On global bullying and an emerging new world order

Watching the footage of Trump and Vance bullying Ukraine President Zelensky was like watching a couple of schoolyard bullies intimidating the little kid for lunch money. Which was precisely what they were doing, and it wasn't the first time the Trump administration has bullied Zelensky since taking office less than two months ago.*

 The background

Ukraine has significant deposits of minerals: graphite, lithium, copper, uranium, rare earth metals and titanium. And Trump wants them. Zelensky had originally agreed to terms whereby the US would continue its military aid to Ukraine in return for access to its mineral wealth. The deal was described as “a special agreement for the joint protection of the country’s critical resources, as well as joint investment and use of this economic potential”. 

But Trump wanted more (of course). He wanted $US500 billion worth of minerals in return for past aid to the country with no guarantee of future assistance. To this end, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was dispatched to Kyiv to meet with Zelensky. He reportedly pushed the agreement document over the table and demanded that the Ukraine president sign immediately. When Zelensky said he would need time to discuss the terms and details with his team, Bessent pushed the paper closer and reportedly said, “If you want the United States to be on your side, you better sign this deal.”

When Zelensky refused, Trump countered by saying he'd “better move fast, or he is not going to have a country left”. This was when Trump also accused Zelensky of being a dictator and made his ludicrously false claim that Ukraine, not Russia, was the instigator of the war. In this scenario Trump is suggesting that Ukraine provoked Russia into invading them so they could then invade Russia. 

After extensive negotiations a final deal was reached and Zelensky flew to the US to sign what he believed would be an agreement for continued military support from the US in return for American access to mineral resources. But, like the schoolyard bullies they are, Trump and Vance set him up. Backed into a corner by the bullies, Zelensky fought back, allowing the Americans to use his self-defence as reason enough to break off diplomatic relations and withdraw support.

But there's an upside

The footage of Trump and Vance springing their bullies' trap on the Ukrainian president was seen around the world and has strengthened the support of Europe and its allies to Ukraine. Only days after being berated by the Americans on their home turf, Zelensky was welcomed in London by UK PM Keir Starmer with a warm embrace and a guarantee of the UK's continued support. Every European leader has announced support for Ukraine, with the European Union Commissioner describing Trump's behaviour as "unacceptable." Australian PM Albanese was unequivocal, saying "We stand with Ukraine."

Of course, the US is not going to be left completely on its own. Trump has made no secret of his cosy relationship with that other schoolyard bully Vladimir Putin, who must be quietly relishing these latest developments. Where Trump and Putin differ, of course, is that Trump is the obnoxious-but-not-very-bright bully while Putin is the nasty, devious playmaker who never seems to get caught. Putin will be quite happy to let Trump swagger around the global playground flexing his muscles and scaring the little kids. But Putin also knows that Trump has never had an original thought in his life, relies on other people and can be easily controlled if he thinks there's something in it for him. 

However, the strengthening resolve of the EU, both as a bloc and as individual countries, along with allies such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the various other countries that Trump has threatened (Mexico, Panama ... the list seems to be growing) against American aggression is drawing clear lines in that schoolyard sandpit. Standing up to the bullies and not being a victim removes their power**.

Where to now?

That's the question diplomats and international relations theorists around the world are pondering. It's not the first time in living memory we've seen a shifting of the world order. World War II resulted in quite a bit of diplomacy gymnastics up to and including the onset of the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union rearranged things again, with IR heavyweight, Samuel Huntington, writing in 1993 that the world would soon regret the end of the Cold War, which had provided global stability based on the aptly-acronymed Doctrine of MAD, and that the next global conflict would be based on a clash of cultures rather than politics. Political philosopher, Francis Fukuyama, on the other hand, believed that the end of the Cold War represented the 'end of history', insofar as it signalled the triumph of liberal democracy as a form of government and that liberal democracies historically do not go to war against one another.

The rise of Trumpism in the US, of course, could be seen as a departure from liberal democracy given Trump's disregard for the American Constitution and the Rule of Law, Elon Musk's Nazi salute at the presidential inauguration and Trump's bullying of his neighbouring countries and threats of annexation. So in a sense, Fukuyma was right. Liberal democracies don't go to war against one another, but what happens when a liberal democracy ceases to be one?

A new world order? It's a chilling prospect but not one we haven't faced before. Trump has three years and ten months left in his term as democratically elected president. Putin has essentially cemented his position for life. The EU is grappling with internal politics and is currently focusing on developing and strengthening economic and political ties with India. And China? Xi Jinping will be playing the long game. Historically China and Russia have been allies, but a Russian-American alliance may change that. 

Global politics has become a day-to-day prospect. A game of diplomatic musical chairs and when the music stops, who will be the one left without the chair?


* Is it only me, or does anyone else think it seems much longer?

** Unfortunately, however, it doesn't remove their nuclear weapons, but that's a subject for another blog.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On hiding Barnaby

Image
Cartoon: Matt Golding It seems the Nationals plan to "hide" former leader and serial drongo, Barnaby Joyce, for this year's election campaign, restricting him to campaigning within the boundaries of his electorate. Clearly, Barnaby has become a party liability, although his popularity in his rural heartland remains high. Mind you, restricting Barnaby to New England still means he has a lot of ground to cover. It's the twelfth largest federal electorate by area and covers a vast swathe of central west and northern New South Wales.  Of course, the Nats could hide Barnaby permanently by just disendorsing him. Find themselves a candidate who won't embarrass the party by getting pissed and passing out on the footpath in the middle of Canberra or knocking up a junior staffer while trumpeting CFV*. Ah, yes. Good old CFV. The public fallback position for all conservative pollies while they're privately pursuing anything but. They roll it out regularly in order to poi...
Read more

On the problem of mindfulness as a consumer product without ethics

Image
 Living in the present moment, or what the well-being industry calls ‘mindfulness’, has become one of those words that is overused to the point of meaninglessness. Like resilience, sustainability and wellness, it has come to be used as a vague umbrella term for a range of behaviours and attitudes that are, on the face of it, positive, but which require conscious effort to put into action. Just saying one is resilient or living sustainably doesn’t guarantee any change from the non-resilient or unsustainable self. Adopting the words alone makes no change. In a capitalist world there is also a strong “ka-ching” value to these words. There’s any number of entrepreneurs, influencers and con-artists happy to sell you wellness, mindfulness, resilience, sustainability and a host of other zeitgeist buzzwords for a price.  There’s no end to the products you can buy, the workshops you can attend, the books you can read, the websites you can subscribe to, phone apps to download, celebrity...
Read more

On the conflicted nature of unfriending people

Image
  In 2009, the New Oxford American Dictionary proclaimed unfriend as its Word of the Year. It's a rather brutal notion that one can simply delete a friend by clicking on a button. Yet it also brings into question our concept of what it actually means to have a friend in an age of technology. Before social media, when all our friends were people we actually knew, one might fall out with a friend or simply drift apart due to geographic distance or different life paths. "Oh, yes," you might say of a certain former friend, "we were friends once but we had a falling out over what constitutes an appropriate pizza topping and as far as I'm concerned, he and his disgusting pineapple pizza deserve each other." Or, "Yes, I was quite good friends with her, but after she joined that religious cult and moved, we just stopped seeing each other. I wonder how she's going now?" There are other friends with whom we remain close for our entire lives regardless ...
Read more