is what the sustaining order has graduated to. 

Cyclic reactionism has triggered nationalism in response to this long spate of freedom of trade, travel and ideas, giving cause for concern to those for whom a liberal, free society was a given. The influence of radical Islam in the modern era and the reversion in modern societies to fascist, nationalist sentiments suggest that the world may once again become fragmented, challenging globalism and the free market. Cooperation will cease; ideas will not be exchanged; and walls will be built. President Trump has already cancelled a free trade agreement with plans to renegotiate another on American terms. Over 130 million people from seven countries have been banned from entering the US. More are likely to be added to the list.

These policy initiatives are steps towards fragmenting an order that generations of American leaders had worked hard to build. Trump has already questioned the viability of Nato while asking allies not to expect a continuing cover of American power to provide them a shield. Clearly, this unravels the entire edifice on which an international order was based.

As Trump goes through his paces, with a plethora of executive orders rendering the existing order topsy-turvy, the wisdom which helped make sense of the world is becoming irrelevant. Larger questions which need to be answered relate to whether the Congress can bridle this uninitiated juvenile enthusiasm? Will a method emerge to this madness?

President Trump wants to eliminate radical Islam from the face of this earth. Not only does this betray an incoherent conception, it also amounts to bigotry when a religion of 1.3 billion people is clubbed in one slant.

The wars against radical Islam – the terrorists do not count more than 40,000 all over the world – in places, such as Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan will need local partnerships for the US to sustain itself. Yet, Trump is on a declared warpath with most Muslim nations. How can he be so callous to his country’s needs? Threats around ideological and civilisational divisions need cooperative management which goes beyond the simple application of force and will only be effective through the integration of efforts among international stakeholders. 

It is believed that on the foreign and security policy front, Trump may have the counsel of someone as revered as Henry Kissinger who is touted to have moved to Washington to keep close proximity. A product of detente and civilisational competitiveness, he may well be back into business, replacing communism with Islam as the US’s new bete noire. Just as he oversaw the dismemberment of the Soviet Union while delivering Russia to ordinariness, Kissinger might just hope that in the larger sweep of history, Islam too will ultimately submit before American exceptionalism. That takes us back sixty years. With a man of his intellect surely one can expect better. Even so, why break up the world? 

The way out (unless Trump is pushed towards change)? I see two options. First, for the West and Europe, I see Germany taking on a more eminent role beyond its economic preeminence alone. If this reminds us of the pre-WWI times, that is exactly it. Second, if the collective wisdom of the world still wishes to retain some order so as to enable peace in the face of outlandish stupidity, perhaps the UN may be empowered and made effective as the arbitrator for peaceful coexistence.

Trump may then choose to break away from the UN too in a world of walled America. I don’t see any method in this madness.

Email: shhzdchdhry@yahoo.com