Latest news with #PaxAmericana
Otago Daily Times
5 days ago
- General
- Otago Daily Times
Extra rations arrive
US Navy supply ship USS Arctic unloads stores at Port Chalmers for the visiting naval fleet. — Otago Witness, 25.8.1925 Fundamental duality American store ship USS Arctic arrived in the lower harbour yesterday morning after a passage of 27 days from San Francisco. The vessel, after undergoing medical inspection, was berthed at Port Chalmers to discharge about 200 tons of foodstuffs for the American destroyers at Dunedin. The Arctic is to sail this morning for Lyttelton, Wellington, Auckland, Pago Pago and Honolulu. Jesus Christ knew the truth of dual nature in man. He saw the constant warfare between the two natures, and again and again He threw his full weight on the side of the better and loftier nature on behalf of a perplexed man or woman struggling towards the vision that glimmered in the soul. Paul knew the truth and the agony of the dual nature. "I want to do what is right, but wrong is all I can manage. I cordially agree with God's law so far as my inner self is concerned, but then I find quite another law in my members which conflicts with the law of my mind and makes me a prisoner to sin's law that resides in my members. Miserable wretch that I am, who will rescue me from this body of death?" And who can withhold pity from Robert Burns, nay, cannot repeat with him in his anguished cry, "O that the man would arise in me, that the man I am would cease to be." Pax Americana In entertaining the American War Fleet we have suffered a sea change. It is like a vaccination — and of course a vaccination affects you through and through. Perhaps I am wrong in calling the American Fleet a War Fleet. Rear-admiral Marvell, presiding over the Dunedin vaccination, tells us that "there is no more peaceful set of people in the world than naval people; their business is with warlike armaments, but nobody anywhere loves peace better than the naval officer." — by 'Civis' Riches of Whakaari White Island contains enormous deposits of valuable fertilisers, according to investigations made by the White Island Agricultural Chemical Co, the present owners of the island. The material of the old crater bed has been widely tested and found to be a fertiliser of unique quality. A careful estimate of the quantity available for shipment near the beaches is over 2,000,000 tons. The island also contains considerable deposits of guano and sulphur available for immediate shipment. Don't call them that Many of the American fleet visitors have taken strong exception to the appellation "gobs" which has been applied to them in some quarters. When referring to the matter yesterday, a member of one of the destroyers' crew said that the appellation was an insult, and he could not understand why it was applied to the American sailors. Digging out Friendly Bay Dredging operations were commenced in the Oamaru harbour on Wednesday afternoon. During the morning the dredge proceeded into the roadstead for about a mile, paying out a length of chain on its return. This is to act as a guide, and the dredge works this particular area. Although the work is rather slow, and fairly costly (£40 per day), it is very effective, and a large quantity of silt was scooped out of the inner harbour. When the dredge is full, it steams three miles out to sea, where it deposits the spoil. — ODT, 15.8.1925
The Hindu
12-08-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Will the rules-based international order survive the Trump presidency?
Recent observations on the rules-based international order have suggested that this system of interlocking governance institutions that emerged since the end of World War II, known to some as Pax Americana, might survive or thrive despite the onslaught of political and economic confrontations foisted on the world by U.S. President Donald Trump. The real question is not about its survivability per se, but rather the extent to which it might mutate under pressure from Washington's coercive policy prescriptions inflicted upon developing and emerging economies, particularly across the Asian region. A few definitional remarks are in order at this point. Firstly, the rules-based international order, a liberal paradigm seen as a remedy to the devastation wreaked by the two World Wars, was brought into existence by the U.S. This was made possible by the U.S. pushing ahead with the Marshall Plan to rebuild war-torn Europe, returning it to a minimum threshold of economic advancement and political stability that would enable the continent to support the global narrative of a unipolar world as envisioned by Washington. Thereafter, a broad set of 'norms and institutions that govern international relations as well as broad patterns of power distribution and economic flows across the world, most of it backstopped by American power and leadership' came into force, including the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (as well as the 'Washington consensus' that they implied), and a variety of related organisations. All these institutions existed to put guardrails in place for international politics — in other words these organisations were used as leverage to limit the regional and global ambitions of any potential rival to the aforementioned unipolar balance of power. The triumphs of Pax Americana The argument made by some who see the continuation of the rules-based international order even through the turbulence of the Trump years is that throughout the history of Asia's development, the U.S. has displayed the very same bullying tactics around the region that curbed and shaped the growth trajectory of Asian powerhouse economies. For example, Sandeep Bhardwaj argues that during the post-War years, when Japanese cloth imports of the U.S. outsold American domestic product, the U.S. in 1955 compelled Japan to agree to a voluntary export restriction that capped the latter's share of the U.S. market. However, the U.S. has equally nurtured the quality of openness within the rules-based order, allowing room for Asian and Latin American economies to periodically assert themselves and play a larger role within limited spaces, thus introducing the necessary element of system flexibility that has helped it endure despite a series of economic and political shocks over the past half century. Examples cited of such openness within Pax Americana include the U.S. and developed nations encouraging developing countries to join the United Nations umbrella of institutions; getting China to join the WTO in 2001 after going slow on global concerns about Beijing's human rights violations; supporting Japan's entry to the G-7 in 1973; strongly backing the entry of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, and Saudi Arabia into the G20; establishing the UN Millennium Development Goals to backstop the financing of industrialisation in emerging economies; and structural adjustment loans from the IMF. These loans, however, were a double edged sword, offering a financial lifeline for Asian countries while benefitting U.S. trade policy by forcing the opening up of these markets. The extent of U.S.' power There is no denying that the rules-based international order is far from an authoritarian hierarchy of forced policy prescriptions and expected political genuflection of so-called subordinate Asian nations. Yet, it is fair to ask whether such a warped balance of power in favour of the U.S. could ever emerge, given the Asian trajectory of rapid economic growth built on global trading and capital systems, the collective social emancipation of people, the propagation of individual and institutional liberty, and the growing state capacity for meaningful regional action and collaboration. If the sense of agency and autonomous power of Asian nation-states is overlooked, then it leads to a false sense of U.S. munificence in 'bestowing' openness and flexibility upon the rules-based order. In reality, the U.S., for all its economic heft and technological prowess had no choice but to find its own place within this complex matrix of competing nations worldwide, each strong in specific economic sectors, but perhaps less so in other areas. Within this more reasoned paradigm of the global political economy, which neither denies the unipolarity of the present moment nor overstates the U.S.'s ability to impose its hegemonic ambitions on other nations in today's multi-alliance, interconnected and interdependent framework of international engagement, it becomes clear that damage done to the rules-based liberal international order under the second Trump administration will transform the order to the point of it resembling a new order entirely. Ironically, at the heart of this act of reshaping the rules-based liberal international order, are not so much the consequences of what the U.S. is inflicting upon Asian nations but rather its abrupt pulling of the rug from under the heels of Europe by undermining the ideological cause and financial prospects of NATO and leaving the continent exposed to the risk of ever-increasing depredations of Russia. Similarly, the resoluteness with which Mr. Trump has tied his administration to the whims and fancies of the genocidal and warmongering causes of Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu will rewrite the playbook for everyone. This will impact the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Türkiye, rethinking regional political dynamics, as much as it will aspiring college students from India seeking admissions in countries other than the U.S. in the wake of compulsory social media scrutiny as a condition of visa issuance. A new order Yes, the silhouettes of the old rules-based liberal international order will continue to fall upon the new arrangements that the world will find itself forced to confront by the end of the second Trump term. However, there can be no denying that it will indeed be a new order built on the rise of bilateral agreements in place of broader regional ones. The newer order will feature the widespread use of economic sanctions to penalise political opponents across the globe in contravention of WTO norms; ever-growing skirmishes and limited wars; a reliance on drones and AI to settle territorial and other disputes; as well as a steady, catastrophic dismembering of global institutions fostering cooperation, reducing transactions costs and speaking up for human rights and standards of international engagement more broadly. Pax Americana may well give rise to the next phase of its own evolution, Flux Americana.
The Print
18-07-2025
- Business
- The Print
Trump's Ukraine U-turn puts Russia's trade partners at risk. India caught in the middle
Under the new Trump policy, Europe will foot the bill—around $10 billion—for largely defensive US weapons package to Ukraine. While some European leaders see this as a necessary compromise, others view it with unease. Since returning to the White House, his Oval Office meetings have taken on an almost mythical quality, with global consequences often hinging on his remarks. In a recent episode, NATO chief Mark Rutte was seen placating Trump with 'Daddy diplomacy', who publicly aired his frustration over being 'played' by Putin. This was followed by Trump announcing what many are calling a U-turn in policy on Ukraine, NATO, and Europe. Donald Trump has once again reversed his position—this time on Ukraine—and once again with global repercussions, including for New Delhi. The decision has only deepened the sense that the world remains trapped in the aftermath of a Pax Americana gone lax—not strong enough to shape global affairs decisively, yet not weak enough to allow others real autonomy. However, it's another one of Trump's stances that has had the Indian strategic circles speculating—the likely passing of the Graham-Blumenthal Bill, which would sanction Russian energy buyers. Build up to the sanctions Just days before his major policy reversal on Ukraine, Donald Trump had exercised his presidential drawdown authority for the first time since returning to office and authorised approximately $300 million in aid to Ukraine. This move came on the heels of former Fox News host and now Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, halting aid to Ukraine, which led to immediate and visible devastation in the country. Following the aid announcement, Trump has set another 50-day deadline for Russia to decide on a ceasefire. However, as with many Trump proclamations, there's no certainty he will stick to this plan. He has also threatened to impose a sweeping 100 per cent tariff on Russia and its trade partners, notably China and India, if no ceasefire is reached by the deadline. NATO chief Mark Rutte has not minced words, issuing a sharp warning to 'leaders in Delhi, Beijing, and Brazil' to brace up for punitive measures. This rhetoric aligns with the Graham-Blumenthal sanctions bill, currently backed by over 80 US Senators. The legislation, if adopted, would allow Trump to impose a staggering 500 per cent tariff on imports from any country continuing to buy Russian uranium, gas, or oil. This has direct implications for India, now one of Russia's largest crude oil buyers. Indian refineries have processed Russian oil and sent it—refined—into Europe. In parallel, with only a 10 per cent tariff baseline remaining in India-US trade talks, India could soon face a difficult choice: Risk harsh US sanctions or pivot fully toward strengthening its trade relationship with Washington. The cautious statements by Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Hardeep Singh Puri, allude to India preferring a resilient approach with the US and Europe instead of a confrontational one, implying the availability of more import sources and a falling crude price. Contrary to public rhetoric, this measured approach reflects a deeper awareness of the numerous geopolitical complexities, where national interest alone should pave the way forward. Also read: India's 'triple anxiety'—What Chinese media sees in Jaishankar's Beijing visit Trump's zig-zag Donald Trump's latest pivot on Ukraine seems to have a surprising domestic influence—his wife, Melania Trump. An ethnic Slovene, Melania's European roots have reportedly played a role in softening Trump's stance on the region, suddenly making her something of a darling across European capitals. Another factor that likely influenced Trump's shift was his growing sense of being repeatedly manipulated by Putin. After boasting of a recent peace talk call, Trump claimed progress—only for Putin to launch a brutal civilian airstrike the same night, casting doubt on Moscow's intentions and embarrassing Trump's narcissistic diplomatic narrative. Throughout his political career, Trump has generally maintained a favourable posture toward Putin. Russia, in turn, has welcomed this position. Yet, lately, Putin seemed to be playing Trump a tad too much. Russian confidence likely stems from a perception of Trump's inconsistency and American distractions. The US is bogged down by Middle East entanglements, political infighting, and a string of domestic controversies ranging from the Musk fallout to the latest storm over the Epstein files. On its part, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has condemned the possibility of Trump sending long-range weapons to Ukraine. Lavrov issued sharp warnings, making it clear that Moscow is prepared to endure new sanctions and steeper tariffs if necessary, as it will continue pursuing its 'maximalist goals' in Ukraine. From Putin's perspective, consolidating battlefield gains is crucial. In September 2022, just months into the full-scale invasion, Russia constitutionally annexed four Ukrainian regions—Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—the first two having been under Russia's de facto control since 2014. However, until recently, none of these were fully under Russian control. Currently, Russia is engaged in intense but attritional battles in Ukraine's northeast, particularly in Sumy, and in the south around the key town of Pokrovsk. The fighting in Pokrovsk has dragged on for over a year, with little progress. The most significant military gain from Russia's sluggish summer offensive has been Luhansk, now almost entirely under its control. The other three regions remain partially occupied at best, and at the current pace of territorial gains, a complete military takeover could take years, if not decades. This lack of decisive victory is likely pushing Putin to search for an inflexion point. In Putin's strategic calculus, such a breakthrough may lie in breaking Ukraine's civil resilience and dismantling its critical infrastructure, while hoping to wear down Europe's resolve. His bet seems to be that if the US wavers, European support for Ukraine will eventually falter. However, this has not materialised. Despite Trump's unpredictable stance, European nations have held firm. Even amid fractures in EU solidarity—especially in Hungary and Slovakia—Europe has shown a resolve few could have predicted. Germany, in particular, has undergone a 'military awakening.' Its increased defence spending and strategic clarity have significantly shifted Europe's posture on long-term security. These developments present a major challenge for Moscow, which counts on European indecision, fragile social welfare politics and public fatigue with the war to eventually turn the tide. Putin's bet on a favourable Trump administration may not yet yield the dividends he anticipated. Instead, with winter approaching and momentum stalling, the Kremlin faces pressure to translate limited battlefield progress into some form of political or strategic advantage. If Ukraine is having it tough fighting an invasion from a mighty neighbour without enough weapons and men, Russia, too, is entangled in a miscalculated and poorly executed war draining its resources and global standing. Also read: Paradox of India's S-400 deal—key asset delayed when country needs it most Attritional warfare continues Trump has announced the provision of up to 17 Patriot missile systems, along with interceptors and other defence equipment worth billions of dollars to Ukraine. However, in contrast to European expectations, he has refrained from approving long-range weapons, keeping the door open for potential peace negotiations. Rumours about the US possibly supplying JASSM and PrSM missiles had circulated, but Trump denied those claims recently. The key takeaway is that these new supplies, while significant, are unlikely to alter the course of the war. Ukraine is expected to deploy these systems not at the front, where Russian advances remain slow, but around vital civilian and critical infrastructure, which has been repeatedly targeted by Russian airstrikes and missiles. That said, Patriot systems will have a limited impact against Russia's continued drone attacks. The current U-turn on Ukraine is still on shaky ground. Trump must show enough consistency to provide a discernible enough pattern in his strategy. New Delhi has a vested interest not only in securing a favourable trade deal with the US, but also in Europe's evolving military landscape. Across strategic and political circles, there is a broad consensus that India should prioritise its national interest by integrating into global defence production and supply chains. Europe's growing security demands offer a significant opportunity—one that the continent cannot meet through domestic capabilities alone or by relying solely on the United States. Swasti Rao is a Consulting Editor (International and Strategic Affairs) at ThePrint. She tweets @swasrao. Views are personal. (Edited by Theres Sudeep)
Sky News AU
14-07-2025
- Business
- Sky News AU
Anthony Albanese warned over 'cagey' Taiwan stance, with Sky News' Peta Credlin claiming it will lead to US 'reckoning'
Sky News host Peta Credlin has warned Prime Minister Anthony Albanese his "cagey" stance on Taiwan risks placing further strain on Australia's alliance with the United States. Credlin said Mr Albanese's noncommittal answers to questions about sending troops to defend Taiwan would encourage the US to question if Australia were really committed to the alliance. She added that if "America does defend Taiwan, Australia will have to be involved. There are no ifs or buts here." Noting the Albanese government refused to send a frigate to the Red Sea in December 2023, marking the 'first time since ANZUS was finalised in 1951 that we have declined a US request for military assistance', Credlin claimed questions about Taiwan were a telling indicator on whether Australia would back its ally. 'Every previous Australian government has recognised that the alliance is a two-way street. We can't expect the Americans to support us in our military campaigns if we're not prepared to support them in theirs,' she said. 'This is where the travelling press pack with the Prime Minister miss the point. The question is not would Australia help Taiwan, it's would Australia help the United States?' Credlin added Mr Albanese was spending a 'remarkably long' time in China and would meet President Xi Jinping for the fourth time on Tuesday, while still not having met President Donald Trump and continuing to refuse calls to increase defence spending. The Sky News host echoed the words of former prime minister Tony Abbott, who said defence spending needed to be 'swiftly' increased to three per cent of GDP. 'If we want the Pax Americana to survive, this unprecedented era of global peace in general terms, then we cannot expect the Americans to do all the heavy lifting on their own,' Credlin said. 'There's a reckoning on the way and few Australians really appreciate just how grave things are.' Credlin said Mr Albanese needed to get some of 'our eggs out of the China basket' given Beijing's aggression economically and militarily, characterised by the rising tension around Taiwan and recent trade boycotts 'only just lifted' against Australia. 'There were $20 billion worth of boycotts placed on our annual exports to China – just because we had the temerity to ask for an independent investigation of the Wuhan virus,' she said. 'For China, trade is politics by other means. Trade is something to be turned on and off like a tap to secure its strategic objectives. 'It's not just the folly of making Australia more economically vulnerable to China. It's the folly of turning trade into a climate crusade.' Credlin said the 'inconvenient truth' was China relied heavily on billions of dollars of Australian iron and coal. The Sky News host said Mr Albanese was mistaken if he thought China shared his 'emissions obsession', when in fact it had not committed to net zero and is building two new coal-fired power stations every week. 'How about that inconvenient truth?' she said. 'So not only is Anthony Albanese missing the point on national security, he's missing it on economic security too.'
Indian Express
12-07-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
America is going back on all the things that made it great. India's must seize the opportunity
An autoimmune disease occurs when your body's immune system treats its own healthy tissues as invaders and attacks them. America's policies currently targeting its three powerful muscles — universities, companies and immigration — create short-term pain for India in remittances, student enrolment, manufacturing jobs, foreign investment and exports. While these attacks feel like a passing shower, it's too early to conclude they aren't the climate change of Pax Americana ending. Regardless of how politics unfolds in America, India must seize the long-term economic opportunities by making itself stronger through a 180-day plan for deregulation for employers, decentralisation of power and deepening of human capital. Some people date Pax Americana — US dominance in the world order — to World War II. I prefer January 1992, when President George H W Bush, referring to the Soviet Union's collapse, said, 'The last year has seen changes of biblical proportions. By the grace of God … a world once divided … now recognises one sole and preeminent power, the United States of America.' Despite this biblical hubris — and 9/11, two wars, a financial crisis and Covid since — the US has dominated in digital innovation, new drugs and stock market growth because it stole the best people in the world, made public investments in basic science and its companies globalised their supply chains. But America is now pouncing on all three. America's universities are home to 50 per cent of Nobel Prize winners. Funding from the National Institutes of Health contributed to 99 per cent of all drugs approved between 2010 and 2019. In biotech, US government funding accounted for 38 per of total investment in 2024, almost as much as all global venture capital combined. Global consumers of medicine and information technology innovations (chips, internet, and GPS) have benefited from generous US government funding that supported cutting-edge basic science research and grants to academic scientists. Some of the backlash against universities is earned as some intolerant humanities professors with physics envy gift-wrapped their disciplines as social sciences, ignoring Richard Feynman's warning that physics would be impossible if electrons had feelings. This conversion of economics to mathematics, political science to statistics, and sociology/anthropology to racism paralleled a crisis in peer-reviewed, journal-published academic papers around replicability, scalability, and generalisability. It's also unclear whether a private university like Harvard, with an endowment of $50 billion, should take $90,000 per student per year in government funding. President Donald Trump's economically illiterate advice to Walmart, a hyper-efficient American retailer with 3 per cent profit margins, to 'eat' his import tariffs is a long way from the global supply chains described in the new book Apple in China by Patrick McGee. Ignoring the author's patronising and unfair portrayal of Apple's motivations, the book insightfully demonstrates how the globalisation of manufacturing supply chains became the most significant factor in reducing global poverty by attracting investment, training managers and accelerating productivity. India came late to manufacturing supply chains; only one in 10 of our workers works in a factory. However, China's recent dismissal of Deng Xiaoping's economic genius presents India with a manufacturing opportunity to attract factory refugees despite America's tariff drama. If demography is destiny, immigration has ensured America doesn't face the problems of Japan (adult diapers outsell baby diapers) or China (Nigeria may have more people by 2060). Approximately 14 per cent of Americans are foreign-born, and immigrants, including their US-born children, account for 27 per cent of the country's population. These numbers conceal the disproportionate contributions of Indian immigrants to new company formation, university teaching, scientific research, technology innovation, and taxes. India's improbable success in two Indian industries — economists never envisioned poor countries exporting software and medicines — benefited from America's skilled worker visa regime and brain circulation. A new book by Srinath Raghavan of Ashoka University on the Indira Gandhi years suggests they represent conjoined crises of hegemony, representation, and governance. This may also explain America's political backlash. Universities became idealists with illusions. The geographic (rural) and sectoral (manufacturing) concentration of wage declines were ignored. Liberals denied that illegal migration would hurt legal migration, a path to citizenship is not necessary for a path to work. And migrants are easier to vilify than technology. The political popularity of America's economic irrationality — Make America Great Again, feels like Make America White Again —suggests healing will take time. But Indians showing schadenfreude at America's challenges should pause. Despite our short-term pain from the US's actions, its democracy remains the best partner for India's students, emigrants, investment needs and exports. Suppose the government-funded American research engine in basic science suffers. It's hard to imagine the Indian state or pharma, software, and manufacturing companies responding with resources of the same intensity and impact. Let's compare America to the alternative; imagine the tyranny and soullessness of a global order hinged on China. Every problem is an opportunity. India must capitalise on this one in three ways. First, cut employer compliance, filing and criminal provisions. Second, shift some of Delhi's power (funds, functions and functionaries) to state and city governments. Third, while the troubles of America's Ivy League universities are probably temporary, granting poorna swaraj to IISC, IITs, IIMs, and Ashoka to innovate, disrupt and teach would accelerate their disruption of global university rankings. All three reforms are hard. But as a song from the movie Pink reminded us, Jo tujh se lipti bediyaan samajh na inko vastra tu/ ye bediyaan pighal ke banale in ko shastra tu (Don't mistake the chains that bind you for clothes/ Melt these chains into weapons). In policy, there is no such thing as being too late, but there is a 'fierce urgency of now'. Success is far from guaranteed but the moment feels auspicious. The writer is co-founder of Teamlease Services
