![[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 Yet within weeks of returning to the White House, Trump has violated, invalidated, or withdrawn from numerous agreements and commitments made by previous US administrations, including his own.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
7 hours ago
- Korea Herald
In India, Trump's tariffs spark calls to boycott American goods
NEW DELHI (Reuters) -- From McDonald's and Coca-Cola to Amazon and Apple, US-based multinationals are facing calls for a boycott in India as business executives and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's supporters stoke anti-American sentiment to protest against US tariffs. India, the world's most populous nation, is a key market for American brands that have rapidly expanded to target a growing base of affluent consumers, many of whom remain infatuated with international labels seen as symbols of moving up in life. India, for example, is the biggest market by users for Meta's WhatsApp and Domino's has more restaurants than any other brand in the country. Beverages like Pepsi and Coca-Cola often dominate store shelves, and people still queue up when a new Apple store opens or a Starbucks cafe doles out discounts. Although there was no immediate indication of sales being hit, there's a growing chorus both on social media and offline to buy local and ditch American products after Donald Trump imposed a 50 percent tariff on goods from India, rattling exporters and damaging ties between New Delhi and Washington. Manish Chowdhary, co-founder of India's Wow Skin Science, took to LinkedIn with a video message urging support for farmers and startups to make "Made in India" a "global obsession," and to learn from South Korea whose food and beauty products are famous worldwide. "We have lined up for products from thousands of miles away. We have proudly spent on brands that we don't own, while our own makers fight for attention in their own country," he said. Rahm Shastry, CEO of India's DriveU, which provides a car driver on call service, wrote on LinkedIn, "India should have its own home-grown Twitter/Google/YouTube/WhatsApp/FB -- like China has." To be fair, Indian retail companies give foreign brands like Starbucks stiff competition in the domestic market, but going global has been a challenge. Indian IT services firms, however, have become deeply entrenched in the global economy, with the likes of TCS and Infosys providing software solutions to clients world over. On Sunday, Modi made a "special appeal" for becoming self-reliant, telling a gathering in Bengaluru that Indian technology companies made products for the world but "now is the time for us to give more priority to India's needs." He did not name any company. Even as anti-American protests simmer, Tesla launched its second showroom in India in New Delhi, with Monday's opening attended by Indian commerce ministry officials and US embassy officials. The Swadeshi Jagran Manch group, which is linked to Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party, took out small public rallies across India on Sunday, urging people to boycott American brands. "People are now looking at Indian products. It will take some time to fructify," Ashwani Mahajan, the group's co-convenor, told Reuters. "This is a call for nationalism, patriotism." He also shared with Reuters a table his group is circulating on WhatsApp, listing Indian brands of bath soaps, toothpaste and cold drinks that people could choose over foreign ones. On social media, one of the group's campaigns is a graphic titled "Boycott foreign food chains," with logos of McDonald's and many other restaurant brands. In Uttar Pradesh, Rajat Gupta, 37, who was dining at a McDonald's in Lucknow Monday, said he wasn't concerned about the tariff protests and simply enjoyed the 49-rupee ($0.55) coffee he considered good value for money.


Korea Herald
11 hours ago
- Korea Herald
'Nvidia, AMD to pay 15% of China chip sale revenues to US'
Nvidia and AMD have agreed to give the US government 15 percent of revenue from sales to China of advanced computer chips like Nvidia's H20 that are used for artificial intelligence applications, a US official told Reuters on Sunday. US President Donald Trump's administration halted sales of H20 chips to China in April, but Nvidia last month announced the US said that it would allow the company to resume sales and it hoped to start deliveries soon. Another US official said on Friday that the Commerce Department had begun issuing licenses for the sale of H20 chips to China. When asked if Nvidia had agreed to pay 15 percent of revenues to the US, a Nvidia spokesperson said in a statement, "We follow rules the US government sets for our participation in worldwide markets." The spokesperson added: "While we haven't shipped H20 to China for months, we hope export control rules will let America compete in China and worldwide." AMD did not respond to a request for comment on the news, which was first reported by the Financial Times earlier on Sunday. The US Department of Commerce did not immediately respond to a request for comment. China's Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. China represents a significant market for both companies. Nvidia generated $17 billion in revenue from China in the fiscal year ending Jan. 26, representing 13 percent of total sales. AMD reported $6.2 billion in China revenue for 2024, accounting for 24 percent of total revenue. The Financial Times said the chipmakers agreed to the arrangement as a condition for obtaining the export licences for their semiconductors, including AMD's MI308 chips. The report said the Trump administration had yet to determine how to use the money. 'It's wild,' said Geoff Gertz, a senior fellow at Center for New American Security, an independent think tank in Washington. 'Either selling H20 chips to China is a national security risk, in which case we shouldn't be doing it to begin with, or it's not a national security risk, in which case, why are we putting this extra penalty on the sale?" US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said last month the planned resumption of sales of the AI chips was part of US negotiations with China to get rare earths and described the H20 as Nvidia's "fourth-best chip" in an interview with CNBC. Lutnick said it was in US interests to have Chinese companies using American technology, even if the most advanced was prohibited from export, so they continued to use an American "tech stack." The US official said the Trump administration did not feel the sale of H20 and equivalent chips was compromising US national security. The official did not know when the agreement would be implemented or exactly how, but said the administration would be in compliance with the law. Alasdair Phillips-Robins, who served as an adviser at the Commerce Department during former President Joe Biden's administration, criticized the move. 'If this reporting is accurate, it suggests the administration is trading away national security protections for revenue for the Treasury," Phillips-Robins said. (Reuters)


Korea Herald
11 hours ago
- Korea Herald
Korean parts makers brace for price pressure from US tariff fallout
Tariff uncertainty clouds outlook for Korean display, camera module and other component exports South Korea's electronic component makers are on high alert as Washington is expected to announce new item-specific tariff rates, including those on semiconductors, as early as this week. According to industry sources on Monday, even if US President Donald Trump's proposed '100 percent tariff on semiconductors' is waived for Samsung Electronics and SK hynix due to their investment in US chip plants, uncertainty remains over whether semiconductors embedded in finished goods would also be exempt. Suppliers fear inevitable pressure to cut component prices if high tariffs are imposed on end products such as smartphones and PCs. 'The US may grant semiconductor tariff exemptions, but those are likely to apply only to products exported directly to the US,' said Han Ah-reum, a researcher at the Korea International Trade Association. 'The exemption may not apply for finished goods, making the scope of exemptions a critical issue going forward.' The US Department of Commerce is expected to release its list of semiconductor-related derivative products soon, following its investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. In April, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that smartphones, computers and some other electronics will come under separate tariffs. This signals that tariffs could be applied to a broad range of devices to boost US production. If such tariffs are imposed on consumer electronics, profitability at electronics makers such as Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics is likely to take a hit. Component makers worry that the higher cost burden for their clients will cascade down to price-cutting pressure on suppliers. Samsung Display CEO Yi Chung told local reporters on Thursday, 'If tariffs from the US raise the prices of finished products, that could lead to downward pressure on display and other component prices. We are watching the situation closely.' Industry watchers warn that higher prices for consumer electronics could further dampen already sluggish consumer sentiment in the US market. 'If smartphones and PCs are categorized as semiconductor derivative products, maintaining the current retail prices will be difficult,' said an industry official who requested anonymity. 'If prices inevitably rise, demand in the US will shrink, triggering a cycle of reduced demand for semiconductors and components overall.' With the US-led global trade war expected to persist for a while, the parts industry is closely watching supply chain strategies of major electronics manufacturers such as Samsung, Apple and LG. 'Apple has recently unveiled large-scale investment plans in the US in a bid to ramp up domestic production, signaling an ongoing reshuffle of global supply chains,' said the anonymous industry source. 'Korean suppliers of key components such as displays and camera modules are also reviewing adjustments in their production ratios by country as part of their response.' Korean component makers have already weathered a series of tariff disputes driven by the US government's country-specific duties. Samsung Electro-Mechanics put its Mexican plant construction plans on hold after Washington threatened a 30 percent tariff on Mexican imports. Mexico later secured a 90-day grace period and negotiated the rate down to 25 percent. Similarly, Vietnam — where LG Innotek, Samsung Display and other Korean component makers have major production bases — was initially hit with a 46 percent tariff, which was later reduced to 20 percent through negotiations.