The Vacuum of World Leadership
By now, it’s safe to say that America’s reputation is ruined. This is largely the fault, though not entirely, of President Trump, who seems to relish inciting global conflict. Even detractors that gave him a chance must realize that he has worn out his welcome in the Oval Office. His latest affront to world peace, security and humanity in general came at the recent United Nations General Assembly, where he warned that, “we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.” Trump’s response to a precarious international issue, then, was to suggest the annihilation of 25 million people and their irrational dictator. Oh, and then there’s the issue of the ensuing nuclear war.
"[Trump's] rhetoric built around sovereignty and dedication to making national selfishness America’s favorite pastime doesn’t help the country’s position either."
Regardless of Trump’s actions over the next three years, his response to the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran Nuclear Deal, NATO and now the North Korean crisis has hobbled the United States’ role as an international power. His rhetoric built around sovereignty and dedication to making national selfishness America’s favorite pastime doesn’t help the country’s position either. Turmoil in other leading nations has caused, in the words of David Miliband, president of the International Rescue Committee, “a vacuum of leadership — moral and political — when it comes to the world’s trouble spots, from Syria to Yemen to Myanmar and beyond.”
What happens when the United States doesn’t fill that vacuum? Do we cede international leadership to China, to Germany, to Russia? Perhaps the U.S. taking a backseat in the business of leading the free world isn’t a lamentable loss for the time being. But someone needs to step up and assume the role.
Russia has clear aspirations for widespread power, but may well make one of the worst protectors of freedom imaginable. Since the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, Russia has taken the liberty to meddle in European and American affairs, without many repercussions. The international community would gain an unreliable ally at best and hostile, unrestrained czardom at worst.
China seems a likely successor to the lead role on the world stage. It’s robust economy and new dedication to clean energy provide a hopeful vision for the future. Since Trump’s withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership also gives China increased control over the region. Combined with its growing influence over the developing world in Africa and Latin America, China is well on its way to becoming the most dominant economy. Without financial or political pressure from other nations, China would be free to worsen labor laws, continue human rights abuses and roll back its environmental standards. I, for one, like liberty too much to have Xi Jinping and his Communist Party determining the future of international policy.
That leaves Germany, which seemed a valid choice until recently. Exit polls indicate the Bundestag will sacrifice 12.6 percent of its seats to the right wing Alternative for Germany party. The party rallied around the oft-used battle cry of closing borders and shutting out migrants. So we have to look elsewhere for an international moral authority. Germany’s plight isn’t helped by the slow dissolution of the European Union, with many countries seeing a resurgence of far right and anti-EU rhetoric in elections. France dodged a bullet with Macron’s election, but he is now faced with healing a split country before he can lead France back into the foreign fray.
Whichever country is left standing after the dust settles around the globalization vs. isolation conflict will set the tone for the 21. century. Their influence will range from trade and military power to the upkeep or ridding of human rights and international alliances. They will be tasked with uniting other superpowers in dealing with refugees, genocides, food and poverty crises and nuclear proliferation. Or each country will turn inwards and leave the disconnected world to deal with its own problems. It’s up to us to pick the right leader for this dawning age.