With Donald Trump began his second term, research intensified in the form of the world in which he became a title at the end of an era and another departure. The former certainty has evaporated, and the liberal world order which was formed in the 1990s ended.
We are at the threshold of the moment of reorganization in international relations, no less important than the events of 1989 – the fall of the Soviet Union, or 1945 – the end of the Second World War, or 1919 – after the First World War.
In the two major turning points, the old system was about to go bankrupt slowly, before it suddenly collapsed. Although it was not always clear for contemporaries, we can see later that the new system that will succeed in any case was in preparation for a long time.
Trump “Curtains in the American Century” – According to David Wale -Wales, the New York Times column writer (New York Times) and the best -selling. The regime, which has been built for decades to a large extent by American force and its advantage, is largely eliminated to prevent its work now against the American power itself.
It is quite clear what Donald Trump wants: the principle that world chaos opens the opportunity of the great powers that standards and bases have long been surrounded.
“The global system that appeared after the Second World War is no longer only old, but is now a weapon used against us.”
The French observer, Arno Berrand, wrote in an article on the X Twitter platform: “Hegemony would have finished urgently or later, and now the United States chooses to end its own conditions.” He added: “It is the world order of the post – that America has brought you itself.”
While the old system is dying, the central question that clings to international relations today is the nature of the new system that fights for birth. From here, the importance of the article he published at the end of last month in foreign policy (foreign policy), the historian Nils Gilman, in which he seeks after the Western liberal system.
The new hegemony which appeared after the Cold War in the 1990s was based on several standard pillars:
- International borders should not be written by force – and the defense of this rule after the Second World War was the apparent cause of the Gulf War in 1991.
- The principle of national sovereignty is still in force, unless there are great atrocities against human rights – an exception which was ultimately implemented under the title of “responsibility for protection”.
- Global economic and financial integration should be adopted by all, because free and fair trade would benefit all parties.
- Conflicts between countries will be resolved through legal negotiations in multilateral institutions – and the promotion of the General Convention on Customs and Trade (GATT) to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 was the symbolic institutional appearance of this principle.
The American historian believes that: “The last nail in the coffin of these principles – after the challenge of China and Russia – is that the United States, which in the 1990s and the first decade of the twenty -fifth century, said that it is the greatest hero of these principles, now they are now rejected.”
And if the war against Gaza is the end of the basic international regime – as announced by the secretary general of Amnesty International – the world Trump is a world without rules; It should not be involved in the system or structure, but rather the rules of the immortal rule: “I am the rule, and the rule is me.”
Gaza wasted the normative capital of the Western liberal regime and the basic international regime, which have accumulated in the same way for decades after the Second World War.
The war against Gaza revealed the delusions that prevailed after the Second World War against joint humanity. An International Secretary of Amnesty-General, in an article published in Average Affairs (Foreign Affairs (Foreign Affairs), ends, commenting on war in Gaza, at the conclusion that: “The rules based on rules, which has governed international affairs since the end of the Second World War, is on the verge of disappearing, and there may not be a return.” He continues: “this disintegration, which is clearly obvious in the Destruction of Gaza and the reaction of the West, indicates the end of the system based on the rules and the beginning of a new era. “
As for the scientist Trump, he completely separated the material strength of America and the moral legitimacy which it claimed for decades. This separation is not interested in Trump now. Popolist and populist men around the world often say that the values of open society – pluralism, tolerance and modernity – are imported from the West. They say that they build an authentic national political culture which differs from Western liberalism.
The rise of China and the return of Russia must also be understood as two works of cultural balance, that is to say responses not only to the geopolitical domination of the United States in the last three decades, but also to the spread of liberalism around the world.
We see Trump supervising the conflict in the United States in long-term cultural wars between the conservative traditional values of the family and religion, which find its roots in Jewish-Christian traditions, and between the “vigilance” ideology adopted by progression and women, the community of M and the owners of ethnic justice and the judiciary … etc. (Pop singer).
Trump’s war against diversity, equity and inclusion is a war against the era of civil rights itself and an attempt to restore the clock in relation to equality of rights. Under the guise of justice and merit, Trump and his allies want to restore a world where the first and most important qualification for any important job is to know if you are white and memory.
It does not put much confidence in systems according to rules, alliances or multinational forums. Trump’s world should be ready to grab the moment and get the most out of all the odds. The international system is highly personalized. Trump does not adhere excessively to specific rift lines: democratic, undemocratic or a free and unmanned world. Individuals are often preferred to governments and personal relations with official alliances.
The Trump administration does not use complete structures for international cooperation, such as the United Nations or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Instead, he and his advisers – in particular those who descend from the world of technology – can manage the world scene of the mentality of an emerging company, or a company that has just been trained, and can be resolved soon, but it is able to respond quickly and in a creative manner to the circumstances of the moment – said Wallace.
Likewise, Trump is not interested in command as an order of the day of foreign policy and separates his feeling of the exceptional American of the United States of the non-American outside world.
In fact, Trump’s hatred of globalization does it in the same row of Putin, Che and Modi. In his spacious, the curators on the right -wing find support and support – as his assistant announced during the Munich security conference.
It is clear that the concept of the “international system based on rules” represents a curse on Trump. In the end, the rules may be forced to do something you don’t want, and this can impose short -term costs on your country.
Trump seems to believe that current rules do not improve long -term American interests. His goal seems to maximize his freedom to act at any time, and this explains his tendency to consider alliances as charges.
Gilman draws for us the most important characteristic of the next global system which will be based on “The Clash of Civilizations” – in its appreciation. He believes that “the idea of the conflict of civilizations was not wrong, but was only premature” – thus, the titles of his article.
Whatever the name that can be called this new system at the end, its distinctive characteristics – to the estimate of Gilman – will not understand any transaction in the international economy, the policies of the forces which are summarized that “the powerful do what they can, and the weak suffer from what they must bear” and strong insurance on identity policies which are focused on “civilized states”.
But what do we mean by the civilized status? What is the impact of its renewal on conflicts in a world of construction? What are our Arabs in this struggle in the context of the current war in Palestine, which transformed the Zionist entity into a war against identity? Finally, not another, can the Al -Aqsa flood helps to reaffirm our civilized self in the face of others?
The opinions of the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al-Jazeera.