To use this site, please disable the ad blocking feature and reload the page.
This website uses cookies to collect information about your visit for purposes such as showing you personalized ads and content, and analyzing our website traffic. By clicking “Accept all,” you will allow the use of these cookies.
Users accessing this site from EEA countries and UK are unable to view this site without your consent. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
The administration of Donald Trump will soon be instated in the United States. Courses of action taken by Trump, who will return to the U.S. presidency four years after his first term ended, will have a significant impact on the future of the world. The “Trump era” is back.
Just as in his first term, he is touting and implementing an “America First” policy. He has already caused a stir by announcing his intention to impose a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada, which are both major suppliers.
Return of ‘America First’
Trump prioritizes practical benefits gained through near-term deals but also makes decisions that disregard the long-term profits to the United States that international cooperation and free trade bring. This tendency remains fundamentally unchanged.
However, the world has changed. It has become more dangerous than it was four years ago when Trump left office.
The two wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are dragging on and many lives have been lost. Competition with China has been intensifying, and the nuclear threats of Russia, North Korea and Iran have too.
Harmful information created using artificial intelligence is spreading through social media, threatening political systems and elections in many countries.
How Trump wields or refrains from wielding the might of the superpower is highly likely to have serious repercussions on the world for decades to come.
The Republican Party will hold a majority in both the Senate and the House of the new U.S. Congress. Trump should make use of this favorable political situation not only for domestic affairs but also for solving diplomatic challenges.
The most pressing issues are how to end Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the fighting over the Palestinian territory of Gaza.
Trump has been against costly wars and has long insisted that ending them is a priority. He has also expressed a willingness to hold direct talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin to achieve a ceasefire in Ukraine. The content of such a ceasefire is the question.
If concessions are made to Putin, who started the aggression, not only will the credibility of Trump and the United States be damaged, but the order based on the rule of law will also fall apart.
On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that Putin, who is continuing the fighting by even deploying soldiers sent by North Korea, will accept Ukraine’s desire to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the monitoring of the ceasefire by multinational forces.
A victory that is not worth the cost is called a Pyrrhic victory — a phrase from ancient Greek history. Any attempt to eradicate future dangers would involve a larger sacrifice. However, compromising on peace by prioritizing reducing the upfront cost would leave behind embers that could spark future conflicts.
It is time to seriously seek ways to end the wars. The countries concerned must support the efforts of the United States and Europe and aim for agreements that will lead to a safer and more stable world.
Where can compromise be found?
In the Middle East, Israel has been fixated on the eradication of the Islamist group Hamas, which it views as a danger even in the future, and the death toll has exceeded 45,000. A halt to the fighting is an urgent matter.
Trump’s pro-Israel stance is conspicuous, but there are views within his future administration that Washington should be focusing on China rather than Ukraine or the Middle East.
The main battleground for the U.S.-China rivalry is likely to be the economy, including tariffs, for the time being. In anticipation of pressure from the Trump administration, China’s Xi Jinping administration has begun moves to improve relations with India, a major power in the group of emerging and developing countries known as the Global South, as well as other nations including Japan.
On the other hand, the Xi administration has no intention of stopping its coercive behavior in areas around Taiwan and in the South China Sea. There is a risk that military tensions will increase.
In any case, the United States cannot deal with the threats on three fronts — Europe, the Middle East and Asia — on its own.
It is essential that as many countries as possible cooperate to uphold the norms of the international community and counter the challenges from authoritarian forces. Combining “minilateral” groups of a small number of countries, such as Japan, the United States, Australia and India, in a multilayered manner would also be effective.
What is worrying is that governments are being shaken by growing criticism of the current administrations in key European countries such as Britain, Germany and France.
Threats on 3 fronts
In Germany’s general election in February and France’s next presidential election, there is a possibility that Eurosceptic populist parties will make gains or even come to power. If this happens, the alliance between the United States and Europe will fall into dysfunction.
In South Korea, an impeachment motion has been passed against President Yoon Suk Yeol over his declaration of martial law, and an arrest warrant has even been issued. Cooperation between Japan and South Korea as well as among Japan, the United States and South Korea will inevitably stagnate.
The role Japan should play is becoming even more important. Alongside cooperation with the United States and Europe, there is a strong need for Japan to deepen its relations with the Global South, which it has cultivated through long-standing support, and expand its circle of international cooperation.
