The Columbia History of the World, John A. Garraty and Peter Gay (eds.), first published in 1972, had these words to say on the aftermath of the First World War: “Europe had suffered too much to honour its pledges, to satisfy the aroused expectations of millions of its citizens. Victor and vanquished alike were too enfeebled to build material conditions that would protect and promote the precious stirrings of a new democracy. The war had not only immeasurably weakened the old order; it threatened the forces that would have built a new order as well…. Everywhere in Europe and elsewhere, in Russia, the United States, the great Asian powers, the evil of the war did not bring peace.” Just how the continent bled can be somewhat gauged by this observation by the authors: “The very fact that the peace conference in Paris was dominated by a non-European, Woodrow Wilson, who had won the hearts of Europeans as no leader of their own had, symbolised the tremendous changes that the war had wrought in Europe.”
Empires and civilisations are short-lived, the authors maintain, and bring up the disintegration of the Mycenaean world and other ancient civilisations to make their point. To hark back to the past, Wilson was followed in the benevolence act by another American luminary, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the US, who served in the capacity from 1933 till his demise in 1945. Again, another global conflict was the centerpiece of his regime, with multifarious responses accompanying it. So, willingly in the main, serendipity not exactly through surprise playing a pivotal role, placed a succession of American presidents in peacemaking roles in Europe, and, eventually, really unsurprisingly to them taking often decisive roles in the cabinet as key decision-makers. The old-World Order was changing decisively and quite rapidly in favour of American influence and execution, with what effect for the critics and scholars to decide.
And, now, after all these years of NATO and global political change, that has largely kept the peace in Europe, Donald Trump talks openly about changing of the guards vis-à-vis the old watch. And the admittedly rather rickety old order that is in place is begging for change. And Trump wishes to do it his way. Will he succeed? At least in different theatres and varied players/actors he will. For how long? Probably till the next global turmoil (not necessarily armed conflict). He has already tested old guards like France, Canada, Germany and a few others to test the waters of another American-led world order, only to be snubbed by a number of them. This part of the suggested new world order has brought some sharp negative reactions from the old ones and, from this perspective, indignant outrage, with several highlighting the mortal peril the United Nations could find itself in. On this point, it must be said, the UN has itself to blame to be perceived as an ineffective show-piece for the powerful countries to play with to their advantage.
And Trump seems to have as much confidence in the UN’s ability, meaning that he is unable to push through some of his own agenda in that body, to serve his purposes, even if any prelude to repetitions of WWI and II does not seem immediately upon the world. And he does not seem to have a massive clout or several of the crucial adequately strong countries to support his agenda in the world body. Meanwhile, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who seems set to be a marked legacy of his regime, is snubbed by the French President. Touché!
The writer is an MALD (Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy) and PhD (Boston University)
