Globalists and the Trump Enigma
Amir Taheri, Independent in Persian – Last Monday, in an unexpected coincidence, Donald Trump’s inauguration as President of the United States coincided with the opening of the annual “Tripton” or World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. This coincidence was both interesting and humorous for several reasons.
Trump is now recognized as the flagbearer of a global movement moving away from globalism, while Davos is the birthplace of globalist discourse, which was formed at its first meeting with 14 countries in 1970.
From the Davos perspective, the era of nation-states has ended, and the world needs to think and act beyond the national frameworks established by the Treaties of Westphalia in the 17th century in Europe. From this view, humanity requires models that can be applied worldwide, across all 200 countries. Major challenges of humanity such as climate change, trade based on the advantages of each country, dealing with natural disasters like unknown new viruses, and widespread economic crises cannot be controlled without adopting a globalist perspective.
From Trump’s and Trumpists’ viewpoints, who are now under the spotlight in many countries, the policy of “one size fits all” is misleading. Within the framework of globalism, successful countries in economic, scientific, cultural, and legal aspects become a kind of “room service” for countries accustomed to freeloading. From Trump’s perspective, the United States is the largest “room service”. America funds nearly 40% of the budget for the United Nations, World Health Organization, UNESCO, UNICEF, the High Commission for Refugees, the Palestinian Refugees Agency, and peacekeepers but often, especially in the last 20 years, has not even received a “thank you” and has been condemned for often baseless reasons.
Again, from Trump’s view, Europeans expect America to guarantee their security but are unwilling to pay their fair share of defense costs. America is the largest donor to so-called developing countries, yet in many of those countries, anti-Americanism has become a political religion among so-called intellectuals. In commercial competition, many countries, including the People’s Republic of China, do not commit to costly obligations to protect workers’ rights and to apply scientific and ethical standards while simultaneously providing underhanded subsidies to their industries, thereby unfairly competing with American goods through low prices.
Trump also sees some “third-world” countries exporting their excess labor to America, often illegally. Generally, American economic aid in many cases strengthens authoritarian regimes and anti-American terrorist groups. One example is the UNRWA, which handles education, health, culture, leisure, environmental protection, and infrastructure maintenance, thus allowing Hamas to spend all its income solely on buying weapons, building tunnels for attacks on Israel, and hiring fighters and professional terrorists. Without UNRWA and American money, Hamas would have to spend at least part of the income it receives from customs, taxes, and generous donations from the Islamic Republic, Qatar, and wealthy Palestinians to meet the needs of the people of Gaza.
Globalists attempt to redefine governments both domestically and internationally as milch cows. To justify this model, they need to turn citizens into professional victims. One claims victimhood based on skin color. Another is a victim of bisexuality, homosexuality, or asexuality. Another seeks reparations for injustices done to their ancestors. Someone who isn’t affected by any of these injustices claims victimhood due to wealth inequality and sees the government’s role as milking the rich to feed the poor.
On the other hand, Davosians believe that the government should play the role of a benevolent authoritarian — an entity that understands the public good and sees coordinating all private interests with this as its duty. This benevolent authoritarian, in close collaboration with transnational partners present globally, charts humanity’s path toward a better, more just future. Globalism is not only a vaccine against local revolutions but also a guarantee for world peace.
Last Monday, by switching from one news channel to another, I both visited with the Davosians and watched part of Trump’s show in Washington. This visual back-and-forth reminded me of a film by Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, two famous Hollywood comedians in the 1950s. In the film, Bud and Lou have thrown a big party to celebrate their latest success. But before the festivities begin, a giant intruder arrives to wreak havoc, tear down decorations, and scare Bud and Lou. When they ask if he’s sure he’s at the right address, it turns out the unwelcome guest was supposed to go to Paramount Studios, but the driver mistakenly brought him to Universal Studios. Bud and Lou convince him to have a beer, eat a hot dog, and take a taxi to Paramount Studios. The giant agrees, and all ends well.
But will the giant that has entered the globalists’ studio with Trump’s unexpected victory be willing to leave the scene as easily as that lost giant?
The answer to this question is difficult. Globalism, with over half a century of history, has managed to form supranational organizations in the role of a global government. Thus, traditional governments at the country level only act as parts of an abstract whole and will be punished in various forms if they do not accept the rules of the globalist game. One of these punishments is a credit rating downgrade, leading to higher interest rates on government loans. Within the framework of globalism, various economic, political, cultural, and scientific sanctions are also used to keep local governments in line. Punishment is even conceivable for signing a club-like agreement like the European Union. Hungary has been fined hundreds of millions of euros for its Trump-like policies under Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Javier Milei, the Trump-like President of Argentina, is seen as a diplomatic leper by globalists. Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s Prime Minister, has not yet faced the globalists’ red cross, but she clearly has no place in their hearts.
Currently, despite the fact that Trump’s victory seems like a broad and deep-rooted one, and a result of the global political pendulum swinging against globalism, the discourse of returning to the nation-state model is not yet established internationally.
The good news might be that globalists still don’t know how to deal with Trump 2.0. Trump 1.0, from their perspective, was an easy target; a lost businessman who accidentally entered politics and is himself confused about where to go! Conversely, Trump 2.0, with a cohesive high-quality team and presenting an ambitious but calculated plan, might be able to solidify the pendulum’s movement towards “America First” as a model for global nationalism.
Globalists, however, began their verbal attack on Trump 2.0 even before the end of the inauguration in Washington. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Union, accused Trump in her speech of wanting to start a global tariff war that would lead only to economic crisis.
Another recent attack frames Trump as a “warmonger”. Yet, Donald Trump is the only U.S. President in the last 100 years not to have led America into a new war. Meanwhile, Trump played a significant role in imposing ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon and has prioritized ending the war in Ukraine.
Some globalists, on the other hand, try to reposition Trump as a peace-loving hippie from the 1960s. French newspapers even speak of the possibility of Trump receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in peacemaking in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Two other contrasting tactics are also used to attack Trump. First, Trump is accused of wanting to frighten potential rivals or enemies by significantly increasing the U.S. military budget, but at the same time, by pressuring his allies, especially within NATO, he calls for strengthening the defense capabilities of all “free world” countries.
The second tactic is based on the claim that Trump has a heavy and complex plan to not only change America but the world in various aspects. A four-year term is not enough to implement such a plan. Consequently, Trump might make many enemies in various areas without being able to implement deep reforms within the four years, of which only half, before the 2027 midterm elections, will provide the necessary support for his agenda.
History cannot be written in advance. But one important point needs emphasis: Trump managed to bring back millions of Americans, who had been pushed out of national political life willingly or unwillingly, into the scene. This exclusion or otherness is seen in other major democracies from Japan to Western Europe, Canada, Mexico, and even India. Even if only a small part of the 110-point “America First” plan is implemented, its psychological impact on American society will be undeniable.
