OPINION
The Green-German Government’s China Strategy
Published
on
The German government’s strategy paper was adopted on 13.07.2023. The 64-page document clearly shows the German government’s huge information gap on China’s policy. The new change of course means protectionism due to bad advice from US think tanks paid billions that sabotage the German economy.
China’s success is based on reforms. And in the last ten years in particular, the People’s Republic of China has achieved enormous milestones in the areas of the rule of law, high technology, poverty reduction, climate protection and the protection of people with disabilities. Development has never stood still and will never stand still. Chinese-style socialism aims to shape people’s lives in harmony, peace and prosperity, in harmony with nature and in mutual respect. In terms of world politics, humanity is seen as having a divided future, which is why it is important to work together to resolve the world’s conflicts. China does not intervene militarily in any conflict in the world and does not impose its will on any country in the world. All partners choose China because China respects the cultural, political and historical aspects of each nation – including and especially Germany’s will.
Germany itself has faced major challenges in the last ten years. Instead of successes, the entire EU and its transatlantic partners have been confronted with conflicts. For example, several wars for freedom, democracy and the preservation of the “rules-based world order” in Africa, the Middle East and most recently in Ukraine have led to refugee flows and economic instability. At the national level, massive misinvestment in social, transport, education and housing infrastructure leads to unrest. Not without reason, there are also massive protests in other European countries like France. The result is an energy crisis, high inflation and a badly damaged economy.
The German government’s strategy paper, which draws its core elements from the influence of American media in Germany, American think tanks and US green lobbies, now seals the economic and political distance to China. European companies may now find it harder to participate in China’s progress. The main reason is that the German government does not understand what is happening in China. It has not understood the progress China has made in the last ten years. The gap is widening, China’s rise is unstoppable. Instead of working together to tackle the world’s big projects, the German government is sailing into a violent storm.
Rhetorical wordplay undermines One-China principle and recognises Taiwan’s autonomy
The German government’s strategy paper is linguistically characterised by rhetorical-political wordplay that clearly aims at protectionism but superficially gives the appearance of cooperation. This becomes particularly clear in the example of the Taiwan question. Thus, while the German government continues to profess its commitment to the One-China principle, it explicitly refers to it as the “One-China principle of the EU”. Worldwide, there is only one common definition of the One-China principle, which recognises the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate nation of China. In the United Nations and all international organisations, the People’s Republic of China represents the whole of China, including the province of Taiwan. However, the German government is now speaking on behalf of the EU and explicitly mentions in the strategy paper that it wants to support Taiwan alongside the People’s Republic of China in participating in international organisations. This undermines the whole concept of the One China principle and leads to an indirect legitimisation of Taiwan as an independent state.
EU Global Gateway as a chaotic alternative to the Silk Road (Belt and Road)
The German government explicitly distances itself from the Silk Road project as well as from the Global Development Initiative and the Global Security Forces Initiative. The BR sees the Belt and Road Project as a means for China to place itself at the centre and to make other countries “dependent”. The German government sees itself in the position of implementing an alternative to the One Belt One Road project. For example, the EU wants to invest 600 billion dollars by 2027 in the infrastructure of countries that pursue European values and interests. So there is no clear concept, but a watering-can-like distribution of funds, which has already not led to success in the last decades.
Here it becomes clear in the wording of the strategy paper that the green federal government does not know what the Belt and Road Initiative means. For example, the Belt and Road Project is supported voluntarily and enormously by all participating states. The Belt and Road Project has been able to contribute massively to poverty reduction throughout Africa and the Middle East in the areas of infrastructure, construction of schools, housing, hospitals, inclusion or technology development. Technology cooperation is being established, universities along the Silk Road are cooperating and logistics are becoming incredibly cheap. Under the project, African students, for example, receive scholarships and can study for free in China and then use their skills to build their country. A secure infrastructure brings stability for the people and stimulates trade. Local products along the Silk Road, for example from small farmers in Pakistan, can suddenly be sold on the Chinese market. It is a project for a common future of humanity in harmony with nature. China’s international policy stands for win-win cooperation, for a multipolar world, for respect for other cultures without lecturing them, and for what it means to live “right”. Nations that have been dominated by the West for decades and actively promoted instability now have a new alternative and are actively moving towards it. After talking to African students in China about the difference between the West and China, they explained that China gives the money to the government, which invests in infrastructure and builds schools etc. with Chinese know-how. The West, on the other hand, gives money to local, foreign organisations that are corrupt, finance warlords and want to determine policy without knowing the cultures.
Due to the distance of the German government and the lack of investment, Germany and the whole of Europe will not get a chance. German companies and technologies as well as German shareholders are excluded by politics and cannot participate in the development of the global community in the Belt and Road Initiative. This also makes it more difficult for Germany to negotiate its own policies in the respective regions. Germany excludes itself.
Protectionism in the area of raw materials, technologies and trade
China is the second largest patent holder in the world after the USA. The key technologies are in Chinese hands. The People’s Republic shares these technologies with all partners and promotes the development of mankind on a win-win basis. The Federal Republic recognises China as a global leader here, for example in artificial intelligence, quantum technologies or autonomous driving. However, Germany wants to separate itself from the Chinese here so as not to become “dependent”. At the same time, the EU/BRD subsidises its own technologies such as AI. The EU chip law is being introduced. Chinese companies are to be excluded from any participation. New raw material partners are to be found. Only, according to the strategy paper, these technologies may only be used by states that represent the fundamental values of the Europeans. This disconnects these technologies from the world market, which is detrimental to competition and reminiscent of the technology ring of the Cold War. In contrast, BR is committed to the transatlantic alliance and wants to share such technologies with the USA, open the market for US companies and link it to security and military cooperation. It is also questionable whether protectionism equates to sanctions and the Chinese Foreign Anti-Sanctions Law could be activated, which would lead to countermeasures by China.
The Chairman of the Board of the Federal Association for Business Development (BWA) Michael Schumann, one of the few German non-political, rational business associations, comments: “We expressly do not welcome this so-called “strategy” of the Federal Government, as it puts additional strain on the relationship with Germany’s most important trading partner at a difficult time. The prioritisation, choice of words and recommendations for action in this document are not in the interest of our companies, which are successfully active in China and intend to continue to be so in the future.”
Climate protection sabotaged by own protectionism
One of the most important bilateral goals of the Federal Republic of Germany is cooperation with the People’s Republic of China in the area of climate protection. The People’s Republic is a global pioneer in renewable technologies. Anyone driving through the streets in China, for example, sees combustion engines less and less often. Paradoxically, the German government’s protectionist policy is aimed at making trade conditions more difficult for important technologies that can be important for climate protection. Research and development of proprietary technologies is also to be protected from Chinese access. In this way, the German government is thwarting its own climate goals and making cooperation more difficult. Chinese subsidies for coal-fired power plants in developing countries are also criticised. Here, the German government wants to slow down developments and work against national security interests in the sense of a “rules-based world order”. In addition, the EU has put the drafting of a new investment law on hold. BR also advocates granting China the status of a developing country, while at the same time criticising that many developments are still needed in China. Such paradoxical formulations can be found throughout the strategy paper.
Ignorance of China’s national development characterises the strategy paper
What is particularly striking about the German government’s strategy paper is the lack of knowledge of internal Chinese developments. As usual, national issues around Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet or Xinjang, freedom of the press and also the more difficult access of German companies to the Chinese market are criticised.
As far as freedom of expression is concerned, constructive criticism is explicitly welcome in China.
Criticism and discussion are the guarantee for development in China. In the academic field, there is even explicit ongoing dialogue with the USA, Germany and internationally recognised organisations such as the World Bank in order to bring about new developments. The academic discussion is lively and criticism from abroad is also welcome in order to improve people’s lives. In addition to academic debate, the public is also strongly democratically involved due to the proximity of the party with its over 90 million members. For example, there are party neighbourhood committees in all housing estates, which look after the residents’ concerns on a daily basis and pass on needs to the relevant authorities. Residents can become party members themselves and thus participate in the democratic and discussion process. This is done at all levels up to the central government, in direct dialogue with the population.
An important component of the strategy paper, especially with regard to the economy, is fair, sustainable and reciprocal trade and the protection of human rights. For BR in particular, it is unclear what developments have taken place within China. The Supply Chain Law even sanctions Germany’s own companies that do not protect human rights abroad. The People’s Republic of China has enacted numerous new laws. Patent, copyright and other protection laws have been strongly aligned with German and international standards. The Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) 2020 or the Cybersecurity Law, which almost corresponds to European data protection law, were also introduced. A new Civil Code was published in 2021, and here too the principles are very much based on the German Civil Code. China has its own labour law that excludes forced labour, even though the strategy paper talks about forced labour in China (Labour Contract Law).
In 2022, the anti-monopoly law in China was also renewed. Companies operating in China also have a special corporate social responsibility. This means they have to take responsibility for environmental protection, the protection of their employees and the protection of their industrial location. For example, a new land reform is currently taking place as an opening-up, in which foreign entrepreneurs can become quasi owners of land for the first time. However, they must safeguard the interests of the general public and protect the environment in rural areas. Private autonomy is also more strongly guaranteed in China than in Germany, where the hurdles are higher. It is quite questionable where the claim of backwardness comes from. Rather, there are more investment opportunities, which are used by the USA but not by the EU. The rule of law has also been expanded exorbitantly in the area of protection of the population and the individual. The training of lawyers is promoted, police officers, civil servants and ordinary citizens are increasingly trained in legal matters. The Chinese rule of law is based on international treaties and has many German features.
The criticism of the oppression of minorities is unfounded. On the contrary, the state promotes cultural minorities enormously and facilitates their access to public institutions, universities, schools or even professional life. In daily practice, this also means nationwide information campaigns about cultural minorities and their protection. Moreover, minorities are always represented in the National People’s Congress, China’s highest organ. In museums, art halls and in films, you can always find photos, statements about cultural minorities. They are respected and admired throughout the country with all 56 cultures.
Another misunderstanding concerns the Chinese party system. For example, the strategy paper says that China has a one-party system. This is factually incorrect. There are several parties under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. In the People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), which takes place parallel to the National Congress, these parties discuss new reforms. The parties reflect different interest groups. However, since the Communist Party represents all the people, the interest groups have a similar effect to consultative lobbies and are, for example, artists’ groups etc. that actively participate in the democracy and opinion process.
The policy paper aims to protect women in the human rights dialogue. In socialist China, for example, women have long had equal rights according to communist understanding. Women take part in space missions, stand by their husband’s side and help lead the country. In the Chinese Basic Law and also in civil law, cultures and genders have long been equal.
Obstacles to Chinese activities in Germany
In addition to the economic blockade, cooperation with the Chinese side is also subject to more intense scrutiny. For example, Chinese institutions will be subject to tighter controls, as will Confucius institutes or organisations, while partnerships with institutions in the province of Taiwan will be continued. Universities in Germany are to cooperate more closely with Chinese institutions. The German government wants to establish more of its own soft-power institutions such as Deutsche Welle in China, while it wants to block and restrict Chinese media in Germany, just like Russian media.
Conclusion shows difficult future prognosis for Europe
The German government’s strategy paper makes it clear that a rapprochement with the USA is being pursued while at the same time activating protectionism for China. The choice of words in the paper superficially shows cooperation. However, all the important points for economic cooperation and mutual understanding are missing. The German economy will not be able to participate in the large-scale projects in China or in the Middle East or even in Africa. At the same time, Europe is sealing itself off. The German government allows itself to be misinformed by US think tanks and harms the German people, German economic interests and Europe as a whole. Ignorance about China’s internal affairs is a major communication deficit. As a solution, it is hoped that China will launch educational campaigns and explain profoundly to the West what socialism with Chinese characteristics means for the world. Europe’s initiative to open a new market for its products is to be welcomed, provided that these are made accessible to the world. However, according to the policy paper, this market is limited to allies, which further closes off the world and introduces protectionism in the 21st century.
If there are any further legal questions, readers can contact the lawyer and author of the article, Christian Wagner, an expert in Chinese law.
You may like
-
EU, Mercosur aim to finalize trade deal by early December
-
China’s BYD prepares to launch latest SUV, the Sealion 07, in Europe despite EU tariffs
-
Scholz negotiates early elections
-
Italian President Mattarella visits Beijing: Xi urged to ‘make a difference’
-
New trade wars on the horizon: Trump signals return of ‘isolationist’ Lighthizer
-
Valdai impressions: As the Trump years begin…
Our people have endured decades of oppression, during which their rights were virtually destroyed and forgotten. In the post-Oslo period, when the Palestinian leadership opted for negotiations, settlement expansion accelerated while the foundations of national independence eroded under partition, isolation and prolonged blockades. Today, the occupation seeks to complete the historic Nakba by exploiting the Palestinian uprising that began on 7 October in response to escalating Zionist extremism, attempts at Judaisation and efforts to marginalise and eradicate the Palestinian entity. This existential challenge, backed by a broad coalition with regional and international dimensions that do not serve the interests of our people, obliges us to unite our efforts around common principles. Despite these barbaric attacks, limited resources and the imbalance of power with the enemy, we stand in solidarity with the resistance and determination of the Palestinian people. If these efforts are coordinated, we can put counter-pressure on the occupation, deepen its political and legal isolation and worsen its economic crisis. This will be an opportunity to force the occupation and its allies to stop the aggression and strengthen the ongoing struggle of our people.
Today, the Palestinian people are facing one of the heaviest Zionist attacks on the Gaza Strip, which reaches the dimensions of genocide and ethnic cleansing. According to unofficial statistics, the number of Palestinian martyrs since the beginning of the war has exceeded 186,000, and the environmental and health destruction caused by the attacks has directly contributed to this number. This scenario could, God forbid, be repeated in the West Bank, with radical settlers attacking Palestinian towns and villages through the occupation army or with the official support of the occupation government.
Historically, the Palestinians have paid the heaviest price for the Western approach to the Eastern question. The consequences of this approach have been disastrous for us: It not only led to the seizure of our land by the Zionist movement, but also paved the way for the establishment of a settler state. In this war, the Arab and Islamic countries acted with great responsibility, rejecting the international categorisation of the resistance as terrorism and insisting on presenting it as a national liberation movement.
Arab and Islamic countries have played a strong role in supporting our cause in international forums, with a growing regional awareness of a common destiny and the need for common security against a common enemy. This solidarity is a very important step in supporting our cause through the work of the Ministerial Committee of the Arab-Islamic Summit convened in Riyadh, which is expected to be an international framework for shaping a solution to the Palestinian issue in accordance with the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people.
Internationally, unlike in previous crises, we have seen clear international positions condemning the genocide and crimes against humanity committed against our people, reflected in firm positions at the United Nations. We appreciate these positions of the nations and peoples of the world and see the path to the establishment of a Palestinian state based on international legitimacy as the result of more than a century of Palestinian struggle and the revival of their rights, which have historical and political roots. Since 1922, the foundations of a Palestinian state have been laid, and despite British and Zionist conspiracies, Palestine retains its political primacy on the world map.
Today, more than 150 countries recognise the State of Palestine on the basis of international resolutions such as the General Assembly Settlement Plan (Resolution 181), the Algiers Declaration declaring the State of Palestine in 1988, and Security Council resolutions on the illegality of settlements outside the 1967 borders. The most recent resolution demands that Israel end its ‘illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’ within 12 months of the General Assembly’s request to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in Palestine. The resolution was adopted with overwhelming support – 24 votes in favour, 14 against and 43 abstentions – demonstrating the gains made by the Palestinian cause and highlighting the growing political isolation of the occupying state.
Despite the obstacles to sovereignty posed by the occupation, the Palestinian state remains a legal reality. We see current international efforts to revive these historic and entrenched rights, against the post-World War II trend of international powers favouring the establishment of a Zionist political entity at our expense.
These forward-looking initiatives, called the ‘International Alliance for the Realisation of the Two-State Solution’, include direct steps to organise the establishment of a Palestinian state, rather than merely negotiating its right to exist. This is an important step for regional security and international peace, a necessary way to stabilise the global system and prevent the spread of geopolitical conflicts, sometimes with a religious or cultural dimension.
Diplomatic and political efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood must be compatible with efforts to end the war, protect civilians, facilitate humanitarian aid and address the consequences of the aggression through compensation and reconstruction. At the same time, Palestinian efforts to meet the conditions for a sovereign state consistent with the principles of regional security and global peace should be intensified.
In the midst of these efforts, it is clear that the Palestinian forces will respond sincerely to these initiatives and are willing to overcome differences over governance, elections and the so-called ‘day after’ issues. Palestinian behaviour shows that these disputes are now a thing of the past and that focusing on the future enhances the ability to build and govern the Palestinian state on the basis of national spirit and solidarity.
OPINION
Valdai impressions: As the Trump years begin…
Published
3 days agoon
11/11/2024By
Hasan ÜnalThe American elections ended “as expected” with Trump’s victory. The polls were wrong again, often showing Trump and Kamala Harris neck and neck. Trump did well both in the overall vote and in the swing states. At the time of writing, the results for the House of Representatives have not been finalized. If they win a majority there too, the Republicans will have won a huge victory. In addition to the presidency, Trump will give them overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, state governorships and state legislatures.
What will Trump do and how will he do it?
This time I followed the American election at the annual forum of the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi, Russia. The annual forum was attended by a group of about fifty to sixty academics, think-tankers, and experts from around the world, and about twenty to thirty experts from Russia, including, as usual, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (second day) and Russian President Putin (closing session on the last day). Deputy Prime Minister Novak and Kremlin Chief of Staff Oreshkin also attended the Forum, speaking at length and answering questions. As was the case last year, Putin’s introductory speech and subsequent Q&A session lasted more than four hours. He spoke with an incredibly clear content and style, without mincing words.
One of the most striking aspects of the Forum, which I attended for the second time (4-7 November), was that all participants were following the U.S. election with great interest. After Trump’s victory became clear, you could hear different comments from participants depending on which country they came from. For example, while those from Russia and other countries welcomed Trump’s arrival with the expectation that he would put an end to the policy pursued so far by the collective West in the war in Ukraine, guests from China and/or those focusing on China thought that there could be fierce winds between Washington and Beijing.
Similarly divergent views were immediately apparent among participants from Middle Eastern countries. For example, while some Middle Eastern participants were somewhat positive about the serious possibility of an American withdrawal from Syria and Iraq under Trump, Iranian participants spoke of the possibility of war between Iran and a Trump administration that is likely to fully support Israel.
On the other hand, Western participants (such as the UK and Canada) tended to see Trump’s arrival as the beginning of the end of the neo-liberal economic order. The neoliberal economic models, which have catastrophically widened the gap between rich and poor and almost eliminated the middle class, the foundation of democracies, are already being harshly criticized by the experts participating in the Valdai meetings.
First assessments
First of all, the Western participants emphasized the beginning of the end of neo-liberal economic policies. It seems that neoliberal economic policies have been rejected in their home country, America. Especially since the 1980s, neo-liberal economic policies, which the U.S. not only implemented but also imposed almost everywhere in the world, have been turned into an opportunity for their own rapid development by countries like China and Vietnam, which have implemented nationalist and planned development models, while in most developed countries, especially in the U.S., these policies have caused great rifts in societies. The consequences for us are perhaps among the worst in the world…
The main reasons for Trump’s exit were the excessive monetization of the entire U.S. system, the massive retreat from industrial production, and the fact that while the economy grew, it had no positive impact on the lives of a large part of the population. What remains to be seen is how much of what Trump says will be translated into policy and action. For example, will it be possible to force companies that have invested in industry and advanced technology in China, other Far Eastern countries, and Mexico for decades to come back and invest in the U.S.? If not, will Trump be able to impose high tariffs on goods from countries that export massive amounts of goods to the U.S., especially China, as he said during the campaign? And will he be able to maintain public support for such measures?
On the other hand, if Trump, who has promised to cut taxes, does so, how will he deal with the rapidly growing budget deficit and the national debt, which has already exceeded 35 trillion dollars and whose annual interest rate is around one trillion dollars (and will probably continue to rise)? I wonder if he will be able to seriously reduce the country’s defence spending, despite the fact that the arms companies, which are the most important part of the structure we will briefly describe as the Deep State, are engaged in a battle with him to prevent him from winning the elections? Perhaps… Maybe he even has to…
Foreign policy options
Trump has tied himself in knots over the war in Ukraine. There is no doubt that Trump, whose words ‘If I were president, I would not have allowed this war to start, if I were re-elected, I would end it with a few phone calls’ are etched in our memories, will take serious steps to end the war in our north. The opposition will be all the components of the American deep state, especially the arms companies, and the governments in Europe. If Trump, who this time seems to be more prepared for a comprehensive struggle with the Deep State, is not assassinated and consolidates his power, he can turn his statements on the Ukrainian war into policy.
The second opposition he is likely to face on the Ukraine war will be the weak governments in Europe. For the Baltic states, which would like to see Russia strategically defeated in Ukraine and then see that huge country torn to shreds, and for the European states that have turned the historical grievances of the former Eastern Europe into their own Russia policy, Trump’s election is a disaster in the truest sense of the word.
They can say to Trump: ‘Let’s continue the war in Ukraine, you can continue your arms and financial aid, we will fully support you in your China policy, and if you want, we can even go as far as recognizing Taiwan as an independent state’. However, such a policy would mean that Trump would be doing the opposite of everything he has said so far – especially on Ukraine. On the other hand, while Trump may be preparing for a trade war with China, we do not know much about his intention to start a hot war, or rather a proxy war, over Taiwan.
It goes without saying that Trump is totally opposed to wars against overseas countries, which have become a concept of hatred in the eyes of a large part of American society and which cause enormous costs. Therefore, we can say that Trump may engage in trade wars with China while focusing on stopping the war in Ukraine, but beyond that he is more likely to stay away from a proxy war that risks setting the entire world on fire.
Middle East scenarios
We know that Trump wanted to withdraw from Syria and Iraq during his first term, but the deep state elements prevented this with many maneuvers, and in the case of Syria, Ambassador James Jeffrey, who was America’s special envoy after 2019, said in a statement after Trump lost the elections that they deceived the president by pretending to withdraw from Syria. It is even possible to speak of Trump’s determination on this issue. It is even easy to say that the same determination is in question for Iraq. All this can create extremely important opportunities for Turkey, which we will discuss in our articles and Strategic Compass broadcastings in the coming weeks.
The question of Trump and Israel undoubtedly requires extensive analysis. There is no doubt that there is a lot of truth in theses such as that he will be strongly pro-Israel, that he will march on Iran or that he will unleash Israel on Iran. On the other hand, it may be misleading to expect that Trump, who has consistently stated that he will not start a new war in the Middle East, will give Israel or Netanyahu, whom he does not like very much, a blank cheque.
This is because we know that he unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear agreement with Iran, which had been reached in the previous period, in order to please the Israeli lobby, whose help and support he needed in his fight against the deep state, especially in his first term, and that he has made the agreement obsolete and turned to a policy of maximum pressure against Iran. However, all this does not mean that he will now start a war with Iran, especially in a multipolar world order… Since the probability of America and/or Israel winning a war with Iran is low and Iran will not be an easy target, we can assume that Trump’s support for Israel will be subject to certain limitations. All this shows that we are/will be at the beginning of a very extraordinary period.
OPINION
Trump’s overwhelming victory to reclaim the White House: Mixed reactions across the globe
Published
3 days agoon
11/11/2024By
Ma XiaolinOn November 6, Donald Trump, the Republican candidate and former U.S. president, won the 2024 presidential election by an overwhelming margin, reclaiming the White House after a four-year hiatus and becoming the 47th president of the United States. Concurrently, the Republican Party secured a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The controversial return of Trump as the head of state and the Republican Party’s potential absolute control over the legislative, executive, and judicial branches led global observers to exclaim that “America has changed!” and consequently, “the world is about to change too!”
The 2024 U.S. presidential election was notably dramatic and full of surprises. President Joe Biden, the Democratic incumbent, withdrew from the race mid-campaign due to health issues. Trump, despite facing significant opposition and surviving an assassination attempt, managed a successful comeback. Vice President Kamala Harris, who assumed the Democratic candidacy, initially led in the polls but ultimately suffered a resounding defeat on election day. With this dramatic power shift, prospects of a comprehensive reversal in the established domestic and foreign policies of the Democratic Party have elicited varied reactions—from joy to dismay—within the U.S. and beyond.
Republicans in the U.S. are undoubtedly jubilant, having backed the right candidate in Trump, who, despite initial skepticism during his first campaign, secured at least 312 electoral votes (preliminary figures), cementing a historic victory. Trump is now the second U.S. president to return to the White House through election after previously leaving office. The Republican Party is also poised to secure control over both houses of Congress and numerous state governments, with a Supreme Court already dominated by conservative justices aligned with Republican ideals.
Trump’s victory brings elation to his financial backers, grassroots supporters, industrial workers, and the farming community. These groups resonate with Trump and the Republican Party’s “America First” doctrine and are expected to relish the policies reversing Democratic initiatives and yielding tangible benefits over the next four years.
Conversely, Democrats are facing profound disappointment. Their tenure in the White House was abruptly cut short by the Republican resurgence, culminating in what may be seen as a historic and humiliating defeat, with significant implications for their influence over all three branches of government.
Minority communities, immigrants, leftist progressives, the renewable energy sector, and establishment figures are similarly disheartened by the resurgence of Trump and conservative forces. The return of Trump is expected to stifle minority and immigrant rights, potentially entrenching the U.S. political landscape with a Trumpian ethos. Progressive social movements advocating sexual freedom and the expanding transgender industry are likely to face stringent crackdowns, and the momentum for green and clean energy initiatives may stall. Furthermore, establishment figures fear that the Trump administration could seek to further challenge the American legal system, aiming to consolidate super-executive powers.
Isolationist groups in the U.S. are predictably celebrating, viewing this electoral outcome as a rejection of Biden’s globalist approach and a reassertion of Trumpian and Republican worldviews. The pursuit of “Making America Great Again” and the primacy of “America First” are expected to steer the U.S. away from alliances based on shared values and international obligations, leaning towards mercantilism and self-interest, thus eroding the responsibilities traditionally borne by the world’s leading power and potentially signaling the decline of American hegemony.
In contrast, globalist advocates express profound concern. Trump’s first term already disrupted globalization, alliance networks, and America’s leadership within the Western world. The modest progress made by the Biden administration in restoring these elements is likely to be undone, leaving advocates of “Pax Americana” deeply disappointed.
America’s international allies, too, are split in their reactions, aware of Trump’s policy directions and past actions. Many fear that “Trump 2.0” will push U.S. policies towards greater radicalism and polarization, shunning the compromises and moderation typical of Democratic administrations.
Notably, some U.S. allies and partners who share Trumpian ideology and leadership traits welcome his return. In Europe, far-right movements and Euroskeptics are particularly pleased. Their shared stance on white supremacy, anti-minority and anti-immigrant sentiments, opposition to globalization, and resistance to environmental initiatives align closely with Trump’s platform. Trump’s previous endorsement of Brexit and his initial victory emboldened Europe’s far-right forces. His triumphant return will likely invigorate these groups and even inspire neo-fascist movements with newfound enthusiasm and momentum.
Political leaders in South America who mirror Trump’s ideological style are likely to celebrate his return to power. Among them are Argentina’s President Javier Milei, who came to office a year ago and is often dubbed the “Argentine’s Trump,” and Brazil’s former President Jair Bolsonaro, ousted two years prior but steadfastly strategizing his political comeback. Both leaders anticipate that the resurgence of Trumpism will bolster their political influence and governance models across Latin America.
Traditional European establishment figures, globalists, advocates of European integration, and proponents of transatlantic relations are, in contrast, likely to view Trump’s return with dismay. Memories of Trump’s earlier tenure, during which he undermined the European Union, emboldened far-right movements, pressured NATO members to increase defense spending under the threat of withdrawal, and unilaterally exited various multilateral agreements and international treaties, still linger. Notably, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump severed air and sea connections with Europe, effectively abandoning traditional allies. Today, European leaders have two new concerns: Trump could instigate a trade war with Europe through the imposition of tariffs and force European nations to purchase U.S. oil and gas at high prices.
Reactions in Europe to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict are similarly mixed. A second Trump administration might alter the dynamics of U.S.-Russia, U.S.-Europe, and Russia-Europe relations, potentially reducing NATO’s involvement in the conflict and increasing the likelihood that Europe would have to bear greater military responsibilities independently.
Russia, for its part, would likely welcome Trump’s return. Trump has previously expressed admiration for President Vladimir Putin’s strong leadership style and has advocated for a swift resolution to the Russia-Ukraine war, aiming for a normalization of U.S.-Russia and Europe-Russia relations. Should Trump reduce military aid to Ukraine or pressure European nations to sacrifice Ukrainian interests, Russia, currently holding battlefield advantages, could see an expedited path to victory. European nations, sensing this possibility, have proactively signed security pacts with Ukraine to ensure collective defense in the event of diminished U.S. involvement.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky may be entering another “darkest hour.” The recently disclosed “peace plan” by Trump, while promising continued military assistance, proposes an 800-mile-long demilitarized zone between Russia and Ukraine and bars Ukraine from joining NATO for the next 20 years. A potential ceasefire modeled after the Korean Armistice Agreement could see both sides halting active combat along current lines, resulting in a prolonged stalemate.
The U.S.’s partners in the Middle East are similarly split, with one clear beneficiary and several discontented parties. The Middle East today differs from its state four years ago, as regional states increasingly emphasize autonomy and seek intra-Islamic dialogue and reconciliation, no longer placing their hopes solely in U.S. involvement—with Israel being the notable exception.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the powerful Israeli far-right are undoubtedly delighted by Trump’s re-election. Trump’s staunch support for Israel, paralleled by his antipathy toward Iran and Palestine, signals that Israel will find a dependable ally in Washington. This support comes at a critical time, as the Democratic administration’s patience in the region has waned. With Trump back in power, Israel is expected to confidently pursue its objectives across multiple strategic fronts, leveraging U.S. backing for maximum effect. Although Trump is not inclined to entangle the U.S. in Middle Eastern conflicts, he is likely to apply pressure tactics to force concessions from Israel’s adversaries.
For Palestinians, Trump’s return represents a deepening of their plight. They recall that it was Trump who controversially recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, sidelined them with the “Deal of the Century,” downgraded diplomatic relations with the Palestine Liberation Organization, suspended economic and humanitarian aid, and withdrew from UNRWA due to its pro-Palestinian stances.
Iran will also face heightened military, diplomatic, and economic pressure, with an increased likelihood of direct conflict with Israel. Iranians cannot forget Trump’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during his first term in office and the subsequent tightening of sanctions. Trump’s directive in 2020 that led to the U.S. military’s targeted killing of General Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which triggered missile strikes against U.S. bases in the Middle East, remains etched in their collective memory.
Saudi Arabia, despite its relatively warm relationship with Trump, may have more reasons for concern than joy. Riyadh faces a complex dilemma between pragmatic and moral imperatives regarding the Palestinian cause. The kingdom has chosen to distance itself from Israel and pursue rapprochement with Iran. Moreover, Saudi Arabia is wary of serving as a “cash dispenser” under U.S. pressure and being coerced into buying American arms, a recurring pattern during Trump’s first term. The potential for a new U.S.-Saudi oil and gas rivalry, spurred by Trump’s plans to flood the market with American energy exports, could exacerbate tensions.
In the Asia-Pacific, responses are similarly mixed, even within individual U.S. partners. Compared to Biden, Trump prioritizes profit over partnership, exhibiting a greater focus on economic and trade benefits for the U.S., while downplaying military alliances and geostrategic commitments.
North Korea may harbor expectations that Trump’s return could lead to a shift from the Biden administration’s policy of strategic neglect, potentially rekindling the momentum of the three summits between Kim Jong-un and Trump. These summits, initially promising steps toward U.S.-North Korea normalization, were effectively stalled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, mutual distrust, and changes in political leadership. A renewed Trump administration could reignite dialogue that has, until now, remained an unfinished diplomatic endeavor.
In contrast, South Korea and Japan are likely apprehensive about Trump’s potential policies that could undermine their military alliances. Trump’s history of pressuring allies to increase defense spending and imposing tariffs on imported goods might compel these nations to recalibrate their strategic positions amidst U.S.-China rivalry, risking a precarious diplomatic balance.
Countries like Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore, and India are aware that Trump, known for his transactional approach, might deprioritize their strategic partnerships. This could shift the dynamics in the Indo-Pacific region, where economic interests are placed above security alliances.
China, labeled as the primary adversary by both major U.S. parties, has already experienced the Democratic Party’s assertive policies and Trump’s aggressive tactics during his previous term. Consequently, Beijing has remained composed in response to the White House’s change of leadership, neither cheering nor fearing Trump’s return. China is prepared for Trump’s strategic maneuvers, especially given his doctrine of caution in military engagements but willingness to escalate trade, technology, and financial confrontations. It anticipates that a second Trump term may not lead to military conflicts but could intensify economic warfare, including trade disputes and restrictions on Chinese investments.
On November 7, President Xi Jinping and Vice President Han Zheng sent congratulatory messages to President-elect Trump and his running mate, J.D. Vance, reaffirming China’s consistent principles in handling bilateral relations and expressing expectations for continued engagement. The development of U.S.-China relations under Trump’s leadership is poised to be the focal point of global attention, representing a key determinant of world peace and security.
Proponents of Taiwan independence are among the biggest losers in this shift in U.S. leadership. The Republican Party’s platform has remained silent on Taiwan, omitting any mention of its defense. Trump himself previously demanded that Taiwan contribute 10% of its GDP as a “protection fee,” signaling a transactional approach to its security.
With the Biden administration’s push to transition Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) into a “Made-in-America” entity, thereby eroding Taiwan’s core industries, further challenges loom. Elon Musk, who maintains a close rapport with Trump and supports the “One China” principle, recently urged his aerospace suppliers to cease sourcing components from Taiwan. This move underscores his recognition of the Chinese market’s importance and implies that Trump’s Taiwan policy may align with Musk’s strategic interests. Consequently, Taiwanese independence leaders, such as William Lai, are left in a precarious position, facing significant political and economic setbacks.
Prof. Ma is the Dean of the Institute of Mediterranean Studies (ISMR) at Zhejiang International Studies University in Hangzhou. He specializes in international politics, particularly Islam and Middle Eastern affairs. He previously worked as a senior Xinhua correspondent in Kuwait, Palestine, and Iraq.
Trump appoints Gaetz as Justice Secretary, Gabbard as Intelligence Chief
U.S. sets up new ‘air defence base’ in Poland
German think tank DGAP: Germany and Europe must build military strength in the Asia-Pacific region
Katz’s statement on Hezbollah disarmament surprises even Halevi
Green light from CDU for debt brake reform
MOST READ
-
AMERICA1 week ago
The ‘third candidate’ in the U.S. elections: Jill Stein
-
AMERICA2 weeks ago
American billionaires’ presidential preferences
-
EUROPE1 week ago
A ‘holy alliance’ in the Bundestag: Anti-semitism law unites AfD and Greens
-
ASIA1 week ago
AstraZeneca’s top Chinese executive detained by authorities
-
AMERICA3 days ago
New trade wars on the horizon: Trump signals return of ‘isolationist’ Lighthizer
-
AMERICA1 week ago
Kamala Harris loses support among Arab and Muslim voters
-
AMERICA2 weeks ago
Muslim American votes matter; Who do they vote for?
-
DIPLOMACY1 week ago
Canada refuses to release list of 900 Nazi war criminals