During the darkest days of World War II, as young British pilots valiantly fought the Luftwaffe over southern England and German forces prepared to invade the British Isles, then-British prime minister Winston Churchill took on the task of boosting his fellow citizens’ morale, offering them a brighter future to look forward to.
To this end, Churchill’s inspirational wartime speeches occasionally featured a poem he likely encountered at Harrow School in the late 19th century. The poem, authored by Arthur Hugh Clough, an academic who had served as an assistant to Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing, urged people to reject the notion that fighting for good was futile. It concluded with the phrase: “Westward, look, the land is bright.”
Churchill, whose affinity for the US was influenced by his US-born mother, confidently asserted that the US would continue to uphold liberal democratic values in the face of the totalitarian Nazi threat. Implicit in this declaration was the hope that, if necessary, the US would come to the aid of the UK and other western European liberal democracies.
However, when we look West today, we see dark, lowering clouds on the horizon. Should former US president Donald Trump win November’s presidential election, there is no guarantee that he would defend NATO or champion liberal democratic values, as his predecessors did. Similarly, there is little hope that Ukraine could rely on his support, given that the Republican Party’s leader prefers authoritarian leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin to the US’ democratic allies.
For many years, “the West” has been used as a shorthand for liberal democratic societies worldwide. Historically, US presidents have served as the de facto leaders of this alliance, formal and informal, all united by shared values and principles.
However, the growing possibility of a Trump return to the White House next year calls into question the stability of this coalition.
Can the Western democratic alliance endure a US president who does not believe in free and fair elections?
Trump, who is facing four criminal indictments and 91 felony charges, appears to regard the rule of law as a means of settling scores with his critics and perceived enemies, rather than as a fundamental pillar of democratic governance. If he were to be elected, there is little doubt that his second term would put the US on the path to authoritarian rule.
As the Western and Chinese governance models compete for global dominance, a potential Trump victory could tip the balance toward the latter. In their insightful book The Political Thought of Xi Jinping, Steve Tsang (曾銳生) and Olivia Cheung say that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) does not propose an alternative to the post-war liberal international order. Instead, Xi’s strategy is rooted in his vision of China as a Leninist one-party state ruled by a single leader — himself.
Consequently, Xi’s domestic political interests consistently overshadow any notion of global responsibility. He embraces the Confucian concept of the “Mandate of Heaven,” according to which rulers derive legitimacy from divine selection, and he expects his regime to be treated with the same deference accorded to imperial China at its peak.
Moreover, Xi has repeatedly touted China’s authoritarian system as a governance model for others to emulate. He believes that when nations, particularly those in the Global South, are presented with a choice, they would find the Chinese model more attractive than Western-style democracy. This could well be the case if Trump wins in November, and heads an administration plagued by corruption and chaos.
For the liberal democratic order to endure, Western nations must defend the principles that have underpinned their success during about 80 years of relative peace and prosperity. However, it is not enough to fight for these values in Ukraine, East Asia or the Middle East; they must be upheld domestically as well. As former US ambassador to the UN Adlai Stevenson, a two-time Democratic US presidential candidate, famously said: “We cannot be any stronger in our foreign policy — for all the bombs and guns we may heap up in our arsenals — than we are in the spirit which rules inside the country.”
Trump clearly does not share this sentiment, and neither do his fellow Republicans, almost all of whom seem to have forsaken their principles or, at the very least, concealed them to save their own political futures. Those of us who live outside the US and admire its achievements and founding principles pray that Americans make the right choice when they cast their ballots in November. Then, and only then, could we be able to declare, with the same confidence as Churchill: “Westward, look, the land is bright.”
Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, is chancellor of the University of Oxford and the author of The Hong Kong Diaries.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS