![[Ahmet Davutoglu] Trump aims to dismantle postwar US-led order](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F04%2F07%2Fnews-p.v1.20250407.06abf480cb84454c88c51bdbe002e66e_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
[Ahmet Davutoglu] Trump aims to dismantle postwar US-led order
With the beginning of Trump's second term marked by even greater chaos, what once seemed like an isolated shock has evolved into a full-blown 'systemic earthquake.' Trump's inflammatory rhetoric, often unhinged executive orders, and despotic approach to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine have shaken the very foundations of the multilateral system, which took four centuries of wars and suffering — dating back to the Peace of Westphalia — to build.
Trump's actions and pronouncements over the past two months suggest that we are entering an era of profound uncertainty in which crises can erupt and escalate at any moment. A single principle now seems to prevail: might is right. After all, at the heart of international law lies the principle of pacta sunt servanda: treaties must be honored. Yet within weeks of returning to the White House, Trump has violated, invalidated, or withdrawn from numerous agreements and commitments made by previous US administrations, including his own.
Trump's broader foreign-policy objective appears to be to dismantle the global order established 80 years ago by a generation scarred by the horrors of World War II and usher in an era of neo-colonial competition. His threats to annex Greenland 'one way or another,' reclaim control of the Panama Canal, and turn Canada into the 51st state — along with his portrayal of Gazans as little more than an obstacle to a real-estate deal — offer a stark glimpse of his neo-imperialist worldview.
Despite its oligarchic structure, the United Nations Security Council — dominated by its five permanent members (P5) and led by the United States — stands in the way of Trump's quest for global dominance. Consequently, he has chosen to bypass it in favor of a P2 arrangement that revolves around the US and Russia and echoes Cold War-era US-Soviet bilateralism. He has also openly defied Security Council resolutions, along with a wide range of international conventions.
Trump's America First agenda stands in stark contrast to the 'humanity first' principle that underpinned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, crafted in the aftermath of WWII to prevent a resurgence of fascism. That declaration, and the subsequent creation of the UN Human Rights Council, embodied the spirit of an international order that placed human dignity above geopolitics.
By rejecting this founding ideal, Trump risks transforming the Security Council into an instrument of brute force. If the four remaining permanent members were to adopt similarly nationalist postures, the result would be a dangerous scramble for dominance.
Similarly, Trump's efforts to dismantle key UN agencies like the UNHRC, the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), UNESCO, and the World Health Organization are eroding the foundations of the international order. His destructive approach is not only undermining the UN system but also the Pax Americana that has long underpinned global stability.
Unlike the imperial systems that preceded it, the postwar US-led order rested on three pillars: US-dominated multilateral institutions, a global security architecture built around alliances like NATO, and an economic order based on free trade and the dollar's status as the world's main reserve currency.
By contrast, Trump's vision of Pax Americana for the twenty-first century is one of unchecked, tech-driven totalitarianism. His bullying tactics — such as his repeated attempts to humiliate Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — are part of a broader effort to shock and intimidate global leaders into accepting his 19th-century vision of the world.
This shift didn't come out of nowhere. The US-led order has been fraying for years. Since the end of the Cold War, US foreign policy has been marked by strategic discontinuity, with each administration adopting wildly different doctrines. George H.W. Bush's call for a 'new world order' was followed by Bill Clinton's humanitarian interventionism. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, fueled George W. Bush's neoconservative rationale for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Barack Obama's multilateral but often passive diplomacy, in turn, triggered the reactionary reflexes that defined Trump's first term, just as Joe Biden's inconsistent and largely ineffective foreign policy — particularly in Gaza — helped pave the way for Trump's return.
Now, with Trump more emboldened than ever, we are witnessing the consequences of America's strategic discontinuity: a neo-colonial order driven by Christian nationalism, empowered by advanced technologies, sustained by irrational impulses, and wrapped in brazen rhetoric.
In the spring of 2002, in a lecture at Princeton University, I noted the surge of extreme nationalism in post-9/11 America and warned that the US did not need a Caesar-like leader who seeks domination through military might. Instead, it needed a Marcus Aurelius — a philosopher-statesman capable of leading a complex global order with wisdom, restraint, and respect for international law.
For a while, I believed Obama could become such a leader. When he took office in 2009 and chose Turkey as his first overseas destination — followed by Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt — I felt a genuine sense of hope. Alas, I was wrong. But my own experiences as foreign minister and later prime minister of Turkey reinforced my belief in the possibility of balancing diplomacy and force in a way that serves the interests of all countries — not just those of great powers.
From Argentina to Turkey, countries around the world face the same fundamental choice confronting the US: Will we succumb to authoritarian Caesars who become more oppressive as their power grows, or will we choose leaders who, like Marcus Aurelius, seek to govern deliberatively? That is the defining question of our time, and we must answer it together.
Ahmet Davutoglu is a former prime minister (2014-16) and foreign minister (2009-14) of Turkey. The views expressed here are the writer's own. — Ed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Korea Herald
13 hours ago
- Korea Herald
Sudan seeks wider support for ‘forgotten war'
Sudanese Ambassador to Korea Amira Agarib urged greater global unity to address Sudan's 'forgotten war,' appealing to South Korea for continuous humanitarian and political support. Sudan's civil war began in April 2023 due to a power struggle between the army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, worsening ongoing post-2019 unrest. The conflict caused famine and alleged genocide in Darfur. RSF briefly seized Khartoum, but the army regained control in March this year. According to the Sudanese Embassy in Seoul, 900,000 civilians in Al-Fashir have been besieged for 18 months, with some in Darfur have resorted to eating animal feed. Describing the conflict as a 'forgotten war,' she criticized the lack of media attention compared to crises in Ukraine and Palestine, warning that Sudan's suffering remains invisible without coverage. "Even when UN agencies describe the humanitarian crisis, it does not receive attention in the media. "No one is highlighting this conflict adequately,' said Agarib. In response to a question from The Korea Herald at a press briefing on Tuesday, however, she expressed her gratitude for Seoul's past contributions, in line with $12 million pledged at the Paris conference last year. 'So far, $9 million has been provided, mostly through the World Food Program and the International Maritime Organization. The remaining $3 million is expected soon, though the timing is uncertain,' she said, lauding Sudan-Korea ties. According to Agarib, Sudan faces severe humanitarian crises, with most hospitals and all power plants destroyed, widespread sieges and severe underfunding of UN relief efforts. She also thanked Korean nongovernmental organizations for providing $20 million in aid, including Save the Children's $37,000 contribution, but warned that security risks, high shipping costs and attacks on supply routes are delaying deliveries. Agarib urged the UN, South Korea and others to reject Sudan's shadow government and put pressure on militias to withdraw, citing a death toll of 150,000, along with over 30 million people in need of food and 14 million displaced. Sudan's crisis escalated in October when militias formed a self-declared 'Transitional Council,' which Agarib condemned as a bid to divide the country. She contrasted this with the official northern government under civilian Prime Minister Kamri Idris, which she says is committed to unity and peace. The conflict between Sudan's army and the RSF has heavily damaged Khartoum. Idris has pledged to rebuild the city, launching repair plans to accommodate the return of some of the 3.5 million displaced residents. sanjaykumar@


Korea Herald
14 hours ago
- Korea Herald
Putin wins Ukraine concessions in Alaska but did not get all he wanted
MOSCOW (Reuters) -- In a few short hours in Alaska, Vladimir Putin managed to convince Donald Trump that a Ukraine ceasefire was not the way to go, stave off US sanctions, and spectacularly shatter years of Western attempts to isolate the Russian president. Outside Russia, Putin was widely hailed as the victor of the Alaska summit while at home, Russian state media cast the US president as a prudent statesman, even as critics in the West accused him of being out of his depth. Russian state media made much of the fact that Putin was afforded a military fly-over, that Trump waited for him on the red carpet, and then let the Russian president ride with him in the back of the "Big Beast," the US presidential limousine. "Western media are in a state that could be described as derangement verging on complete insanity," said Maria Zakharova, Russia's foreign minister spokesperson. "For three years, they talked about Russia's isolation, and today they saw the red carpet rolled out to welcome the Russian president to the United States," she said. But Putin's biggest summit wins related to the war in Ukraine, where he appears to have persuaded Trump, at least in part, to embrace Russia's vision of how a deal should be done. Trump had gone into the meeting saying he wanted a quick ceasefire and had threatened Putin and Russia's biggest buyer of its crude oil -- China -- with sanctions. Afterward, Trump said he had agreed with Putin that negotiators should go straight to a peace settlement and not via a ceasefire as Ukraine and its European allies had been demanding -- previously with US support. "The US president's position has changed after talks with Putin, and now the discussion will focus not on a truce, but on the end of the war. And a new world order. Just as Moscow wanted," Olga Skabeyeva, one of Russian state TV's most prominent talkshow hosts, said on Telegram. Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, saying Kyiv's embrace of the West had become a threat to its security, something Ukraine has dismissed as a false pretext for what it calls a colonial-style land grab. The war -- the deadliest in Europe for 80 years -- has killed or wounded well over a million people from both sides, including thousands of mostly Ukrainian civilians, according to analysts. The fact that the summit even took place was a win for Putin before it even started, given how it brought him in from the diplomatic cold with such pomp. Putin is wanted by the International Criminal Court, accused of the war crime of deporting hundreds of children from Ukraine. Russia denies any wrongdoing, saying it acted to remove unaccompanied children from a conflict zone. Neither Russia nor the US are members of the court. Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's former president and a close Putin ally, said the summit had achieved a major breakthrough when it came to restoring US-Russia relations, which Putin had lamented were at their lowest level since the Cold War. "The mechanism for high-level meetings between Russia and the United States has been restored in its entirety," he said. But Putin did not get everything he wanted and it's unclear how durable his gains will be. For one, Trump did not hand him the economic reset he wanted -- something that would boost the Russian president at a time when his economy is showing signs of strain after more than three years of war and increasingly tough Western sanctions. Yuri Ushakov, Putin's foreign policy aide, said before the summit that the talks would touch on trade and economic issues. Putin had brought his finance minister and the head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund all the way to Alaska with a view to discussing potential deals on the Arctic, energy, space and the technology sector. In the end, though, they didn't get a look in. Trump told reporters on Air force One before the summit started there would be no business done until the war in Ukraine was settled. It's also unclear how long the sanctions reprieve that Putin won will last. Trump said it would probably be two or three weeks before he would need to return to the question of thinking about imposing secondary sanctions on China, to hurt financing for Moscow's war machine. Nor did Trump -- judging by information that has so far been made public -- do what some Ukrainian and European politicians had feared the most and sell Kyiv out by doing a deal over the head of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskyy. Trump made clear that it was up to Zelenskyy as to whether he would agree -- or not --with ideas of land swaps and other elements for a peace settlement that the US president had discussed with Putin in Alaska. Although as Trump's bruising Oval Office encounter with Zelenskyy showed earlier this year, if Trump thinks the Ukrainian leader is not engaging constructively, he can quickly turn on him. Indeed, Trump was quick to start piling pressure on Zelenskyy, who is expected in Washington on Monday, saying after the summit that Ukraine had to a deal because, "Russia is a very big power, and they're not." "The main point is that both sides have directly placed responsibility on Kyiv and Europe for achieving future results in the negotiations," said Medvedev, who added that the summit showed it was possible to negotiate and fight at the same time. While deliberations continue, Russian forces are slowly but steadily advancing on the battlefield and threatening a series of Ukrainian towns and cities whose fall could speed up Moscow's quest to take complete control of the eastern region of Donetsk, one of four Ukrainian regions Russia claims as its own. Donetsk, some 25 percent of which remains beyond Russia's control, and the Luhansk region together make up the industrial Donbas region, which Putin has made clear he wants in its entirety. Putin told Trump he'd be ready to freeze the front lines in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, two of the other regions he claims, if Kyiv agreed to withdraw from both Donetsk and Luhansk, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters. Zelenskyy rejected the demand, the source said. According to the New York Times, Trump told European leaders that Ukrainian recognition of Donbas as Russian would help get a deal done. And the US is ready to be part of security guarantees for Ukraine, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said. Some Kremlin critics said it would be a mistake to credit Putin with too much success at this stage. "Russia has re-established its status and got dialogue with the US," said Michel Duclos, a French diplomat who formerly served in Moscow and who is an analyst at the Institut Montaigne think-tank. "But when you have a war on your hands and your economy is collapsing, these are limited gains." Russian officials deny the economy, which has been put on a war footing and has proved more resilient than the West forecast despite heavy sanctions, is collapsing. But they have acknowledged signs of overheating and have said the economy could enter recession next year unless policies are adjusted. "For Putin, economic problems are secondary to his goals, but he understands our vulnerability and the costs involved," said one source familiar with Kremlin thinking. "Both sides will have to make concessions. The question is to what extent. The alternative, if we want to defeat them militarily, is to mobilise resources more deeply and use them more skilfully, but we are not going down that road for various reasons," the person said.


Korea Herald
15 hours ago
- Korea Herald
Tough US stance casts gloom over plastics pollution deal
ANALYSIS GENEVA (Reuters) -- The collapse on Friday of a sixth round of UN talks aimed at curbing plastic output has dimmed hopes of tackling a key source of pollution and left many advocates of restrictions pessimistic about a global deal during the Trump administration. A three-year global push to reach a legally-binding treaty to curb plastic pollution choking the oceans and harming human health now appears adrift, participants said. Many states and campaigners blamed the failure on oil-producers including the United States, which they said hardened long-held positions and urged others to reject caps on new plastic production that would have curbed output of polymers. Debbra Cisneros, a negotiator for Panama, which supported a strong deal, told Reuters, the United States, the world's number two plastics producer behind China, was less open than in previous rounds conducted under Joe Biden's administration. "This time they were just not wanting anything. So it was hard, because we always had them against us in each of the important provisions," she said at the end of the 11-day talks. Anti-plastic campaigners saw little hope for a change in Washington's position under President Donald Trump, who in February signed an executive order encouraging consumers to buy plastic drinking straws. "The mentality is different, and they want to extract more oil and gas out of the ground," said Bjorn Beeler, International Coordinator at International Pollutants Elimination Network, a global network of over 600 public interest NGOs. The US State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment about its positions and its role in the talks. US delegate John Thompson declined to respond to questions from a Reuters reporter on the outcome. A State Department spokesperson previously said that each party should take measures according to its national context, while Washington has expressed concerns that the new rules could increase the costs of all plastic products. The Trump administration has also rolled back various US climate and environmental policies that it says place too many burdens on national industry. Earlier last week, Washington also flexed its muscle in talks about another global environmental agreement when it threatened measures against states backing a proposal aimed at reducing shipping emissions. For a coalition of some 100 countries seeking an ambitious deal in Geneva, production limits are essential. Fiji's delegate Sivendra Michael likened excluding this provision to "mopping the floor without turning off the tap." For each month of delays, the World Wildlife Fund said nearly a million tons of plastic waste accumulates -- some of which washes up on the beaches of island states. Some participants also blamed organizers, the International Negotiating Committee, a UN-established body supported by the UN Environment Program. A low point was a formal meeting an hour before the negotiations were set to conclude at midnight on Thursday which lasted less than a minute and was then adjourned until dawn, prompting laughter and jeering from delegates. "Everyone was in shock as no one understood," said Ana Rocha, Global Plastics Policy Director for environmental group GAIA. "It's almost like they were playing with small children." France's ecology minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher called proceedings "chaotic." Asked what went wrong, INC chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso blamed the rift between countries and called the negotiations complex. "But we have advanced and that's important," he said. UN provisional rules require all states to agree -- a constraint that some see as unworkable, especially under a US administration that is retreating from multilateralism. "Consensus is dead. You cannot agree a deal where all the countries who produce and export plastics and oil can decide the terms of what the deal is going to be," said IPEN's Beeler. Some delegates and campaigners suggested introducing voting to break the deadlock or even for the UN-led process to be abandoned altogether. The WWF and others called on ambitious states to pursue a separate deal, with the hope of getting plastics-producing nations onboard later. Two draft deals emerged from the talks - one more ambitious than the other. Neither was adopted. It is unclear when the next meeting will take place, with states merely agreeing to reconvene at a later date. One positive development was that top plastics producer China publicly acknowledged the need to address the full-life cycle of plastics, said David Azoulay, Managing Attorney of the Center for International Environmental Law's Geneva Office. "This is new, and I think this opens an interesting door."