Monday Commentary

Donald Trump talks a lot. Speech is his weapon of choice, and attack is his strategy. Dangerous stuff if you happen to be the president of the United States, and have a huge and well-equipped military machine at your disposal in case you want to put words in action. But it does not require a shot to be fired for a lot of people to get hurt, and for relations built over decades to be spoilt. Trump was is Davos last week. His speech was, as expected, controversial. But it was what he said after his return that caused a stir. In an interview with Fox News on Thursday, Trump said of Nato troops: "We've never needed them. We have never really asked anything of them. "They'll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan... and they did, they stayed a little back, a little off the front lines.” In 2005, I took a sabbatical from my NGO work to go and work for six months with the United Nations in Afghanistan. I was part of a five-person team that was to help set up the new Afghan Parliament. My office in Kabul was in Wazir Akbar Khan District, a stone throw away from the British Embassy.  It was as safe as could be in Afghanistan at the time. But, in fact, nowhere was safe. The Serena Hotel, where I used to go every Friday for coffee was bombed soon after, leaving many dead. Every time you left Afghanistan you were glad you were still alive. More than 3,500 coalition soldiers died, about two-thirds of them Americans, as of 2021 when the US withdrew from the country. The UK suffered the second-highest number of military deaths in the conflict behind the US, which saw 2,461 fatalities. Most of the 457 British troops who died serving in Afghanistan over a period of nearly 20 years were killed in Helmand - the scene of the heaviest fighting. Hundreds more suffered injuries and lost limbs. Trump’s insult to the dead, wounded and others who served in Afghanistan will not be forgotten easily. The US will find this out when it needs allies to support it, as it will sooner or later. The NATO alliance was already rattled by Trumps attempts to absorb Greenland, part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally. But all the shenanigans around Greenland will blur into insignificance when compared to the insult to thousands of war dead and veterans. The bad taste will linger for a long time and spoils relations that have been built over decades. (click the picture to read the Monday Commentary in full).

To listen to world leaders speaking these days, one would think that the world has embraced multilateralism, as the guiding principle in international relations. From Brussels to Beijing the concept is lauded, often to distinguish countries or groups of countries from Trumpian America, which has turned multilateralism into a bogey, and often a punching bag. But a closer look indicates that many countries are talking at cross-purposes.  At one end you have the European Union, itself a quintessential multilateralist project grouping 27  member states, some of whom had spent the last century fighting each other. At the other extreme, there is China, a country with great ambitions, and a great discourse that accompanies these ambitions, who however presents itself as the self-proclaimed leader of the global south. Put simply, multilateralism is when a group of countries agree to pursue a common goal in cooperation, and based on equality. On the European continent, multilateralism was for fifty years the way the continent conducted business, and two organisations became a clear expression of this multilateralist path: the European Union (EU), and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). They both operate by consensus. Beyond the continent, on a global level, the UN is in crisis. It will take a lot of time, effort, and money, to fix it. Three countries can help, or they can make matters worse: the US, Russia, and China. Trumpian America does not like the UN and has turned its back on multilateralism. The shameful US national security strategy creates a wedge between the US and Europe and sets a narrow vision of the world. Trump described the document as a "roadmap" to ensure the US remains "the greatest and most successful nation in human history". Russia is today in no position to counterbalance the US position, even if it wants to. So, its role in the future world order will be one of an opportunistic spoiler. China is another matter. It has the ambition to be a superpower and global player. It has good connections with the global south, although its claim of leadership is often overstated, and it pays lip service to multilateralism. It needs to be engaged, but with caution. Attempts at multilateral initiatives in the South, for example BRICS, are increasingly dysfunctional. Yet, multilateralism remains the best option for addressing the future. Some of the world's problems, such as climate change, simply cannot be tackled by one country, or one country working alone. But most of the institutions are greatly in need of an overhaul. The European Union must take the lead. It must also engage with China on a case-by-case, topic-by-topic basis. This will be a long and laborious process. But the rules of the game, and the assumptions that underpinned them, have changed, or at best are being challenged. It is time for a global rethink. (Click the image to read the full Monday Commentary).