Trump’s bombing of Iran and the NATO summit mark the beginning of a new era in international relations.
They were both a political success for the American president.
They were also both a disaster for international law and the rules-based order that has underpinned the longest period of peace and prosperity in world history.
We have now entered an age of strong man politics where laws and political outcomes are determined not by legal precedence and a sense of equality and justice, but by the strength of the political leader and the country they lead. In short, might is right.
Many argue that it has always been thus. To a large degree they are right. But since the end of World War Two the establishment of international structures, law, alliances, global trade and treaties have acted as a brake on unfettered power. Trump has dismantled—or is in the process of dismantling—the post-war world order and removing the brake.
Let’s start with the bombing of Iran. Depriving Iran of the ability to have a nuclear bomb is a good thing. Iran is a dangerous ideologically-driven rogue state. However, the way in which the bombing was organized was another nail in the coffin of international law.
There was no attempt to secure international backing for the attack. There was no attempt to even secure domestic or congressional or bipartisan backing for the attack.
Donald Trump did not try for a UN Security Council resolution. He did not consult with his NATO allies. It is debatable whether or not he should have sought a declaration of war from Congress as the constitution stipulates. But he should have at least conferred with the senior members of both parties in the House of Representatives and Senate. He didn’t.
He did not do any of the above. Trump supporters will argue that timing and the need for secrecy dictated otherwise. They are wrong. The threatened action was well-known and the president had given himself a two-week window of action. The fact is, Trump is a unilateralist who acts when and how he wants to without regard to the law or convention.
The NATO summit was a different example of the tectonic shift in international relations. Europe has always looked to the United States for leadership. The US has the economic power, political clout and nuclear arsenal. But successive presidents have endeavoured to insure that alliance decisions were reached collectively. This is because positions with the widest possible agreement have the greatest chance of success.
The European members of NATO need to increase their defense spending. A resurgent Russia is again threatening. China is rising. The Old World has been riding on American military coat-tails for too long. But that did not mean that the alliance needed to abandon its collective decision-making. NATO’s decision this week to increase defense spending to five percent of GDP by 2035 was not the result of a careful consideration and debate. It was the result of being bullied by Donald Trump.
European (and Canadian) NATO has agreed to the spending increase because Donald Trump threatened to pull out of the Alliance if they didn’t. And if Trump withdrew America from NATO, Europe would lose the protection of 100,000 US troops and the American nuclear umbrella.
What was particularly sad was the way European NATO bent the knee to the American president. Trump’s 24-hour attendance bore no resemblance to a visit by a military partner. It was more like a Roman emperor collecting tribute from conquered people.
Europe and Canada have ten years to reach the five percent target. That should be enough time. When they do, they will have the defensive capacity to dispense with the US. This will not be in America’s interest as its leadership of NATO has been a major weapon in its diplomatic arsenal.
NATO and Iran are only two examples of Donald Trump’s disregard bordering on contempt for the law. Other prominent examples are his refusal to accept the 2020 presidential election. This badly undermined faith in the American electoral process. Then there is the pardoning of the January 6 Capitol Hill rioters. Add to that, his attempts to avoid justice by constantly delaying attempts to bring him to trial for various offenses. Don’t forget Trump’s 34 felony convictions. Finally, there is his disregard for Congress in issuing executive orders which dismantled the US Agency for International Development and other congressionally-mandated government debates.
Donald Trump is an autocrat. And each of his political successes — Iran, NATO DOGE, immigration – undermines the rule of law and encourages other political leaders to follow his autocratic example.
Autocrats are more likely to enjoy short-term success, especially for themselves as individuals. But by undercutting the law they create instability which spells long-term disaster for the rest of us.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain".
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The belligerent youths are back: The sacking of Christine Jardine
A quartet of Lib Dem wins in council by-elections
Corso Street event tomorrow! #dundeewestend
Details needed on Welsh rail investment
The 'elevator pitch' for solo consultants
Simon McGrath
Lin Macmillan
Richard Dickson
Nigel Quinton
Chris Lewcock
13 Comments
Tom, this is spot on about Trump’s attendance at NATO “like a Roman Emperor collecting tribute from conquered people”. The way NATO’s secretary general spoke in praise of Trump was not only extremely sickening it was wrong and other Western leaders are wrong to give in without a fight. For the long term future of the world and our reputation among developing countries we should always start by opposing Trump, even though we may have to give in at the end.
Solving problems without war is such a vital cause for humanity that we should at least said that we believe reducing dependence on the military might of individual nations is what the world needs. That means USA , RUSSIA and CHINA in particular reducing spending on this, not us increasing it to their level. Currently it may well be that we have reduced our military strength too much, but what about setting the scene for the long term future of the world and building on the progress made since WW2, not reversing it? I am thoroughly disappointed that after a good start, Ed Davey has reduced his voice against Trump.
Everything else about Trump that you say also points to the need for voices to be heard opposing him, showing him up to be the potential tyrant that he really is and giving people the hope that if and when he leaves office, someone else will be at least less bad.
Tom, great article again. I hope Ed reads it. After leading us against Trump, he goes soft. Why? Was it fearing the loss of support in Tory seat. I noted the Daily Mail’s article on the same day said: ‘We must support our ally!’
The chances of getting UN authority was next to nil. As for the 5% of GDP that’s an increase of £80 billion – where on earth is that going to come from. As for American troops in Europe what are they protecting us from. Towns across the UK are on the bones of its backside and taxpayers are meant to fund this neocon rubbish.
The principal resistance to Trump’s efforts to defenestrate US democratic and civic institutions will be the American public themselves, both through mass street protests and voting at local level including school boards, town, city and state legislatures and other elected positions.
At the international level that resistance has to be supported by both Western democracies and UN member countries in general. American voters have elected a president who’s values are anathema to much of the civilized world. The republican party of Reagan and Bush has become unrecognisable from its Whig roots. Whether American voters will continue to elect populist leaders from a Maga base is unknown. If voter apathy sets in, they may well do so.
Trumps policies have not come out of the blue. Populist opposition to large scale immigration has been as much a feature of European politics in recent decades as it has been in the USA, where deindustrialisation has decimated the living standards of formerly thriving communities.
Unilateral military action has been a common feature of post-war American policy. Nato allies have too often turned a blind eye to such action by the USA, particularly in the middle-east and global south in general. Nato leaders sycophantic praise for the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear installations is but the latest example of this disregard for International Law when it is the USA undertaking such actions.
It would be easier to argue for international law if we had a decent system for international decision making. But the vetoes held by permanent UN Security Council members paralyse decisions, while the General Assembly is becoming a mockery because Governments that are basically criminal gangs (Zimbabwe, N Korea, Belarus, etc.) have the same voting rights as actual democratic Governments that genuinely represent their citizens. Meanwhile, Taiwan – whose Government has a far greater claim to legitimacy than numerous others – gets no say at all because of Chinese bullying. If we want to argue for the primacy of international law over unilateral actions, then we need to think about serious reform of the UN (yes I know, easier said than done) – because its current structure is nowhere near adequate. Ditto internal US politics, where the constitutional balance of powers combined with increasing lack of cooperation between Republicans and Democrats frequently makes it impossible to get anything done.
It’s all very well railing against politicians acting in autocratic ways, but if we don’t have constitutional structures that allow for swift and decisive, but democratic, decision making, then I imagine more people acting like Trump (and Netanyahu) is going to be the inevitable result. We probably need to start thinking more about how the UN should operate – and American citizens could do likewise about their own Government.
Might “the long term disaster” havé started some half century ago when Mr Reagan, Mrs Thatcher and much of the main stream media colluded to market and impose Neo-liberalism which enables the wealthy/rentier group to exploit/impoverish regular citizens and their children?
Such is objectively indicated by data on child starvation, food bank use, waiting times, the actual performance of privatised, greed motivated water companies etc.
Might opposition to such have been assisted by a corrupt election and representation set up and a mal-informed electorate?
Current “ Western Diplomacy”, unsurprisingly, is also Neo-liberal in its deviousness and exploitive greed as shown by the devastating attack on Libya, the African state doing most for its citizens and their children, which now has slave markets. It was ruined by the “Rules based West” for the “West’s” selfish
economic and intimidatory purposes.
Might we be in an era when the “rules based” facade has been torn away?
Requiring a UN Security Council Resolution for any military action means giving Russia and China a veto over any military action.
If regime change were to happen in Iran (it won’t), Netanyahu would be in a bind. His attack on Hamas as what he calls Iran’s proxy is quite dependent on Iran remaining a credible advocate for the “annihilation of Israel”. In fact, Hamas is the resistance force against fifty years of brutal oppression of Palestine by Israel, not Iran’s puppet.
If Iran were ruled by its people instead of the ayatollahs it would leave Netanyahu a bit bit bereft of enemies to focus on, while he carries out his real objective, the theft of Palestine
5 % GDP in 10 years time will never be implemented without an actual war. Even the US is only at 3.4%GDP at present and has not submitted a budgetary plan internally to get there. None of the leaders will be around in 10 years.
If the welfare budget can be sorted then defence will have the money.
However we need a big increase to restablish a credible defence force with an almost full range of weapons systems. That industrial capability will increase GDP and enable us to support our partners. For example, Ukraine desperately needs Patriot type air defence system and we are not able to offer an alternative….
John Waller, Thanks. You can always send it to Ed.
As for the rest of you, every week you make valid and interesting points. Sometimes you spot my errors and correct them. I am proud to write for such a well-informed group of people.
I didn’t get more than one screen’s depth into this article. Tom, you say “Depriving Iran of the ability to have a nuclear bomb is a good thing. Iran is a dangerous ideologically-driven rogue state. ” But the US is all of those things too. Yes, it is dangerous; clearly; it is tearing apart all of the institutions and constraints that have maintained a semblance of order and peace since WWII. It is ideologically-driven; clearly; with its Supreme Leader believing not just that he talks to God but that he is God. And it is a rogue state, beholden to no one and caring not a jot for international law. The US is far, far more scary than Iran. Aren’t we focussing on the wrong part of the picture?
I thought I made it clear, but I thought that a Trump -led United States is a danger to the world. But I also believe that Iran armed with nuclear weapons is as dangerous if not more so. I do not think the two positions are irreconcilable .