In the final months of his term, former US president Joe Biden repeatedly warned of the growing threat to liberal democracies worldwide and the US-led framework that has underpinned global security, trade and international cooperation since the 1940s. US President Donald Trump’s actions during the first two weeks of his second term, particularly his decision (now paused for 30 days) to impose steep new tariffs on US allies Canada and Mexico, show that Biden’s warnings were not unfounded.
The liberal international order was instrumental in rebuilding a world devastated by World War II, which claimed at least 60 million lives and left many nations in ruins. As the driving Western force behind the defeat of the Axis powers, the US naturally spearheaded post-war reconstruction.
Most remarkably, the US not only designed the rules of the new world order, but also agreed to abide by them. Under the leadership of the US, institutions such as the UN and its associated bodies, NATO, and the European Coal and Steel Community (the precursor to the EU) were established, laying the foundation for decades of global stability and cooperation.
Illustration: Mountain People
The US was also a founding member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and its successor, the WTO. Both were established in response to the economic damage caused by the US Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which triggered a global trade war that exacerbated the Great Depression and fueled the rise of fascism.
To be sure, post-war stability was punctuated by periodic Cold War conflicts such as the Vietnam War, but in the end, the US and western Europe triumphed, leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and its iron grip on central and eastern Europe. In some ways, this period of relative peace resembled the decades of stability that followed the 1814 to 1815 Congress of Vienna, which marked the end of the Napoleonic Wars.
Over the past few years, the post-war order has come under unprecedented pressure, a victim of its own success. After the death of Mao Zedong (毛澤東) in 1976, China rejoined the world economy and thrived, capitalizing on the trade liberalization promoted by the US and Europe. Ironically, China’s rise was made possible by the very US-led system it now rails against.
Could anyone imagine a China-led order allowing a rival to ascend to near-equal status?
In the late 20th century and early 2000s, China’s GDP was doubling roughly every decade. For a time, it seemed as though rapid economic growth would lead to political liberalization, but the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) proved unwilling — or unable — to implement meaningful reforms.
To maintain its grip on power, particularly over the economy, the CCP under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) reverted to authoritarianism, now with a high-tech twist. China began to flex its geopolitical muscles as well, destabilizing the Asia-Pacific region through aggressive maritime expansion and frequent threats to invade Taiwan.
Meanwhile, following the post-Soviet economic and political turmoil of the 1990s, Russia transformed into a police state under Russian President Vladimir Putin, driven by revanchist nationalism. Defying international law, it invaded Georgia in 2008, seized Crimea in 2014 and launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Russia today poses a threat not only to its immediate neighbors, but also to western Europe, which, enjoying decades of relative peace, grew complacent and allowed its military defenses to atrophy.
Despite the EU’s lofty political ambitions, it remains dependent on the US for security, but while the US was for decades the undisputed and widely trusted leader of western democracies, the rise of populist nationalism has reshaped its political system, culminating in Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party.
While Trump has vowed to “make America great again,” the reality is that the US never ceased to be great. It remains the world’s foremost military and economic power, and is home to its most successful companies. Contrary to the expectations of some analysts, its economy has yet to be overtaken by China.
Against this backdrop, Trump’s announced tariffs on Canada and Mexico, along with his threats to impose tariffs on other US allies such as Denmark, represent a stunning reversal of decades of successful economic policy. Having learned from its protectionist missteps in the 1930s, the US has spent the past few decades championing free trade and reaping enormous benefits, but Trump’s tariff drive could set the stage for a destructive global trade war.
Regrettably, Trump’s political comeback has turned former critics into fawning sycophants. Among them are the US’ oligarchs — including Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos — as well as politicians such as US Vice President J.D. Vance and foreign officials such as Peter Mandelson, Britain’s incoming ambassador to the US, who called his past criticisms of Trump “ill-judged and wrong.”
Despite this collective about-face, it is hard to imagine many citizens of liberal democracies trusting a self-proclaimed leader of the free world who supports democracy only when it serves his personal interests. Such a figure can hardly be trusted to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression, confront China’s growing assertiveness, reaffirm the US’ longstanding commitment to peace between Israel and the Palestinians, or deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Not since World War II has the world been so uncertain about US leadership. Perhaps most troubling is the growing sense that the US has turned its back on its global responsibilities in favor of an international order where, to quote Thucydides, “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”
Like many, I hope that Trump leaves the destructive and vengeful path he is on. I also hope that the UK, the EU and other liberal democracies recognize the urgent need to stop relying on US security guarantees and take responsibility for their own defense.
In Britain, we often speak of our “special relationship” with the US, but how can that relationship survive when the US is led by a president who routinely mocks the values that bound us together?
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
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS