Francis Fukuyama for Onetu: We are entering a new, dangerous period of history

The 4th year of war in Ukraine begins. And it doesn't look good for the Ukrainians. Let's see what kind of agreement negotiates TrumpIf he actually negotiates anything at all.

But the thing that hit me the most is what happened last time. To the surprise of all Trump abruptly started calling for the expansion of the United States. He's talking about acquisition of Greenland And the Panama Canal, and even Canada. most likely two-thirds of it can be considered Trump's fantasies that never come true. But they inactive have a large influence on global relations.

Jeffrey Phelps / PAP

Donald Trump at the rally on 1 November 2024.

How?

One of the basic principles of the old strategy was that you don't just take another people's territory. so Putin's attack on Ukraine in 2022 was specified a shock. And now we have the U.S. that says, "We want this and this territory, and we can usage armed forces.". This completely undermines the arguments we have against Putin on Ukraine. And Putin uses it. He suggested that Russia and the US divide Greenland, since no 1 cares about borders and sovereignty anymore. So let's just have 2 superpowers make a deal where they both benefit.

Did you imagine this would happen?

No, never. I didn't think the United States could behave like this. They themselves undermine the restrictions imposed on countries by planet order. Think of China. Theirs. claims to Taiwan are undoubtedly stronger than American claims to Greenland. If the Chinese consider that the American president accepts that large powers intimidate the military smaller states, why not effort to reclaim Taiwan? I think we're truly entering a dangerous period. Politics returns to grace in the old 19th century kind of a power concert.

You said 2 thirds of Trump's words were his fantasies. This another 3rd is inactive rather a lot. Is it possible for the American army to land 1 day with a landing organization in Greenland?

At this point, I won't say anything is impossible. quite a few things I thought were impossible earlier happened, headed by Trump's re-election. The fact is that both Greenland and Denmark are willing to talk to the United States. The Americans actually have crucial strategical interests in the Arctic region, especially now that global warming is beginning fresh routes there. Denmark and Greenland would have no problem negotiating an increased American presence. We already have our military base, we're conducting radar surveillance from there.. Trump may have achieved this peacefully, but he preferred to endanger military intervention against an ally from NATO. This is crazy. It's possible he's just saying that, and he knows he'll get what he wants through negotiations. He does it due to the fact that specified statements appeal to his iron supporters, making him look strong in their eyes. I hope that's the reason. But as I mentioned, I no longer consider anything impossible.

On the another hand, isn't Donald Trump actually doing the same thing as his predecessors, just saying it more openly and looking for false justifications? The thought of America imposing its will on weaker states through military interventions is not new. I can think of an invasion of Iraq in 2003.

I mostly agree with that. The invasion of Iraq was a immense mistake. She completely undermined the global regulation of non-aggression. She made America a planet bully in practice. Today, both Democrats and Republicans agree that that war was a mistake. The problem is they don't agree on why. Trump believes that the U.S. should have taken over Iraqi oil fields, and the essence of the problem was the cost and death of American soldiers. He doesn't care about violating global law. It is besides actual that the United States has long utilized its economical and political strength to form the planet in a way beneficial to its interests.

And not necessarily democratic. Supporting dictatorships in Latin America has a long tradition.

There was an old Monroe doctrine., saying the US has a free hand to interfere in Latin American politics. We thought she was discredited and abandoned. Now it seems we're going back to that way of thinking. And you're right it's not completely new. Still, erstwhile the American president is straight threatening tiny countries like Denmark, it comes to my head that we have been accusing Nazi Germany and russian Russia so far, which have besides done so openly.

This change applies only to Donald Trump and his immediate surroundings, is it a wider trend in the American elite?

That's an interesting question. I don't think there's any consensus. Donald Trump did not promise territorial expansion erstwhile he ran for election. People did not vote for him due to the fact that they hoped to win Greenland or Panama. If anything, the Republican organization moved towards isolationism, wanting the US not to engage internationally. That could save the remainder of the world. There is no broad support for expansionism in America. I don't think Trump will have the strength to push it. erstwhile another problems arise in the country, he will gotta retreat from this policy.

“We don’t know what “West” is anymore”

But erstwhile it comes to undermining global law, consensus among American politicians is already there. I am reasoning of another event in fresh days erstwhile the home of Representatives voted by a large majority sanctions for the global Criminal Court and people who aid him prosecute suspects.

It's a different category. I don't think we've always had a real global order. There's always been problems with the ICC. The Court did not have the chance to apply its principles to strong states. The only people convicted by the ICC came from African countries that did not have the strength to defend them on the global stage. It wasn't a consistent standard. This problem concerns all global law. We don't have a planet sovereign who can enforce the rules. The strategy is based on wishful reasoning and hope that countries will follow it. That's why global law didn't halt Russia, did not detain Israel in Gaza And Lebanon. It's not like we're attacking any strong global structure right now. She never existed.

Daniel Gnap / PAP

Poster with wanted Binjamin Netanyahu on Brussels Street

A fewer days ago, a fierce debate came through Poland erstwhile our government declared that will not detain a war crime fishy Israeli Prime Minister Binjamin Netanyahu despite an arrest warrant issued by the ICC. Poland has so far ensured that it recognises ICC's juursdiction. Is it not that the example from America encourages smaller countries to simply ignore global institutions?

I don't know. I repeat, the ICC structure was alternatively weak and we had many exceptions before. Putin is besides wanted. How many governments in the planet would actually decide to arrest him if he came to their country?

Perhaps this arrest warrant has discouraged the invitation of Putin and, for example, Hungary or Slovakia have not so far done so.

Maybe. However, I inactive believe that the global order is based on realpolitik alternatively than legal principles. This is different erstwhile it comes to the planet economy and free trade. Legal standards there are of large importance. And they've besides been attacked lately, which could have far more visible consequences.

Looking at all this — can the West inactive view itself as a moral guide that tells others in the planet how to proceed?

You ask 2 different things. The first is whether as liberal societies we have the right to tell the remainder of the planet what to do. The second question is whether we inactive respect the West as a community based on liberal, enlightened values.

I mean, the West inactive believes in its moral claims.

They were attacked already during the invasion of Iraq, which the Americans portrayed as the establishment of democracy. It was a immense mistake. Democracy has become an average abroad policy tool, not something that grows from people who want to live in a free society. This pride has caused America large problem and is now fueling isolationism. People say, “We do not want to tell others how to live.” By the way, it's just unrealistic, too. The US was the dominant power for 20 years from 1989 to 2008. They weren't that powerful after that. That's why Trump's threats are ridiculous. We just don't have the strength to form the planet according to our interests, like we did 20 or 30 years ago. Good.

What about the thought of the West itself?

Reminds me of a visit. Donald Trump arrived in Warsaw in 2017 at the invitation of the then ruling PiS and president Andrzej Duda. He talked about threats to the West. but Trump and his PiS supporters have a different concept of what this West is. For many Conservatives from Europe and especially from the United States, it is about Christianity. For liberals, this is the opposite, for them the essence of the West is enlightenment. They mention to the time erstwhile Europe was liberated from the dominance of the Catholic Church, allowed people to think freely and developed modern science. Now we return to the concept of a civilization based on religion. We have lots of parties in different countries trying to resurrect this idea. It's a sign of Western weakness. We don't know what the word means anymore.

Jakub Kamiński / PAP

Melania Trump, Donald Trump, Agata Kornhauser-Duda and Andrzej Duda in Warsaw in 2017.

This liberal West is dead?

Definitely not. Liberals won the last elections in Poland. Narendra Modi suffers defeat in India. There is surely inactive much support for this liberal knowing of what the West is. Look at the refugees. They do not want to flee to Russia, which is simply a poor, corrupt, badly run, authoritarian state. They do not want to flee to China, Venezuela or Iran due to the fact that they want to live in open, tolerant societies that we have created in North America and Europe.

Fukuyama on migration. “We are already surviving in a different world”

Only those open, tolerant societies don't want them. Even liberal governments argue the admission of refugees.

I don't have a problem with that. I believe that democratic society has the right to decide who will be the citizen or resident of their country. If you can't establish the criteria for who you let belong to society, you're not truly sovereign. Reducing the number of refugees allowed into the country is an expression of democratic will and its right. Biden made that mistake. He let besides many people in. The politician of Texas began sending them to fresh York or Chicago, and it turned out that the liberal mayors of these cities do not know what to do with them due to the fact that there are just besides many of them. Therefore, I do not see anything incorrect with democracy saying, "It is enough, we cannot accept more, we close the border."

And that does not contradict liberalism, which puts human rights first? besides called liberal governments in Europe do not want to hear about these rights erstwhile it comes to refugees.

It's not like that. Firstly, there is no universal right to migration. 1 of the biggest failures of liberals is the deficiency of knowing for national identity. They do not realize that if people are admitted from outside, they must accept this identity. In liberal society, identity is based on values specified as tolerance, equal rights of women, or the regulation of law. If individual does not accept it, a liberal society can say, "We do not want you to live here." This is not a violation of any standards and values. Let me put it another way. If you think human rights are universal and nationality is irrelevant, then any state can intervene anywhere in the planet to defend any person. That we can impose human rights outside our territory.

And that concept — at least erstwhile — was very alive. Thus the Americans justified, for example, the intervention in Kosovo and Serbia in 1999.

And they were wrong. It was a mistake. Liberal societies have gone besides far. They had no specified universal jurisdiction. The authority and duties of the state should apply only to people surviving in its territory, not outside it.

What about the people who have already arrived in this territory? European liberal democracies have no problem sending refugees to Tunisia or Libya and paying the governments of these countries...

I don't have a problem with that. It's a pragmatic issue. You may be overwhelmed by the number of migrants, as the United States and democratic society can now introduce limits. Doesn't mean he can haunt these people.

Khaled Nasraoui / PAP

A man from Sub-Saharan Africa at a migrant camp in Tunisia in 2024.

But can he send them back to another country where they will be persecuted?

The problem in the US and Europe is that the rules supply for lengthy and costly legal procedures to find whether individual has the right to asylum. In practice, it is not possible to conduct these proceedings in relation to a large number of people. economical migrants have realised that it is adequate to say that they want exile position and thus launch procedures providing them with legal protection. The exile rights were created in the light of the experience of Jews fleeing the Nazi regime. It was about a limited number of people and utmost persecution.

So you think the Geneva Convention is no longer in force?

How is the Geneva Convention violated by a state that simply wants to introduce a limit on the reception of refugees?

In that it is the state that refuses these people the right to asylum.

But does the Geneva Convention say that you must accept all number of refugees?

Looks like it. I'm certain there are no numerical limits.

Then it's an absurd convention. That's the problem with public policy. You introduce any rules under circumstantial conditions, and then these conditions change. erstwhile the Geneva Convention was negotiated, there were no millions of people trying to cross global borders. It's just that we're already surviving in a different planet with different rules.

What about Ukraine? Fukuyama: Trump does not want images "as from Afghanistan"

Now that we're talking about fresh rules, is this besides about security? Poland has based its policy unequivocally on an alliance with the United States. In this another fresh world, are the United States inactive a credible ally?

I'm certain they'll be little credible than they have been. We've never had a president before who questioned the request for NATO. However, I think Trump will have a problem in the applicable dimension of this thought. There's 1 thing I surely don't want.

What is that?

Bad image. That's why Trump won't abandon Ukraine right away. He's not going to want images of Afghanistan that bad people take over your country, and runaways catch the wheels of airplanes. He's not going to want to let his watch neglect like that. It will slow approach large changes, specified as cutting Ukraine off from aid. But that doesn't change the fact that he's already weakened NATO.

STTINGER / PAP

Afghan Taliban at Kabul Airport in November 2021.

How?

NATO draws its strength from the warrant of Article 5. No treaty changes are needed to weaken it. It is adequate for Trump to say, "If an ally has not spent 5% of GDP in defence, we will not come to him for aid in the event of a Russian attack." This is precisely what another NATO members should be afraid of.

Do you think Poland and another east flank countries should look for Plan B?

The thought that Europe can make a separate defence full without the United States is pointless. I don't think that's possible. At the same time, Europe is expanding expenditure on arms, especially Poland and the Baltic countries. Everyone has to do this, with the 2% GDP threshold alternatively besides low. There are serious weaknesses in the defence manufacture in Europe. It simply does not produce adequate rockets, aircraft, ammunition, artillery missiles. There must be a crucial change in these industrial opportunities. That's what I would do if I were European. If I can't foretell what the United States will do and it may turn out to be a very bad scenario, then I can at least invest in increased military potential. He'll be useful no substance what the U.S. does.

What if America goes all the way with its isolationism and Europe is left alone with Russia on 1 continent? Will he be able to defend himself?

It will be very difficult, but not impossible. We must remember that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine has dramatically weakened Russia. It is actual that the Russians have strengthened their industrial base, but at the same time the losses of their soldiers can scope as much as 750,000. And we're talking about a country that's already depopulating very quickly. The Russian economy is not strong, they have advanced inflation and advanced interest rates that prevent their business from investing. The army must bring soldiers from North Korea due to the fact that it lacks its own people. I think Putin is weaker than he thinks. Or possibly he just realizes it and wants to end the invasion as shortly as possible. Russia is not specified a terrible power. If I were European, I would not reject the thought of self-defense even without the United States, if the worst should happen.

"Bomb clocks under Trump and Musk alliances is more"

Let's get back to Donald Trump at the end. How is present different from the 1 8 years ago erstwhile he first became president?

There are many differences. The most crucial thing is his crew. I think in 2016 he did not believe he would win and erstwhile he took office, he had no people prepared for it. He had to trust on the old Republican Party. For the first 3 years he was very dissatisfied with his office, which was not loyal to him. It wasn't until the 4th year of his tenure that he started distributing his men.

And this time?

It's completely different. The most crucial criterion of the nomination will be loyalty to Donald Trump. And not only in the highest positions, but in the full administration. His current nominations already indicate how extremist he will be.

Did anyone in peculiar pay peculiar attention to you?

Four people: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as wellness Secretary, Pete Hesgeth as Secretary of Defense, Tulsi Gabbard at the head of Intelligence and Pash Katel as head of the FBI. They're crazy, unqualified. Their choice was decided by 1 thing — that they would do anything Donald Trump wants. We weren't in this situation 8 years ago.

What about Elon Musk?

That's another story. He's like an uncontrollable bullet that's been spreading demolition everywhere he appears. At the same time, his character is simply a beautiful good argument for the fact that democracy should not let anyone to accumulate so much money. Billionaires utilized to be businessmen. Now this guy wants to regulation the world. And he has so much money and power that he can effort to accomplish it. I truly don't know what we're gonna do about it. On the another hand, you can see that Musk is already tearing himself distant from Trump and his hard supporters.

JIM LO SCALZO/EPA / PAP

Elon Musk at the Capitol in December 2024.

Like what?

Trump is very anti-Chinese, and so are his supporters. And Musk never said a bad word about China, due to the fact that 40% of his cars are sold right there. There are more clock bombs under Trump and Musk's alliance.

Musk is sometimes called the actual vice president.

I think people say that to upset Donald Trump. due to the fact that Trump doesn't like the thought of individual having almost the same power as him. Let's see if it works.

Or are these 2 billionaires at the head of the state simply a natural consequence of the neoliberal policy of the past decades?

I don't think so. It is actual that neoliberalism has weakened competition and antitrust policy in the United States. The government allowed technology companies to grow to highly large sizes. But there's besides a good reason due to the fact that these companies do quite a few crucial things. This is not about neoliberalism, but about what happened to technology in a country that is very business-friendly. The earlier model of what we see in America now is alternatively Italy and Silvio Berlusconi. He was a wealthy businessman who could buy himself a media company that in turn allowed him to become Prime Minister. And erstwhile he was Prime Minister, he could usage his political strength to defend his business. That's precisely what Musk does erstwhile he buys Twitter. But it is besides a model of oligarchs from east Europe, like Ihor Kolomojski in Ukraine or Andrej Babisz in the Czech Republic.

It's not neoliberal, it's something else. I don't know what to call it. But it's a fresh and very disturbing phenomenon.