Confirming
the Thucydidean diagnosis, the centers of power on our increasingly multipolar
planet are reshaping the global geopolitical landscape, with sole criteria
their perceived national interests and the correlation of forces. And in the
process, the concept of an "international legal order, which, despite
being exploited as a cover for ulterior motives, continues to offer a useful
framework for international cooperation, is often bypassed or entirely ignored.
Unsurprisingly,
the primary impetus for shaping the global environment comes from Washington,
universally recognized as the leading force in terms of key power factors. And
consequently, the efforts of the new occupant of the White House to validate
his campaign slogan, "America First," have a decisive impact on a
wide range of international developments. With President Trump’s actions thus
far making it clear that he is motivated by a perception of international
relations often referred to as "transactional." An outlook quietly
shared, no doubt, by all significant global players, but which only Mr. Trump
publicly presents as his geopolitical compass. Unapologetically promoting
policies that range from classical geopolitical and economic pursuits to
unconventional commercial and business practices.
US-Russian
Relations
At
the onset of his second term in the White House, President Trump, in an effort
to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, dramatically reset the global chessboard. The
war in Ukraine is certainly a geopolitical and, primarily, a human tragedy
marked by miscalculations of all its protagonists, first and foremost of the
Russian president. However, the initial obsession of the West with the total
military predominance of Kiev, with some Western circles even seeking to bring
about, through the conflict, regime change in Moscow, has long been proven
futile; and, particularly for Europeans, has entailed painful economic,
political, and geopolitical costs.
But,
although the actions of its leadership in Ukraine are both legally and morally
condemnable, Russia does not constitute a threat to Western security, as it has
neither a visible interest in "invading Europe" nor, crucially, the
necessary military and economic means to carry out such an enterprise –
provided that the Euro-Atlantic world maintains its cohesion, and,
specifically, that Washington continues to guarantee the security of its NATO
allies. And, though President Trump has pressured the latter on burden-sharing,
threatening to reduce American defense commitments or even to withdraw the US
from the Atlantic Alliance, it is far more likely that he is engaging in one of
his characteristic negotiating tactics —one which, by the way, seems to
work—and that he has no intention to put at risk major American strategic
interests by carrying out his threats.
Whatever
his intentions, however, as of this writing, his peace efforts appear to be
yielding results. The multifaceted and dynamic, even coercive, American
mediation has initiated a negotiation process closely aligned with the real
power balances between the involved parties, which, one can hope, will put an
end to the slaughter, and create the territorial, strategic, and economic
conditions that will prevent the Ukrainian issue from becoming again a focal
point for a broader, possibly global, conflict.
Among
the motivations generally attributed to President Trump for his decision to
redefine US-Russian relations are the financial costs of supporting Kiev; the
growing opposition to this financial support among a large segment of the
initially indifferent American public; maintaining the prestige of the American
president — who prior to taking office had announced that he would end the war
"within 24 hours"; and Mr. Trump’s interest in Ukraine's natural
resources. One parameter, however, perhaps the most crucial, of the Ukrainian
conflict that the American president almost certainly did not overlook in
making his decisions is the high probability that peace will positively influence
the power dynamics within the US-Russia-China geopolitical triangle —
undoubtedly the most significant set of geopolitical interrelationships of our
time.
Sino-American
Relations
Already
during his first presidency, Trump officially labeled China a "revisionist
power” "actively competing with the US and seeking to replace the United
States in the Indo-Pacific region." And the Biden administration
characterized it as "America's most significant geopolitical
challenge" and cautiously attempted to counter its aspirations. The
downturn in US-Russian relations following the war in Ukraine, however,
provided the Chinese with an unexpected opportunity to strengthen their
position in their confrontation with Washington by enlisting Moscow as a minor
partner. And this despite the challenge that China's expansive activities, from
East and Central Asia to the Arctic, pose to the Russians.
It
is therefore no surprise that Beijing appears concerned about the impact of the
emerging US-Russian rapprochement on its interests; and that it reacts, not
only by providing Moscow with assurances of "sincere friendship", but
also by attempting to complicate and if possible to derail the resolution of
the Ukrainian crisis by promoting the inclusion in the negotiations of the European
Union — whose hazy and rather unrealistic positions on Ukraine objectively
serve Chinese interests.
For
the rest, the Sino-American confrontation continues unabated, extending from
trade and technology to the Indo-Pacific and the Global South. And, despite the
clear American advantage in the major components of power, it will, in all
evidence, prove to be long and tenacious; while given potentially explosive
geopolitical problems, such as Taiwan, it may even at some point threaten
global peace.
Euro-Atlantic
Dynamics and Confrontations
The
necessary reset of US-Russian relations undertaken by President Trump has,
however, encountered resistance even in the Euro-Atlantic region itself. In
light of the unfavorable military developments for the Ukrainian side and of
the realization that without direct military involvement of the West —primarily
of the US—the prevalence of Kyiv on the battlefield is unattainable, the
initially "unlimited" support for Ukraine has progressively given way
to concerns and disagreements, regarding both the feasibility of negotiations
and the terms of an agreement with Moscow to end the war. And while NATO,
thanks to American leadership and despite persisting divergences among its
members, maintains a minimum of coherence, Europe is engulfed in political and
geopolitical confusion.
The
European Union, in particular, has failed hitherto to establish a meaningful
unified stance on the war in Ukraine. And the attempt by the so-called
"coalition of the willing" to intervene has simply confirmed the
divisions among EU member states, with fewer than half participating in the
discussions led by the British Prime Minister and the French President.
Discussions, which, for the rest, simply confirmed the futility of “dynamic”
proclamations against the nuclear superpower Russia, in the absence of
Washington.
The
Ukrainian crisis has thus exposed, among other things, the structural
weaknesses of the European Union's purported "Common Foreign and Security
Policy (CFSP)". The principle of unanimity, which remains at the heart of
the Union, presents an insurmountable obstacle to achieving unified positions,
and still more to undertaking joint actions on major, controversial foreign and
defense policy issues, such as relations with Moscow and Washington. In
contrast to NATO, no member state within the EU has sufficient weight to prod
along the rest. As for the prospect of filling the leadership void through a
"Franco-German axis," it is worth noting that both Paris and Berlin
currently face internal challenges that significantly impact their influence
beyond their borders. While the carefully weighed statements of the European
Council and Commission tend to highlight rather than obscure the lack of
consensus on matters of vital importance to the Union.
It
should be added that, in the absence of a unified political center with
decisive powers, the publicly proclaimed and acclaimed increases in the
military spending of EU states, undoubtedly necessary in national contexts and
useful for NATO — among others, as a response to Washington's not unreasonable
demands — are far from contributing to the establishment of a "European
army." And the same holds true for the triumphant announcements on
European defense issued by the Extraordinary European Council at its March 6
meeting.
Transactionalism
unbounded
Outside
the confines of the narrow US-Russian-Chinese geopolitical framework, where,
due to the nature and scale of the stakes, the movements of the three global
nuclear powers are subject to obvious limitations, President Trump's
international choices and actions are especially characteristic of the
America-centric, transactional nature of his foreign policy; a typical feature
of which is the unabashed invocation of American power to impose Washington's will,
including the application of economic pressure through systematic recourse to
tariffs.
In
the Western Hemisphere in particular, the objectives of the American president
— border, immigration, economic, trade, strategic, and even in some respects
territorial towards Panama and Greenland — have so broadened and are so
robustly supported against external influences, with particular emphasis, it
should be noted, on China, that there is even talk of a "revival” of the
Monroe Doctrine.
While
in the broader international arena, the Trump presidency is particularly
focused on the emergence of the BRICS. A coalition, known by the initials of
its founding members, which comprises states otherwise highly heterogeneous,
with divergent and, in many cases, conflicting strategic and economic
interests, as in the case of India and China, whose primary, if not the only,
substantive link is their common opposition to the pivotal American role in
international economic life, and more immediately, a wish to undermine the
international dominance of the dollar as a reserve currency and medium of
exchange. Their apparent intention, however, to establish an alternative
international currency — in any case, a very difficult, if not doomed, endeavor
— has drawn a furious warning from the American president that he would
retaliate by resorting to the tariff weapon. It is a confrontation the stakes
of which are anything but trivial, as the dollar's international reach, in
addition to its strictly economic role, serves as a powerful geopolitical tool
– as evidenced by the sanctions imposed on Moscow after its invasion of
Ukraine.
The
above overview of the international scene is, of course, far from exhaustive.
It lacks even a brief reference to the critically significant developments in
the Greater Middle East, as to which, however, at the time this text was
drafted, the second Trump presidency had not yet clarified its policies.
During
his first term, Mr. Trump adamantly championed the positions and interests of
Israel, by, inter alia, recognizing Jerusalem as its capital, proposing a
solution to the Palestinian issue clearly favoring the Israeli side, and
mediating the normalization of relations between the Jewish state and
significant Arab countries through the Abraham Accords. And at the same time,
he withdrew the US from the nuclear agreement with Iran (the JCPOA or Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action) and implemented a policy of "maximum
pressure" on Tehran, comprising sanctions against it and military strikes
on its regional proxy allies. These past actions, however, although they may to
some extent prefigure the future orientations of the American president, do not
necessarily preordain them, given the rapidly changing regional and broader
geopolitical conditions – and Mr. Trump’s propensity for surprises.
Postscript
Although
the "international legal order" is being severely tested by power
politics, the explosive development of technology, the mounting environmental
problems, deadly pandemics, the scarcity of natural resources, intensifying
migratory flows, and the ever-present international terrorism — this list being
far from exhaustive — highlight the imperative need for cooperation among
states and other relevant actors, both within the United Nations and in other
international fora. While Western countries, for their part, though called upon
wherever and whenever conditions allow, to promote the values of Western
civilization, should resist the temptation to impose them or to make their
acceptance a prerequisite for cooperation with the rest of the international community.
Tragic past mistakes should serve as examples to be avoided.
