Trump's world of rival fortresses

[Celerity]

In the US president’s vision of post-liberal global disorder the weak should always surrender to the strong, writes the historian, philosopher and author Yuval Noah Harari

https://www.ft.com/content/06cc7b0f-3e32-4164-b096-ff92a1532236

https://archive.ph/qfrEQ



The surprising thing about Donald Trump’s policies is that people are still surprised by them. Headlines express shock and disbelief whenever Trump assaults another pillar of the global liberal order — for example by supporting Russia’s claims for Ukrainian territory, contemplating the forced annexation of Greenland or unleashing financial chaos with his tariff announcements. Yet his policies are so consistent, and his vision of the world so clearly defined, that by this stage only wilful self-deception can account for any surprise.

Supporters of the liberal order see the world as a potentially win-win network of co-operation. They believe that conflict is not inevitable, because co-operation can be mutually beneficial. This belief has deep philosophical roots. Liberals argue that all humans share some common experiences and interests, which can form the basis for universal values, global institutions and international laws. For example, all humans abhor illness and have a common interest in preventing the spread of contagious diseases. So all countries would benefit from the sharing of medical knowledge, global efforts to eradicate epidemics and the establishment of institutions like the World Health Organization that co-ordinate such efforts. Similarly, when liberals look at the flow of ideas, goods and people between countries, they tend to understand it in terms of potential mutual benefits rather than inevitable competition and exploitation.

In the Trumpian vision, by contrast, the world is seen as a zero-sum game in which every transaction involves winners and losers. The movement of ideas, goods and people is therefore inherently suspect. In Trump’s world, international agreements, organisations and laws cannot be anything but a plot to weaken some countries and strengthen others — or perhaps a plot to weaken all countries and benefit a sinister cosmopolitan elite. What, then, is Trump’s preferred alternative? If he could reshape the world according to his wishes, what would it look like?

Trump’s ideal world is a mosaic of fortresses, where countries are separated by high financial, military, cultural and physical walls. It forgoes the potential of mutually beneficial co-operation, but Trump and like-minded populists argue that it will offer countries more stability and peace. There is, of course, a key component missing from this vision. Thousands of years of history teach us that each fortress would probably want a bit more security, prosperity and territory for itself, at the expense of its neighbours. In the absence of universal values, global institutions and international laws, how would rival fortresses resolve their disputes? Trump’s solution is simple: the way to prevent conflicts is for the weak to do whatever the strong demand. According to this view, conflict occurs only when the weak refuse to accept reality. War is therefore always the fault of the weak.

snip