That Donald Trump, coming over here and tearing up the post-war international order, putting a question mark over the United States' support for Europe and chumming up to Vladimir Putin. His second coming has continued as it started: unsettling friends and upsetting certainties while turning everything the new administration touches into chaos. Who can disagree with Keir Starmer that, from the standpoint of great power politics, this is a "once in a generation moment"?
The calling of an emergency European summit sans the US in response to the Trump "peace plan", that freezes Europe and Ukraine out while he and Putin draw new lines on the map is the biggest breach in the Western alliance since the Suez crisis. Then, in no uncertain terms, the Americans said the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt was a no and that overseas military adventures without Uncle Sam's blessing were over. With talks between the US and Russia to start as early as Tuesday in Saudi Arabia, it appears now that Trump wants to break with seven decades of foreign policy common sense and let Europe do its own thing. Suddenly, the talk is about Europe ramping up military spending and huge numbers of soldiers being shipped to Ukraine to act as peace keepers to police the eventual peace. Starmer was quick to volunteer British troops for any such force, with estimates for the combined mission topping out at 100,000 soldiers. But also Starmer as the "bridge" between an aggressive US and an appalled EU/rest of NATO has carried on talking up the need for US security guarantees to back an armistice and a permanent end to the war. Which will probably come to pass, seeing as Trump has made no bones about his desire for Ukrainian mineral stocks. Though it is worth noting the bulk of these materials are in the eastern Russian-occupied zone of the country.
For liberal internationalists, the supporters of the fictional "rules-based order" it's enough to drive them into despair. The rights of a small nation trampled on and disregarded as the big players sit down to haggle over its fate is a grotesque spectacle. But what Trump is demonstrating is the naked truth of global politics. The US is the (declining) hegemon, but is dispensing with the usual protocols and politesse about "allies" and "partners". But what is the game plan here? Not normally known for his political insights, on Sunday's Laura Kuenssberg Reform's Richard Tice said this was the hardball way of ensuring Europeans meet a long-held Trumpist aim: a collective increase military spending so the continent's security is no longer bankrolled from the Oval Office. This take is fine as far as it goes. It would allow for more tax cuts at home, which Trump can then crow about. But it only goes part of the way.
As forecast before the election, Trumpism wanted to shake down the state for the benefit of the billionaires. Not just so capital can pocket more tax cuts and enjoy a freshly enfeebled regulatory environment, but to ensure the balance in class relations is tilted further in their favour. Cutting the state reduces the checks and encumbrances placed on capital by generations of workplace, court room, and legislative struggles. The prize here is the sovereignty of unfettered class rule - a project identical in intent, but much larger in scale than the obsessions of the Conservative Party in this country.
Trump's rude antics overseas are an extension of the domestic project. Never mind the international order he's seemingly intent on smashing up was constructed by the US for America's benefit, Trumpism here is the extrication of the US from obligations to allies (if they're not deemed in the White House's immediate interests), and a decisive move away from soft power operations so the US can bestride the world as a military colossus. The peace-through-strength impulse of Trumpism is really strength-through-fear, of the presidency openly and clearly declaring that it alone is sovereign and nothing can stop US capital from getting its way. This is not a new isolationism, as the talking heads on respectable podcasts keep saying, but a shift in the US's imperial orientation to the world. An overly aggressive posture rather than diplomacy, a readiness to rely on threats and cajoling if not force to get its way. The limits of such an approach are not infinite, but they are distressing for anyone unused to seeing international power politics for what they really are.
In other words, Trumpism - despite its chaotic outbursts, upending of custom, and seemingly self-defeating decisions - is not an expression of insanity. Its actions over Ukraine and the rapprochement with Russia are the open politics of the American oligarchy. Once again, it comes back to interests. Class interests.
Image Credit
6 comments:
Absolutely. It's hardly evidence of delusion (or incompetence) when someone destroys things that they have no interest in preserving (prosperity of ordinary Americans, legal norms, decency in discourse, goodwill of non-fascist allies ...); it's evidence of malice, not insanity. The "Trump is delusional" thing is a failure to face up to the fact that he is not mad, but bad; people find insanity less threatening than evil. He plays up to this INsanewashing himself as a useful distraction; one might hope that people would neither fall for it, nor play along.
The liberal fight back is feeble, as expected, and will fail now the gloves are off. It’s going to be down to raw power now. Can US organised Labour make a stand? I fear they’re likely to be divided until there’s an overreach that clearly harms the mass interests of workers. Crazy times that many who have gained power will never understand.
The USA has been a naked plutocracy through the 20th century and until now. Money wins elections. Knowing the USA for a long-established pseudo-democracy, we may be in danger of missing what is new here.
This is a presidency and an attempted coup specifically by a faction of the super-rich, men like Musk and Bezos — people whose personal fortunes are as big as the budgets of some states. It is an attempt to take over the USA by super-rich people who want the USA to be like Russia is, ruled dictatorially by a collection of plutocrats and oligarchs.
Trump himself is a pretty miserable creature, ignorant and probably stupid (despite some low cunning), obsessed with himself. He is a rich man-child intent on vengeance and money. It has taken such a creature to bring to a head a long-brewing crisis in the US political system. But then Hitler, Goebbels, Goering, Himmler were not the peak of humanity either.
Success for the Trumpites in this coup will signal a sharp right-wing turn in world politics. The working class will be the main loser.
In the USA some Democrats have been trying to whip up a campaign of demonstrations against the attempt at a plutocrats’ and oligarchs’ coup. And the US labour movement? Despite everything, there is still a powerful cohesive strength in the American unions.
A general strike against the attempted presidential coup should be the labour movement’s response. Once started, it would certainly involve far more than are now organised. Organised protest is weak for now, but anger is widespread, and in such crises things can turn round quickly.
It would probably stop the coup. It would prepare the working class for other social action in the interests of democracy and of all working people, and for acting in defence of “Obamacare” and the other elements of a welfare state that have become part of the USA.
The serious left needs to be clear which side we'll be on.
In his first term Trump told Nato allies they needed to stop free-riding on US defence spending and start meeting their commitments. Those allies nodded in agreement and then backslid as soon as Biden came in, even if Ukraine changed the risks somewhat (I think Putin definitely realised Biden would be a softer touch). Now, Trump's back, he's seen the backsliding and he's decided to just cut them out, which has rightly scared the shit out of them. Whether this is a permanent sidelining or not (and I suspect not, I think it's a short-term reaction to things drifting too far), I reckon it will actually force those allies to step up one way or another.
Now, I think there's an opportunity here if Starmer is willing to be a proper bastard. A few weeks ago Macron was being a cockwomble about the UK needing to be more deferential to EU blah, blah (there was some talk around the EU doing us a favour by decanting its youth unemployment problem on us, because uneconomic migration is the UK's thing apparently). Now, the calculus has changed, the EU's lack of hard power is exposed, most EU members are free-riders on larger members like France and Germany (and formerly the UK), so Macron and the big European leaders and feeling more favourable towards the UK and what it brings to the table. Now it's true we have let our armed forces atrophy, and we can't deliver the numbers of bigger nations, but if we shake off some of the decadence, we have the institutional memory and know how to deliver world class armed forces. We're not a great power, but we can punch above our weight and those allies instinctively recognise this. Starmer should use this leverage in resetting European relations, yes it would be cynical and exploitative, but that doesn't stop our 'allies' from behaving that way when it suits.
The Supreme Leader has the correct take:
https://x.com/khamenei_ir/status/1892275709298545141?mx=2
@Kamo, you do get quite excited at the thought of men in uniform. Your "punch above our weight" comment is amusingly nostaglic and suggestive you have been overindulging in that BBC show about the founding of the SAS.
Once we pretended that NATO was a self-defence club for 'free' people who lived in Democracies. Now that the USA has openly turned authoritarian, the membership rules are under severe strain. Wasn't the point of NATO to stop the dictators taking over? But, if they already have, what then? The military industrial complex sees an opportunity to get even more public money spaffed on their products. Why bother? Let's go neutral or sign a treaty with China. America is going to crash and burn quite soon - it needs external enemies or it will tear itself apart. The same is probably true of Russia. If we just leave them to it we don't need to spend anything.
Post a Comment