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
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS