Unfortunately, US foreign policy under Trump now resembles periods of unilateral American action around Manifest Destiny, the overthrow of elected regimes in Latin America and elsewhere, and the establishment of dependable governments that serve perceived American interests. We are witnessing an attempted resurgence of US imperialism, ignoring the pretence of shared authority in Europe, human rights and international law.

This is not new. We can see earlier versions when US Presidents protected “allies” by violating human rights and international law while ignoring the post-war consensus. We saw this in dictatorships installed by the US in Latin America or the US military attacking “unsavoury” governments. A prominent recent example is Biden’s enabling of Israel’s genocide, its attacks on Lebanon and its seizing of the art of Syria after the fall of Assad.

It was grimly humorous watching Biden criticise the human rights records of other countries while this was happening. Trump is just one part of reasserting that the US and its allies are above international and human rights law. What is new is that Trump and his cohorts are abandoning its coalition with European allies, who have been willing (and periodically complaining) allies of the US following the end of WWII.

Since this is happening as US economic power wanes, Trumpism serves as an attempt to maintain and secure US imperialist power. The threats against Panama, Canada and Greenland (see HR 1161, calling for Trump to acquire Greenland and rename it Red, White and Blueland) are all part of this. The moves against Greenland are not only about the military base rented from the Danish government but the country’s resources and the need for a trade route due to global warming, which Republicans also don’t believe exists (wonderful contradictions).

The second significant development is the abandonment of US “soft power.” The freezing of US foreign aid, the withdrawal from the World Health Organisation, and the closure of USAID are not just a question of saving money. These choices have eliminated the US government’s pretence of winning “hearts and minds” as part of its attempts to mitigate the impact of its foreign policy. Again, this has implications and is an expression of weakness.

US Foreign Policy Unilateral Imperialism

Some of these unilateral moves by the US undercutting European allies (and Canada) are a shift, while some are just an extension of earlier US foreign policies. There are three interrelated themes:

1) Abandoning the post-war consensus:

The abandonment of the idea of a coalition of Western advanced countries under the control of the US against the forces of “evil” (Russia, China, Islam, whomever the enemy is at the moment). Viewing China as an inter-capitalist imperialism and economic threat (which it is) to US domination is not new. It’s been a while since Nixon went to China, and there is no question it is the dominant economic threat while US capitalism is weakening. This was a definite shift from US foreign policy during the post-war (WWII) period.

2) Geopolitics and its link to the post-war economic and political consensus in the advanced capitalist world

The US is retreating into the geopolitics of allowing regional sub-imperialisms (e.g., Russia) to control areas in its vicinity, which we saw before the collapse of the Soviet Union (even better now as these are capitalist sub-imperialisms with nothing remotely socialist). The new peace talks initially did not include Ukraine (thus providing more fodder for those who believe this is a proxy war and that Ukrainians have no agency. Unfortunately this includes some of the left, who cannot see the similarity between the occupation of Ukraine by Russia and of Palestine by Israel).

Trump has allowed Ukraine to participate in the “peace talks” (which will rip the country apart) while telling Europe it is not welcome. This has led to discussions about creating a European military force due to Russia’s threat. Western Europe cannot afford it for many reasons, and it certainly cannot afford the increased payment to NATO demanded by the Trump administration.

This strategy involves tariffs to undermine neoliberal and globalised trade agreements. The US unilaterally declares it will wield its declining economic power against allies and trading partners (despite Trump’s renegotiation of NAFTA in his last term). This is an attempt by Trump to bring industrial production back to the US. But driving prices higher due to tariffs will not guarantee this goal; that requires capital investment and long-term planning. Moving outside the US was profitable because of lower wages, closeness to raw materials and less capital investment. While the US unions are broken (an important goal), industrial capitalism is not a short-term investment; profitability requires a longer-term perspective, and unless there are no elections in the future, there are no guarantees reinvestment in the US is as profitable as it is costly.

One problem is the short-termism of investment, which drives financialisation and rentier capitalism; industrial capitalism is not short-term (production occurs over several periods). The price of eggs (hello, avian flu) is not the consideration; those working-class people who voted for Trump will not gain much (neither jobs nor lower prices). Whether these tariffs are simply mafia-style negotiation tactics (you rub my back, I’ll rub yours) or attempts to weaken trade alliances between Europe and its allies to gain some advantage (like increased industrial production in the US), this is threatening to upend Neoliberal trade agreements and capital mobility – the centrepieces of neoliberalism since the late 1970s.

European governments (and Canada) are clearly unhappy about US foreign-policy unilateralism. They are also not pleased about tariffs imposed on them, upending the international trading order and cheapening working-class consumption goods through global trade. This enabled them to lower wages as goods were cheaper than those produced domestically. The Europeans were even less happy with JD Vance telling them they were undemocratic when they treated right-wing populists as illegitimate actors in Europe (one wonders if Vance has ever heard of WWII).

There are reasons for the concern of both European mainstream politicians (and the left) of a rising AfD in Germany and the far-right election in Italy, Netherlands, Austria, Hungary, etc. We also see increasing votes for far-right populists in France, Britain, Spain, etc.  Given their politics, the shift to the far-right is a source of optimism for Trump and Vance; they do not see the far-right as undemocratic.

This is a shift from the post-war (and Cold War) alliances of the US and Western Europe against the threat of the left (they think we are defeated) and “communism”. It is an attempt to continue the far-right destabilisation in Europe. The insistence that European governments must increase defence spending (as members of NATO and against the threat of Russian foreign aggression) in a period when welfare spending (along with welfare states) has collapsed as part of neoliberalism (the economic policy of conservatives, liberals and “social democrats”).

At this point, these governments are unlikely to be increasing spending on health, education and welfare, which is desperately needed; this will only strengthen the far-right (who have no interest in doing this either). Moreover, they are increasing political repression against dissent, especially against the far-left, democratic forces and climate activists. This will inevitably lead to a stronger far-right, too. The left (and I am not talking about Dems, Socialist Parties, etc.) is weak and divided, and while it is growing, the far right is growing faster.

The advanced capitalist world is stagnant and crisis-ridden due to neoliberalism; this has enabled the creation of a far-right – the unions are weakened due to privatisation, the destruction of wages and working contracts, and this is set to continue. This is fertiliser for the far right, and the hard left is too weak and divided… we can expect further attacks on workers’ movements and movements of the oppressed both from the far right as well as the centre (right and left). Add to this, there is the danger of further destruction of the planet due to the continuing use of fossil fuels and the refusal coherently to fight climate change.

3) The Middle East

Finally, as an indicator of what a unilateral US foreign policy leads to, we can watch the US shoring up its alliance with its colonial settler state (Israel) and threatening Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Much of this is merely a removal of the pretence of concern for human rights and a payment to Israel for serving US foreign policy interests in the region. Not much will constrain the Israeli government as their interests coincide with Trump’s, especially the elimination of Palestinians.

These developments codify Israeli political and military control over the area and endears Trump to Evangelical Christian Zionists who maintain that the area belongs to the Jews by right. According to this view, the Jews (which they equate to Israel, see antisemitism) being in the “holy land” will bring back Jesus, and the battle of Armageddon will be fought by Jews who can then win their way into Christian heaven because they are the army of Jesus. These bizarre beliefs are based on antisemitism (not the philo-Judaism they claim; I am hard-pressed to find shared Judeo-Christian values or a system of beliefs), and that is what drives this Christian Evangelical Zionist ideological agenda.

The US controls the relationship with Israel (and it can quickly eliminate it by defunding Israel and stopping weapons); the Israeli government and military serve American interests. These interests coincide often, and when they don’t, Israel will be told no. That they are not being told “no” is essential, and this is where the attacks on Lebanon, Syria and Iran by the Israeli government and military are imperative, as the US does not like the instability posed by these states and this government does not feel constrained by international, humanitarian and human rights law. That is incredibly dangerous to the people of these countries as they are not seen as independent actors, merely numbers of irrelevant things that threaten the perceived needs of the US and its stability.

The title of this piece comes from yesterday’s joint press conference (transcript in link) of Marco Rubio and Benjamin Netanyahu, where Rubio called for the elimination and eradication of Hamas (and Hezbollah and raised the danger of the instability in Syria and the threat of Iran). It was quite the performance. Netanyahu praised Israel’s best friend, the US, and the US made it clear it was advocating the removal of Palestinians from the areas it considers inherent parts of Israel; in both houses of the US Congress, there are bills to rename the West Bank “Judea and Samaria” which are recognised as belonging to the people of Israel “by right” (justified by some biblical nonsense).

We are seeing nothing less than US advocacy of the final ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank; this is also eliminating the fantasy of a two-state solution… where will it be as everything will be under the control of Israel? Thereby this is bringing full circle the Nakba of Palestinians that began with the division of Palestine and the 1948 attack by the Israeli military and the resulting Palestinian diaspora along with their permanent refugee status.

The only thing preventing Trump’s plan to remove Palestinians from Gaza (with no right of return) and turn it into the “riviera” of the Middle East under US control is that Jordan and Egypt (and other political rulers in the region) have refused to take in more Palestinian refugees and participate in the destruction of the Palestinian people. This is not necessarily because they care about the fate of Palestinians, but because the populations they rule will object strongly, and this may lead to the end of their political control. Not even the Saudis will be able to do this. We are awaiting an Arab-led response to Trump’s “Riviera of the Middle East suggestion” (Trump claims to welcome alternative proposals).

But note that the Israeli government will pay nothing towards the reconstruction of Gaza, and despite charges of genocide and war crimes against Israeli political leaders and its military, it is doubtful they will be held accountable (they have not been previously). Part of this press conference was a criticism of the ICJ and ICC as overstepping and politicising their power (yes, Netanyahu has repeatedly said these organisations are antisemitic as the reason for the accusation of genocide and war crimes, rather than the reality of genocide and war crimes).

Moreover, as was also clear, the US government is acknowledging the sovereignty of the West Bank under Israeli control. The Israeli government and military extended their attack on Palestinians from Gaza , where they are still withholding food and necessary goods as well as continuing to bomb the population, to the West Bank. Termed Operation “Iron Wall”,  together with support from the Palestine Authority, a land and air attack was launched on Jenin, Tulkarem and Nablus (and the refugee camps nearby). This has led to the displacement of 40,000 people from four Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank. What is happening is nothing less than an attempt to erase anything that can be called Palestine. Nothing suggests this is opposed by either the US Congress or the Executive branch of the US government. We are seeing the opposite.

As mentioned in yesterday’s Press Conference, Rubio referred to the danger posed by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the weakness of its government; the only way to eliminate Hezbollah (and Amal), which are political parties as well as militias (this is a general problem in Lebanon as there are militias that belong to other sectarian groups) is to eliminate the Shi’a Muslims in Lebanon. Much of Lebanon’s problems relate to the sectarian nature of the constitution and its government. Will the US and Israel attempt to create a military solution to the issues of Lebanon?

Rubio also raised the instability in Syria following the overthrow of Assad, which he described as now having another unstable leader. We must support the right of Syrians to decide their future; Israel has already abrogated the 1974 Agreement on Disengagement between Israel and Syria following Assad’s overthrow in December 2024 and has already seized more land from Syria while destroying the Syrian navy and military capabilities. The current US government thinks that further military activity by Israel is warranted and does not want the Syrian people to determine their future.

Finally, the press conference would not be complete without the mention of Iran and its danger to the region and its supposed development of nuclear weapons. This brings an additional dimension to an already dangerous situation; Netanyahu has wanted to destroy the “nuclear military threat” of Iran for a while, and a Trump government may allow what other governments have refused to condone… a military strike on the nuclear weapons programme. The consequences of their bombing nuclear energy reactors will not only be catastrophic for Iran but the whole region, which is why no US government has given Israel the right to do this previously.

The abandonment of “Soft Power”

The US has left the World Health Organisation (again), and it has again pulled out of the UNRWA which still the largest supplier of relief and support to Palestinians. This is less of a surprise as Biden had already done this and it is unclear whether he reinstated funds to UNRWA, several European countries did reinstate funds. Trump froze foreign aid under his so-called America First programme. These agencies and foreign aid budgets are part of “soft power”.

USAID (along with PL 480, later known as the Food for Peace Act) provided food initially, often competing with domestic food production and food sovereignty, as in Haiti, and more recently, provided funds for food purchases. USAID picked up some of the emergency food provision, which served an essential role as part of the Cold War as well as a way to win the support of other countries (and their populations) receiving aid. These policies aimed to show that the US is not a “bad guy” – look, it is providing medical support, aid and food assistance to the capitalist periphery.

However, undermining food sovereignty means the creation of dependency in capitalist peripheral economies, leaving them more vulnerable to international crises, famines, and droughts (which are becoming more relevant due to climate change); as such, movements advocating food sovereignty were directly responding to this dependency as well as attempting to redress the issues of food poverty.  We saw the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (which provides a lot of food assistance) on countries dependent on imports of food; there was significant concern about the danger of starvation in several countries in the capitalist periphery. This is why food sovereignty is so important.

An important point here that is relevant is that along with globalisation and Neoliberalism (which includes the use of the World Bank to force privatisation of water provision, electricity, raw material extraction and protection and the creation of free trade zones (which enabled not only the avoidance of taxation of multinational corps but the removal of profits from these countries), meant increased dependency not only related to food but the demands of foreign producers. So, the 1950s-80s import-substitution policies in Latin America, Africa, and India attempted to reduce foreign control over production and imports, replacing them with domestically produced goods (agricultural and industrial). Neoliberalism was initially enacted in Latin America (see Chile under Pinochet and the role of Milton Friedman) and undermined these policies completely.   If we look at Egypt under Nasser, we can see food sovereignty as a priority; the introduction of neoliberalism under Sadat shifted agricultural production towards foreign sales and foreign demand for farm products rather than domestic needs.

USAID and the Food for Peace Act aimed to project the US as a concerned friend of the most disadvantaged countries. The fact that these countries were impoverished due to their role in the world capitalist system and the needs of the advanced capitalist countries was a “don’t look behind the curtain” … a pretence which desperate people (and their governments) were happy to maintain. These were tied into covering US hegemony and the potential danger of populations shifting leftward and supporting politicians whose interests were inimical to US perceived interests. The manner and rapidity in which USAID was dismantled left not only those working (and their families) for USAID in the lurch but also the projects they were working on, which were abandoned rather than wound down, which is how projects are usually terminated. This leaves populations dependent on medical care and other projects essentially abandoned.

Trump and Musk’s destruction of USAID brings to an end the “soft power” model of US foreign policy. Even if they reinstate the funding for USAID (now under the control of the State Department), there has been severe damage (and that is not only reputational) in places where USAID was active. The thing about “soft power” is that it provides results for people living in the capitalist periphery; at the same time, it also has negative impacts as populations and governments resent the demands of the World Bank and the IMF to get financial assistance. Those requirements have destabilised governments and directly impoverished the populations.

How will the US respond to the end of these programs and continuing political and economic instability? This will undoubtedly weaken the US internationally. China uses economic development (sharing technology) and foreign direct investment and has worked diligently in the capitalist peripheries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

What can we do?

We must continue to support Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrian people to determine their futures. We must recognise that Ukrainians have political agency, and that the Russia/Ukraine war is not a proxy war by the US. We must ensure Ukrainians have a say in their future. Support international solidarity! This should be done anyway, regardless of whether Trump is in office. If we support people’s right to self-determination and agency, we need to stand with them.

The most crucial thing domestically is to build solidarity by fighting together in grassroots struggles of all types; we need to protect each other. We are all in danger from the far-right, but some people are being targeted, and we must protect each other. Marginalised people, especially racialised people (e.g., Black Americans, Latinx people, Asian Americans), women, gay and trans people, and disabled people are always the primary victims of a shift to the right and an attack on the welfare state; we must build support and solidarity locally.

Unfortunately, we cannot depend on social democrats and liberals for help; we must organise locally and at a grassroots level. Building solidarity on the ground takes time, but unless we do this and end the use of divide and rule, we will not be able to protect each other or counter the rise of fascism. This can be done locally in grassroots movements to strengthen communities. We can develop democratic procedures to support each other (this is broad; we can fight to protect rights, ensure our families and communities have access to food and clean drinking water, and build something more significant).

We must recognise that electoral battles go from campaign to campaign; if someone is worth fighting for, do so. But we must continue the fight between electoral campaigns; our struggle must not be limited to them. The problems of democracy arising from first past the post-political systems will not disappear; politicians are constrained by the leaders of their parties who often do not share our needs (as an understatement), which is why we must go beyond the lesser of two evils that have been served up time and time again. That is also why we must build protection for each other in our communities and stand in solidarity.

This is an edited version of an article that originally appeared on Daily Kos on 16 February 2025

Art Book Review Books Capitalism China Climate Emergency Conservative Government Conservative Party EcoSocialism Elections Fascism Film Film Review France Gaza Imperialism Israel Keir Starmer Labour Party Marxism Palestine pandemic Protest Russia Solidarity Statement Trade Unionism Ukraine United States of America War