Yorgos Pavlopoulos, Communist Liberation
202 years ago, in December 1823, the then president of the United States of America – a young state that was not even 50 years old – formulated the framework that would determine their foreign policy. It was the “Monroe Doctrine”, which broadly defined the relationship of the United States with the rest of the world and its place in it for the next century or so, until the outbreak of the First World War which radically changed the landscape and the international relationships.
Last week, Donald Trump released the new US National Security Strategy, attempting to redefine its role and place in today’s world. A world that is completely different, but at the same time shows significant analogies with the turbulent period of the 19th and early 20th century . And if Trump himself, speaking of «reaffirming and enforcing the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere,» imagines a model of coexistence with emerging powers in which his country will continue to be dominant, history has shown that international balances never changed peacefully.
«Capitalist competition, but also the tendency for (ultimately warlike) formation of a clear hierarchy of economic, political and military power (with the emergence of a sovereign hegemon), constitutes a «law» of capitalism, but also the fundamental basis of the danger of war that is constantly reborn within it,» as the programmatic positions of Communist Liberation note.
With the new National Security Strategy, which he released a few days ago, the US president is formulating his strategy for the position of the world’s only superpower born of violence. He practically recognizes that this is an irreversible process, but he makes it clear that America will maintain its lead over everyone else.
“The days when the United States carried the entire world order on its shoulders, like Atlas, are over,” states the new National Security Strategy, which bears the stamp of Donald Trump and his staff, with absolute clarity. And so that there is no doubt that a new era has begun, it notes: “America’s post-Cold War strategies have failed (…) American foreign policy elites have convinced themselves that permanent American hegemony throughout the world serves our country’s interests better than anything else. But the issues of other countries concern us only if their actions directly threaten our interests.”
This is precisely where the most important similarity between the «Trump Doctrine» and the «Monroe Doctrine» is likely to be found, which stated characteristically: «We have never taken part in wars between European powers concerning their own affairs, nor is it consistent with our policy to do so. Only when our rights are seriously violated or threatened do we react or prepare for our defense.»
Obviously, the picture on the world map is different today. The place of the great European powers, which dominated in the early 19th century and questioned – with Great Britain at the forefront – the very existence of the USA, has today been taken by China. The emerging superpower of the 21st century which threatens America in a different way: By putting an end to its hegemony, disrupting vital supply chains and threatening to cut it off from valuable sources of raw materials and profitability.
Faced with this fact, the White House – that is, practically, capital and the bourgeoisie of America – is attempting to chart its own strategy, which is distinguished by both defensive and offensive elements. Thus, as is eloquently reflected in the excerpts of the text quoted, it essentially recognizes that it is no longer in a position to determine developments in every corner of the planet, nor to play the role of “global gendarme.”
From this perspective, one of the key formulations of the new doctrine is the following: “The United States cannot allow any nation to become so powerful that it is in a position to threaten our interests (…) Just as the United States rejects the false assumption that it can itself dominate internationally, we must prevent the global, and in some cases regional, dominance of others.”
At the same time, in the same text, it is made clear that in order for the above goal to be feasible, it must be ensured by all means – even with “justified interventions” – that the US will be constantly and at all levels (economic, technological, military) one step ahead of the Chinese, as well as all their other competitors. And this is something that is also formulated in a way that leaves no room for misinterpretation: “We seek to have the strongest industrial base in the world (…) to remain the most scientifically and technologically advanced and the most innovative country.” «We want to build, train, equip and deploy the most powerful, deadly and technologically advanced armed forces to protect our interests,» it is also emphasized – with the connection between the above being straightforward: «Our economy is the foundation of our position internationally and the necessary support for our military.»
Against this backdrop, and as it is now considered a given that the world is being divided once again into camps and competing decision-making centers, the «Trump Doctrine» defines another indispensable condition: The consolidation of the absolute and unconditional hegemony of the US in the so-called West – which, keeping in mind the proportions, is attempting to shield itself like the young US in the era of Monroe.
“We seek to ensure that the Western Hemisphere remains reasonably stable and well-governed (…) free from foreign interference or foreign ownership of vital resources and infrastructure, and that it supports critical supply chains, while at the same time ensuring our continued access to critical strategic areas,” he says. It is in this context that Europe – that is, European capitalism, as expressed primarily through the EU structure – is also viewed.
In order for the world that Trump has imagined and designed to take shape, it is of strategic importance for him and the US to halt and, if possible, reverse the course of capitalist integration in Europe, on a political, economic and military level. It is one of the main reasons why he, his vice president and the MAGA movement as a whole support nationalist, eurosceptic and far-right parties, which can easily adopt the following position of his doctrine: “The fundamental unit of the world is and will remain the nation-state (…) We support the sovereign rights of nations, against the interventions of the most interventionist transnational organizations, which undermine the concept of sovereignty.”
At the same time, he seeks to undermine the current leaderships, accusing them of leading Europe to extinction within the next two decades, mainly through immigration and the alteration of cultural identity. The US president did not hesitate, in fact, to unleash new «tomahawks» against them in an interview with Politico, in which he described them as weak and insolvent – and it seems that his narrative is gaining ground, as reflected in relevant polls.
Of course, Trump’s effort is not going unnoticed in Brussels, Berlin, Paris and other capitals. It is, moreover, the reason why Europeans are sounding the alarm, as they now realize that their greatest (albeit ineffective, to date) achievement is threatened with destruction – with the perpetrator, ironically, being the one-time ally that had supported the post-war construction of the EU: the USA, which at the time believed that it served their interests and their conflict with the USSR.
The dilemma they face is one of life or death. Either they will submit to the “Trump Doctrine,” with all that this entails for European capitalism, or they will attempt to raise their heads. In the latter case, the war in Ukraine and its continuation offers them a first-class opportunity.
The USA, Europe and Ukraine – Why this war is vital for the EU
The recent developments in Ukraine, although they have not yet clarified the landscape, confirm the truth of the statement. Both for the pursuits of the «Trump Doctrine» and for the concerns and intentions of the European leaders – and, of course, for the new tragedies that await the people of that country, no matter which side they are on.
What is certain is that an unprecedented diplomatic game is currently underway, in which all parties involved in the war participate. Each, however, with different priorities. The US, assessing – to a large extent correctly – that they no longer have anything significant to gain from this war, is seeking to end it approximately at the point where it is. They are doing so, in fact, while also harboring a secret hope: that by satisfying several of Russia’s demands, which is considered much more important than Ukraine, they will manage to prevent its full and organic integration into China’s camp.
The Europeans, on the other hand, seem to have bet their money on this showdown (and secondarily on Zelensky, whom they are ready to “sell” at any moment). They are doing so as part of their effort to withstand the pressure and upgrade themselves internationally and to serve their aspirations within the EU. That is, to put an end to a model that dominated for decades, ensuring the “social peace” necessary for capital, but is now seen as anachronistic and a “traffic jam” for the interests of European capital, in an environment of relentless competition within the war capitalism of our time.
The Middle East and the bet with China
“The choice that all countries must face is whether they want to live in a world of sovereign states and free economies led by America or in a parallel world in which they will be influenced by countries that are on the opposite side.” The above excerpt from “The Trump Doctrine” is also revealing and confirms that, sooner or later, everyone will be called upon to choose a side and actively prove it, as the era of “neutrality” and “innocence” ends.
This is, in practice, the dilemma that is posed bluntly to everyone. As happened, for example, with the regimes of the Middle East, a region for which it is emphasized that “the domination of any competing power will be prevented” – explaining, among other things, the speed with which they abandoned the Palestinians. Something similar is happening with the Pacific, a zone in which Trump practically acknowledges that he will judge the “game” with China.
This, moreover, forces him to adopt a tough stance, which leads to a military confrontation – even if he renounces it. “It is a security challenge to give any competitor the opportunity to control the South China Sea,” it is noted, while emphasis is also placed on Taiwan. Its importance, it is emphasized, lies “in part in its dominance in the field of semiconductor production, but mainly in the fact that it offers direct access to the Second Island Chain and divides Northeast and Southeast Asia into two distinct theaters.”
How much clearer can he put it?
