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
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
RSS