The rumblings prompted by US President Donald Trump’s re-election soon gathered force. First came tariffs and threats of territorial annexation; then the greater shocks of US Vice President J.D. Vance’s Valentine’s Day massacre of European values and Trump’s enthusiastic amplification of Kremlin lines on Ukraine.
On Monday came another seismic moment. For more than a decade, the UN Security Council has been largely paralyzed by the split between the five permanent members — Russia and China on one side; the US, France and the UK on the other. This time, when the US brought a resolution calling for an end to the war in Ukraine on the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion, it did not criticize Moscow, demand its withdrawal or back Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The result was that China and Russia backed the resolution — while the UK and France, having failed to temper it, abstained.
Earlier, even Beijing had chosen to abstain rather than reject a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Moscow as the aggressor in Ukraine. It was passed overwhelmingly, with the backing of 93 states. Yet the US joined Russia in voting against it — along with Belarus, North Korea, Syria and a handful of others.
“These are not our friends,” Republican Senator John Curtis wrote on X.
The post-1945 order is beyond repair while Trump occupies the White House. French President Emmanuel Macron’s charm and deftness papered over the problems somewhat when he became the first European leader to meet the US president since his re-election. (British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, not noted for his nimbleness or charisma, was likely to find the task somewhat harder yesterday.) The French president was adroit in flattering Trump even as he told the truth. However, it is not surprising that he failed to make any real progress in closing the gap. Those are not cracks in the transatlantic relationship, but a chasm.
A committed Atlanticist such as Christian Democratic Union leader Friedrich Merz, on course to shortly become the German chancellor, is compelled to urge independence from the US, because “the Americans, at any case the Americans in this administration, do not care much about the fate of Europe.” He warned that European leaders might not be able to talk about NATO in its current form by June. The problem is not only what Trump might do, but what he might not. NATO is built on the conviction that countries would stand by the commitments they make. That confidence cannot exist while Trump is president.
When Starmer told members of parliament on Tuesday that “Here we are, in a world where everything has changed,” he was commenting on Russian aggression, but everyone understood the real shift underlying his remarks. To note, as he did, that the US-UK alliance has survived countless external challenges was not quite a vote of confidence. It tacitly acknowledged that the threat this time is internal.
The ground is rocking beneath Europe’s feet. It must brace itself for further shocks. In place of the post-World War II order, Trump envisages a world where alliances are no more than empty words, and great powers bluff and bully their way through. Bilateral meetings have their purpose — they might offer minimal respite and buy a little time — but it would require common will to defend the interests of European states. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk suggested that European leaders would be meeting in London at the weekend to discuss security. Their best hope of standing firm is by standing together.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS