After nearly a decade dominated by populist politics, the UK and the EU could be set to change course. Although overly cautious, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s overtures toward European allies are a welcome first step on what is likely to be a long path out of Brexit’s shadow.
Since leaving the EU — its largest market and closest political ally — five years ago, the UK has become increasingly aware of its true place in the world – arguably the country’s most encouraging political development in years. With the US abandoning multilateralism, Starmer’s Labour government is working to rebuild relationships with allies such as Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands.
Starmer, a naturally cautious politician, can hardly be accused of moving too quickly or seeking power for its own sake. However, his efforts to strengthen the UK’s trading relationship with the EU, deepen security cooperation with key European powers (particularly in support of Ukraine) and re-engage with democratic allies around the world signal an ambitious objective: restoring Britain’s place at the heart of the Western alliance.
The clearest example of this shift is the joint statement by the UK, France and Canada denouncing Israel’s “wholly disproportionate” actions in Gaza and the West Bank, which, they warned, “risk breaching international humanitarian law.” At the same time, they reaffirmed their unequivocal condemnation of Hamas’ attack against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and called for the immediate release of all remaining Israeli hostages.
All three countries find themselves increasingly sidelined and pressured by US President Donald Trump’s administration. However, Trump’s authoritarian and erratic behavior is being widely shunned. Globally, opposition to Trump has become an effective electoral strategy, enabling responsible parties across the political spectrum in countries like Canada and Australia to win elections, despite unfavorable early polling (though a populist endorsed by Trump narrowly won Poland’s recent presidential election).
Trump’s presidency has unleashed chaos within international institutions. Over the past three months, his administration has launched a deliberate effort to dismantle the multilateral order and subvert the core values upheld by every US president since the end of World War II. Unlike Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who promoted international cooperation and sought to make the US — in the words of former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright — an “indispensable” partner for democracies worldwide, Trump tends to treat allies as adversaries and vice versa.
His deference to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s repressive regime is a case in point. Trump has repeatedly gone out of his way to excuse or downplay Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and blatant violations of international law, including assassinations of political opponents abroad. Trump and the billionaire property developers shaping his foreign policy appear to have more sympathy for Putin than for traditional US allies, let alone for Ukraine, which Russia aims to exterminate as an independent nation-state.
This “might is right” worldview is also evident in Trump’s economic agenda, which centers on tariffs and massive spending cuts, and has pushed the US economy to the brink of recession. Fortunately, chainsaw-waving billionaire Elon Musk has stepped away from his role at the Department of Government Efficiency, though not before recklessly gutting numerous programs designed to support low-income households and vulnerable populations around the world.
The consequences extend far beyond US borders, as Trump’s relentless barrage of threats and incoherent tariff announcements has destabilized the global economy and jeopardized the US’ long-term prosperity. These actions have also played directly into China’s hands, undermining US credibility on the world stage.
Meanwhile, Trump’s anti-immigration agenda has eroded the US’ capacity for innovation and strengthened China’s position in the artificial intelligence race. Rather than seeking to boost the US economy’s global competitiveness, Trump has turned his ire inward, launching an unprecedented attack on elite universities and targeting some of the world’s leading scientists, many of whom are outspoken critics of his agenda.
However, recent developments suggest there are grounds for cautious optimism even in the US. Although Trump has shown little regard for the rule of law, the courts might yet prove to be an effective check on his unlawful actions. This is especially true in the case of his sweeping tariffs, which require congressional approval and cannot be imposed unilaterally by the president.
Perhaps resilient institutions and engaged citizens can bring this turbulent chapter of US history to a close. Future generations might look back on it with the same disbelief and shame that surround the McCarthy era of the 1950s and the Palmer Raids of the early 1920s. As with McCarthyism, many Americans are already asking: “How did we let that happen?” The rest of the world, watching anxiously, is asking the same question.
So, what can those of us outside the US do? For now, the answer seems clear. Liberal democracies must take the lead, building on the emerging partnership between Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. Encouragingly, a growing coalition — from Australia and Japan to central Europe — is committed to upholding WTO rules.
This alliance should serve as a foundation for economic cooperation that fosters stability, peace and shared prosperity. Other countries that wish to join should be welcomed. Those that do not will eventually discover that “might is right” is not a sustainable geopolitical or economic strategy. Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Putin might continue to posture and jeopardize their countries’ futures with reckless policies. The rest of us have serious work to do.
Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, is a former chancellor of the University of Oxford and the author of The Hong Kong Diaries.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS