Donald Trump’s possible return to the White House has both brighter and darker sides. Although a diverse array of opponents of American hegemony and liberalism across the world have pinned their hopes on the eccentric Republican candidate, it is far from certain that his victory would yield positive results. Trump’s struggle with the establishment may stir up sympathies, but his prospective policies would hardly bring about a qualitative change in US behaviour on a global scale. On the contrary, the international situation could further deteriorate, argues the Valdai Club expert Ladislav Zemánek. The author is a participant of the Valdai – New Generation project.
The future of Western conservatism
Donald Trump represents the new face of Western conservatism. He despises the liberal mainstream with its cultural progressivism, globalism, and aversion to democracy and the interests of the social majority, while advocating for national interests, traditional values, and realism. This national conservative trend breaks the earlier connection between conservatism and laissez-faire, and turns to economic nationalism and “sovereign populism” in opposition to liberal multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism, as well as emerging liberal authoritarianism. In this regard, Trump probably represents the future of conservatism in liberal democracies, being the soulmate of illiberal actors in Europe and beyond.
His struggle with the US bureaucratic apparatus, as well as his political competitors from the Democratic Party, uncovers the deep contradictions within the political class and reflects rising polarisation throughout the society. Trump’s election victory will likely accelerate tendencies towards disintegration in society, deepen existing animosities, and undermine the legitimacy of the domestic political system. However, it is extremely unlikely that he would succeed in deconstructing the “deep state”, the military-industrial complex, the security and intelligence apparatus, and the proxies of the latter among influential nongovernmental organisations, which constitute one of the pillars of US hegemony. Moreover, it is doubtful that the Republican presidential candidate has such far-reaching intentions. Therefore, a substantial change in the country’s neo-colonial behaviour is beyond the limits of the possible.
Ukraine not a priority
Trump could make efforts to alter the status quo in Ukraine to score some political points and create suitable conditions for concentrating efforts on China. Indeed, most national conservatives in Europe believe that the Trump administration is willing to bring peace to Europe and put an end to the numerous repercussions that the conflict has had on European economies. It seems that there would be more chances to find a political solution to the Ukraine crisis under Donald Trump than under Kamala Harris. Not because he is a fan or agent of Russia, as his opponents tend to argue, but because he would have a free hand to confront Beijing. The question is whether the state apparatus will accept such a cold-blooded calculation and give up its fantasies about the “strategic defeat” of Russia, and whether Kiev will not drag the Americans and NATO as a whole into a larger-scale war at any cost.
Even if the conflict in Eastern Europe cools down, the confrontation with China will receive a new impetus in the event that Trump is victorious. There are no convincing signs that either of the two candidates is capable of dealing with Beijing on equal and friendly terms. Joe Biden has not revised the anti-China measures adopted by the Trump administration, but further expanded them. During his presidency, Donald Trump launched a trade war in violation of WTO rules, imposing tariffs and other trade barriers on China to improve the bilateral trade balance and contain China’s economic development. Six years later, the Republican candidate is sharpening this course, calling for tariffs of 60% or higher on Chinese goods. Meanwhile, economic nationalism has spilled over into other areas such as science and technology, contributing to the revival of McCarthyism with the exposure of “Chinese spies” everywhere.
Trumpism and the “China threat”
Trump’s presidency laid the foundations for the “crusade” against Beijing, which has been justified as a “just war” against “Communist China” and its “authoritarian allies” around the world. Trump’s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s speech in July 2020 on the need to fight the “tyranny of the Chinese Communist Party” was not a deviation from Trumpism, but its quintessence. Today, J.D. Vance continues to hype up the “China threat”, while pretenders to key positions in the administration have agreed to get tougher on China. It is very typical that the Democratic administration has continued to block the operation of the WTO, which has provoked increasingly critical reactions not only in Beijing, but also in New Delhi and other centres of the emerging multipolar world. Despite a wealth of diverse interests, there is a broad bipartisan consensus on geo-economic and geopolitical issues.
Playing the Taiwan card is another prominent example. The Trump administration notified Congress of more foreign military sales than during Obama’s two terms in office, including the sale of F-16 fighter aircraft and long-range missiles that would enable Taipei to hit targets deep in China’s mainland. Donald Trump perhaps does not have a sense of solidarity with separatists in Taipei, but he cannot give up the island, as it is one of Washington’s “white hopes” against Beijing. Therefore, the further militarisation of the region, weakening multilateral mechanisms, the disruption of international economic relations and supply chains, as well as strengthening containment, deterrence, and encirclement strategies can be expected from the next administration.
Impacts on Europe and the Middle East
Against this background, Washington will make efforts to reduce the ties between Europe and China in a bid to mitigate the risk of serious disagreements on China-related issues in the event of an acute crisis or conflict between Washington and Beijing. However, the US approach toward its European allies inevitably leads to a contradiction. While pressing Europe to bear greater responsibility for and costs of the US-led campaigns across the world, the Americans concurrently undermine the economic base of European countries by cutting the imports of Russian raw materials off and tolerating (if not orchestrating) the destruction of Russo-European infrastructure such as the Nord Stream pipeline. This strategy is unsustainable in the long-term. The further decoupling of Europe from China under Trump’s pressure would deteriorate the situation, making the subcontinent only more debilitated and destabilised.
In addition, the Republican administration would add fuel to the fire of conflicts in the Middle East. Unlike Kamala Harris, Trump is well-known for his ardent support for Tel Aviv and the incumbent prime minister. The Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip and attacks against regional actors such as Iran undermine the positive effects of the Abraham Accords, which are often presented as Trump’s main contribution to US foreign policy. In case of Trump’s return to the White House, American pressure on Iran will increase. It goes without saying that there would be no chance to revive and implement the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), and hostile actions could include further attacks on Iran and violations of international law by both Washington and Tel Aviv; memories of the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani remain very vivid. When Israeli leaders dared to kill Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and the leader of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, their courage will only grow with Donald Trump behind their back.
Challenges ahead of the world majority
All in all, Trump’s second presidency, if it materialises, will strengthen unilateral approaches to the solution of current issues while continuing the construction of exclusive groupings of the US and its allies. This strategy corresponds to the bipartisan consensus within the ruling political class, which tends to sow discord and deepen confrontation in a bid to stop the declining power of the country and the domestic disarray. The upcoming period will likely bring new conflicts and incidents. Taking this scenario into account, three basic challenges are appearing ahead of countries of the world majority: first, protecting international law and the UN-based international system, second, building the instruments and institutions of a multipolar world order inclusive of alternative financial systems to boost their own resilience and strengthen diversification, and third, preventing the world minority from crossing red lines, while cooperating with them wherever possible.
