G. M. Shahidul Alam
An eminent American historian once noted that the American venture into political imperialism in the late nineteenth century was the central fact in the changing relationships of the nation to the world. Imperialism has many meanings, but it has always carried the implication of aggressiveness. The impelling sense of duty and the powerful national energies that were tied together by the zeal for colonies shaped the foreign policies of many Western nations from the 1860s onward. For the Americans, the aim was never clearly stated, although the rhetoric of high purpose—which included phrases like “the works of civilization” and “the uplifting of alien peoples”—intrigued the general public. The sense of national mission and pride (seriously of each psychological origin—we will return to it later), may have been the most important single cause of nineteenth-century imperialism in the Western world.
As another historian seeks to explain, “The impelling sense of duty and the powerful national energies that were tied together by the zeal for colonies shaped the foreign policies of many Western nations from the 1860s onward. Englishmen, unquestionably the pace-setters, would boast that “the sun never sets on the British Empire.” When other rival Europeans, after having remarked that “the Lord wouldn’t trust the British in the dark,” themselves embarked on following the British Empire almost as a matter of routine to expand their own horizons, that empire almost inevitably became the standard, and the rival to emulate.
Many Americans, also almost as a matter of routine, were influenced by the arguments for acquiring colonies that drifted out of Europe in the late nineteenth century. And, almost inevitably, acquired colonies—along with other trappings of the times. And internally, Western nations are stymied by political facts; in the US, at least, abundance exists while its own poor and others starve. And so, down the decades and more, since American imperialism began, the world system has undergone many changes, among which is the emancipation of nearly all erstwhile colonies. Several of them had to be fought over, while others had to be fought between the post–WWII global stalwarts, the US and the USSR, as former colonies which had embraced ideologies anathema to the US.
And so, while the USSR was engaged in a long-drawn-out campaign against Nazi Germany, the US was also engaging it militarily, with the outcome being the eventual onset of the Cold War. As the end of World War II loomed and eventually passed, ideological dogmas of Marxism– Leninism (Soviet Union), known as the doctrine of Communism, began to replace the old European doctrines of absolutism and imperialism. And that is where we generally stand as the world moves its way through a surge of isms and schisms.
As indicated earlier, the schisms are a function of ideological supremacy, and while capitalism and democracy clearly go hand in hand, implying that capitalism follows democracy and vice versa, one cannot bracket China and Russia together in a doctrinaire Communism basket and hope that the world would be all hunky-dory, at least with those two superpowers (and their close allies). To reiterate, the two countries have had a series of indecisive skirmishes before (1959, for example) that have had a recurring positive effect on the protagonists. It brings to mind the great historian Jacques Barzun’s custom-parsed analysis of the history of ideas and cultural history of thought: “Man’s civilization is not identical with our obligations, and the building or rebuilding of states and cultures, now or at any time, is more necessary to our nature than longing and lamentations.”
Now Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States of America for a second term, and true to his nature and trust from policymaking has begun to bring about (or at least stir up) changes in the American system of democracy and some of the travails it has been undergoing of late. Thus far, though the bell of approval and success has just been tolling with much vigour, for that eventuality to arise — if at all — we might just have to wait till the end of his one final term. While assessing the US activities, strive to and appreciate them without prejudice.
Then there are these key players and events to juxtapose against Trump’s worldview, particularly in some key areas of international politics. A key determinant of assessment may be an event that took place in China in September, 2018. It was the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) where Trump was invited but, seemingly upon observing and assessing the situation, decided first to delay his appearance to the programme and then, following a massive trump card of strategic proportion (see the Chinese, Russian, North Korean and Iranian decision to boycott the event altogether), he decided to boycott the event altogether. The ramifications of this occurrence — as temp should and undoubtedly will continue for some time, including the fate of Ukraine, where the American president has been placed in a difficult situation from a position with a feeble back where he seemed to be shuffling all the cards to bring about a solution in Putin’s compliance. Putin, it appears, appears to have designed his play before the Summit got underway. He had Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China, Kim Jong Un, the Supreme Leader of North Korea, to give him critical support, that to speak of a grand show of military hardware and ingenuity.
This is ironic. Just a few months earlier, Trump had apparently figured out a solution that could, would conceivably bring about a cease-fire between the two protagonists (Ukraine and with it, Russia) — a result that would presumably eventually result, a show of all equitational terms. The Russian president seems to have played a very cunning game that has befuddled both Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who might have suffered! The consequences of the American president’s form and policies and the last rites for Ukraine seem to be looming. And all for the games (if only they were that) soft and cheery, that political maneuvering, the bells might be tolling for others, but also likely the world over, times will not toll for Donald J. Trump. After all, he is the President of the United States of America.
The writer is an MALD (Flethcher School of Law and Diplomacy) and PhD (Boston University).
