Over the centuries, “the West” has come to represent much more than a geographic region. It now embodies the enduring legacy of ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, the cultural achievements of the European Renaissance, the evolution of political philosophy, and the spirit of exploration and discovery.
However, since the end of World War II the term has taken a more explicitly geopolitical and security-oriented meaning. From the mid-1940s until the fall of the Berlin Wall, Europe and its allies often defined themselves not only by their shared ideals, but also by their opposition to the Soviet Union.
US President Donald Trump, in one of his many inane remarks about history and global affairs, claimed that the EU was established to “screw” the US. In fact, the opposite is true.
After 1945, Europeans were eager for the US to remain actively involved rather than turn inward, as it had after World War I. Left to their own devices, European nations risked drifting into yet another conflict, potentially forcing the US to intervene again to restore peace. To prevent that, European leaders urged the US to maintain its presence on the continent as a bulwark against the growing threat of the Soviet Union.
In response, the US encouraged Europe to pursue greater economic and political integration, leading to the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community and, eventually, the European Common Market. Both were seen by the US as essential to ensuring long-term peace and prosperity among its transatlantic allies, and preventing the continent from impoverishing itself through trade wars and protectionist policies.
In 1949, NATO was established to defend Europe against Soviet expansionism. Together, the US and an increasingly integrated Europe laid the foundation for what we now call “the West” — a group of countries bound by democratic values and a strong commitment to multilateral cooperation.
The postwar order was underpinned by the US’ status as the world’s leading economic and military power. As the Soviet Union collapsed — largely due to Western unity and resolve — former communist states transformed into market-oriented democracies, with relatively little violence apart from the tragic wars in the Balkans.
Regrettably, the US has abandoned the leadership role it naturally assumed during the postwar era, as Trump continues to dismantle the international order by undermining institutions and values that he neither understands nor respects.
Since returning to the White House, Trump has shown even less regard for democratic norms and the rule of law than he did during his first term. His recent actions call to mind US Vice President J.D. Vance’s description of Trump as “America’s Hitler” (before he seized the opportunity to ride Trump’s coattails to the US Senate and, ultimately, the vice presidency.)
While I would not use such strong language, Trump is undoubtedly an authoritarian and a corrupt bully. Like a medieval monarch, he appears to believe that everything is his to claim simply because he wants it.
Given his authoritarian tendencies, it is hardly surprising that Trump does not care for the liberal democratic order. In his view, other leaders are there to be instructed, not consulted. Any hint of disagreement is likely to provoke retaliatory economic measures, often in the form of tariffs on their exports to the US.
The recent G7 meeting is a prime example. The group of the world’s leading industrialized nations once had an eighth member, Russia, but after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, the group’s other members rightly expelled it, turning the G8 back into the G7. Yet despite Putin’s ongoing war in Ukraine, Trump opened the summit in Canada by calling for Russia to be readmitted.
Much like his Oval Office confrontation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in February, Trump continued to blame Ukraine for being invaded. Russia’s record of unprovoked aggression appears to matter little to him. Once again, he gave the clear impression of being in Putin’s pocket.
Today, it is difficult to identify any values that most liberal democratic leaders still share with Trump. As a result, the US’ allies must confront a sobering reality: the US — once the undisputed leader of the free world — is no longer a reliable partner.
While it was once widely believed that powerful nations had a responsibility to consider the interests of weaker ones, Trump views the world differently. In his eyes, the strength of the US gives it the right to act as it pleases, and other nations should simply accept the consequences.
This mindset helps explain Trump’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites rather than use diplomacy to persuade the Islamic Republic to abandon its nuclear ambitions, but while Trump has celebrated the outcome of his “very successful attack,” Western unity and cooperation are far more likely to encourage Iran to play a more constructive and peaceful international role.
To be sure, Iran’s dangerous and repressive regime is, at least in part, the result of serious mistakes Western nations have made in dealing with the country over the past 70 years.
The most notable example, of course, is the US-backed overthrow of its first democratically elected government in 1953.
The question now is whether Trump’s decision to bomb Iran has compounded these errors and dragged an already divided West into yet another bloody war in the Middle East. If so, it hardly inspires confidence that global stability and the international order are in the hands of a dangerously unstable leader.
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
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked
RSS