Walter's Blog |
|
Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact free rant unfiltered by rational argument.
|
|
"If you want to read a blog to get a sense of what is going on in Hong Kong these days or a blog that would tell you what life was like living in colonial Hong Kong, this blog, WALTER'S BLOG, fits the bill." Hong Kong Blog Review
|
|
14/2/2025 2 Comments It's Only Week Three! "It's Donald's way or the highway." Three weeks into Donald Trump's second presidency, the rules-based international order, established after the Second World War founded on multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), is in jeopardy. This system emphasises cooperation, the rule of law, and collective problem-solving, and its principles are integral to understanding the current political dynamics.
Trump is having none of that. It's Donald's way or the highway. If, as some scholars believe, Machiavelli composed The Prince not as a practical guide for ruling but as satire — and essentially a guide on how not to rule — is Donald Trump having a laugh? For sure, the conventional wisdom holds that The Prince examines statecraft through a realpolitik lens, suggesting that the ends often justify the means to maintain power. The Prince, a seminal work written as early as 1513 but published only in 1532, five years after the author's death, firmly established Machiavelli as the father of political science. His name became synonymous with scheming and intrigue, yet, ironically, Machiavelli was less than adept at securing power. Machiavelli began his career as a government bureaucrat in Florence. However, the recently re-established republic was under threat, and the city's former rulers, the powerful Medici family, were poised to regain their power. With assistance from Spain, the Medici defeated Florence in battle and dissolved its government. From there, things quickly went downhill for Machiavelli. In 1513, he was accused of conspiring against the new rulers, jailed, and tortured. He was only freed when a general amnesty was declared to celebrate Cardinal Giovanni de'Medici's election as Pope Leo X. However, upon his release, Machiavelli didn't have much to celebrate. He was still unemployed. The former bureaucrat strived to work for the very family that brought about his downfall. He wrote The Prince in an attempt to impress the Medici with his grasp of the political climate. The Prince resembled a failed job application. Machiavelli remained unemployed for much of his life. He is now renowned for his writings rather than the work he undertook for the Florentine government. Unlike the noble princes of fairy tales, Machiavelli argues that a successful leader must be brutal, calculating, and, when necessary, completely immoral. Machiavelli asserted that leaders should not rely on luck but forge their destiny through charisma, cunning, and strength. In his view, life revolved around two main variables: fortune and virtù. (Virtù refers to bravery, power, and the ability to assert one's will.) Nietzsche put forth ideas similar to his assertions about the "will to power." Indeed, Trump 2 is harnessing all the traits highlighted by Machiavelli and more. By adopting Steve Bannon's strategy to "flood the zone with shit," a tactic that keeps the media off balance while both friends and foes fret about what it all means, Trump is exhibiting a Machiavellian approach to power. This approach, characterised by cunning, manipulation, and a disregard for moral norms, has significant implications for global governance. To see the impact, consider the backflips and reversals of feckless politicians such as British Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Lord Peter Mandelson, who attempt to rewrite history by retracting their earlier ill-judged tirades against Trump. I would have more respect for them if they maintained their position instead of genuflecting, like a quisling. If Trump admires strong men, as many claim, those who kowtow will not earn respect. Trump may acknowledge the fundamental truth of the big game — might be right. Yet, there is a compelling argument that the "rules-based world order" and its adjacent claims to universal human rights were nothing more than a fig leaf with which powerful Western nations could evoke to interfere with the affairs of other countries. The much-applauded liberal international order centred itself on the "rules-based order." However, the rules—especially those of the post-Cold War economic order—were created by the West and "rigged" in their favour. During the Obama administration, the term became popular among Western diplomats and experts to criticise perceived rule-breaking by non-Western powers, especially China and Russia. By withdrawing from international agreements, the U.S. diminishes its leadership role and creates power vacuums other nations have sought to fill. It is often overlooked that Biden initiated this process with his hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan, which signalled that the U.S. had no staying power. Meanwhile, China opened a direct rail link from Chongqing to Afghanistan this week. Trump's policies and rhetoric inadvertently make his supposed allies tremble as much as any enemy. Threats to seize Greenland by force should invoke warnings from other NATO countries. Instead, they bow their heads and hope Trump doesn't come for them. Greenland sits under the protection of Denmark, a NATO country. Article 5 of NATO states that if you attack a NATO country, all other NATO countries must come to your defence. Indeed, the only time NATO evoked Article 5 was after 9/11. However, Trump understands that NATO is ineffective without the U.S. military. As such, he can threaten Greenland without fear of consequences. After all, some estimates indicate that the U.S. contributes 50 per cent of NATO's funding. It's crucial to note that the challenges to the rules-based order did not begin with Trump. Issues like rising inequality, the backlash against globalisation, and China's growing influence have been brewing for years. Trump's presidency has undoubtedly amplified these trends, but they are part of a broader shift in global dynamics with long-term implications. While Trump's policies have undoubtedly challenged the rules-based world order, they have also sparked a renewed debate about the future of global governance. Ultimately, the survival of the "rules-based order" hinges on the willingness of nations to collaborate, uphold shared values, and adapt to new realities. The U.S. plays a critical role in this endeavour, but no longer as the titular leader. For all his rhetoric of "America First," I can sense a recognition in Trump's actions that a multipolar world is emerging. This week, he initiated negotiations regarding the Ukraine war with Putin, notably only briefing Zelensky as an afterthought. This move tacitly acknowledges that Ukraine is beholden to the U.S. rather than the Europeans, a sign of the shifting power dynamics in the international arena. Trump's direct approach to Russia signals that he recognises Putin's power. In response, the Europeans are in meltdown and throwing a tantrum. Likewise, his pronouncements on Gaza were presented without even consulting the Israelis, never mind representatives of the Palestine people. If he's watching, Machiavelli will smile. Meanwhile, the other major player, China, remains notably quiet, observing and biding its time. It has reciprocated Trump's tariffs and taken him to the WTO while moderating any statements. Playing the long game, I suspect it recognises that Trump's Machiavellian approach is unsustainable. It breeds mistrust and resentment and undermines credibility. It's only three weeks in! Post Script As I posted this blog, news arrived of Vice-President JD Vance's blistering speech at the Munich Security Conference. The U.K. and Europe are now on notice that the U.S. will no longer tolerate their ideological antics while expecting the American taxpayer to pay for their defence. The free ride is over.
2 Comments
1/2/2025 1 Comment Panama, Hong Kong & Trump "Trump's assertions are undoubtedly part of his 'bully-boy' negotiating strategy." They say history doesn't repeat itself, but it does tend to rhyme. Could it be that Trump's attempt to regain control of the Panama Canal mirrors the Suez Canal crisis, which many believe signalled the end of the British Empire? Is Trump at risk of encountering a similar fate if he pursues this issue?
There exists a strong connection between Hong Kong and this saga. More on this later. Some background information is necessary. The concept of a Panama Canal, a monumental feat of human engineering, dates back to 1513 when the Spanish recognised the advantages of connecting the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. By 1534, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V commissioned a study that yielded no results. It is said that the British explorer Francis Drake recognised the potential benefits of a canal through Panama around 1596, during the Anglo-Spanish War. According to the tale, he climbed a tree to view the Pacific Ocean. When he turned in the opposite direction, he could see the Caribbean Sea approximately 40 miles away. A canal would have saved an 8,000-mile journey, which was fraught with perilous conditions, particularly around Tierra del Fuego at the continent's southern tip. Sadly, Drake did not live much longer after that. On the night of 28 January 1596, he succumbed to severe dysentery. This dreadful condition and other ailments were set to delay the canal's construction for hundreds of years. The Scots embarked on the Darien Scheme around 1698, establishing a colony named New Edinburgh. The colony once boasted a population of approximately 2,500 before disease and drunkenness brought the project to its knees. The Spanish also intervened by besieging the colony. It is reported that only a few hundred Scots survived and returned home. Then came the French. Between 1881 and 1899, they commenced construction. However, malaria claimed a significant number of lives, with a death toll of around 22,000, and considerable engineering challenges hindered progress. Vast corruption did not assist matters. The ensuing fallout nearly toppled the French government. Yet, the project persisted, a testament to human determination. The U.S. stepped up to the plate, with President Theodore Roosevelt keen to take charge of the project. He was eager to demonstrate U.S. prowess and recognised that a canal would benefit America's emergence on the world stage. In a series of actions, he supported Panama's break from Colombia, a pivotal moment in the canal's history. On 2 November 1903, U.S. warships blockaded sea lanes to prevent potential Colombian troop movements intended to quell the rebellion in Panama. Panama declared independence on 3 November 1903, and the United States promptly recognised the new nation. Essentially, the U.S. established Panama to facilitate the construction of the canal. On 6 November, Panama's ambassador to the UN swiftly signed an agreement granting the U.S. control of the canal 'in perpetuity'. The deal limited other rights to 99 years. Does this sound familiar? This agreement was not well received in Panama, with the incoming government taken aback by what the ambassador had agreed to. They perceived that Colombia's control was relinquished in favour of U.S. control. This perception was destined to remain a point of contention in U.S.-Panama relations, marked by cooperation and tension over the years. By 1904, the Americans had assumed control of the project. They eradicated the risk of malaria and constructed support facilities for the workers. The canal was opened to traffic in August 1914, costing the U.S. nearly $500 million (approximately $15.2 billion today) to complete. This sum represented five per cent of the U.S. GDP at the time. Since then, the canal has been expanded and modernised. Fast-forward to the 1960s: Panamanians, aggrieved by U.S. control of the canal, expressed their objections vigorously, culminating in student protests. Drawing comparisons to the Suez Canal, they pointed out that the U.S. had compelled the British and French to cease their intervention in Egypt in 1956. Things reached a critical juncture in January 1964 when violent confrontations led to the deaths of 22 students and four American soldiers. The international reaction was swift and critical of U.S. actions. Panama severed diplomatic relations with the U.S. By 1974, negotiations to transfer complete control to Panama were in progress. On 31 December 1999, the Panamanians gained control, with the understanding that the canal would remain neutral. The government of Panama owns and operates the canal via the Panama Canal Authority. Meanwhile, a Hong Kong-based company, Hutchison Whampoa, secured the rights to manage the container ports at both ends of the canal. The port operator is Panama Ports Company, part of Hutchison Ports, a subsidiary of the Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings, owned by Li Ka-shing. In 2021, Panama Ports Company's concession was extended by 25 years. Herein lies the rub for Donald Trump. He portrays CK Hutchison's involvement as evidence that China controls the canal. Yet, the Chinese government has made it clear that it has no role in running the canal. Indeed, there is no evdience to support such a claim. Furthermore, as the largest canal user, Trump claims that the U.S. is being overcharged. "The fees imposed by Panama are absurd," he wrote. "This complete 'rip-off' of our country will cease immediately." These statements prompted the Panamanians to audit the entire project "aimed at ensuring the efficient and transparent utilisation of public resources." Trump's assertions are undoubtedly part of his 'bully-boy' negotiating strategy. This approach, characterised by aggressive and confrontational tactics, aims to intimidate the Panamanians into making concessions. And while he may gain some advantage, his approach ultimately undermines the U.S. ability to engage in diplomatic negotiations. Already wary of U.S. actions in the region, Panama became the first Latin American country to endorse China's Belt and Road Initiative in 2017. Trump's stance on the canal may further alienate the U.S. from Latin American nations, which perceive his behaviour as “neo-colonialism." If Trump's ‘overcooked’ intervention fails, it may indicate the further decline of U.S. influence, much like the Suez crisis did for Britain. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
June 2025
CategoriesAll Festivals Hong Kong Hong Kong History Policing Politics Public Order UK USA |
RSS Feed