How The World Can Keep Trump 2 0 In Check

---

 
US president Donald Trump has shown a callous disregard for the checks and balances that have long protected American democracy. As the self-described “king” makes a momentous power grab, much of the world watches anxiously, aware that his administration’s growing illegality and corruption are eroding not only the US Constitution but what remains of the post-1945 international order. A return to great-power spheres of interest looks increasingly likely.
But foreign governments, businesses, and civil-society groups have more power than they think in the face of a revisionist America. They can take five steps to create external checks and balances on the Trump administration, and on anti-democratic forces more broadly. Anti-democratic forces around the world cast a long shadow, but with a boost of courage and the strength of solidarity, pro-democracy coalitions can come together to fight for the light.
The first step is to unite and make as much noise as possible. Would-be autocrats depend on divide-and-rule tactics, maximising fear by convincing individuals and governments that they alone are on the chopping block.
Imagine if all governments in the Americas (with a few exceptions, like Argentina) denounced Trump’s designs on the Panama Canal and Canada, loudly and repeatedly, and refused to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. Indeed, they could collectively rename it the Gulf of the Americas.
Another option is for all the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and European Union governments to issue a joint statement repudiating Trump’s claim that Ukraine started the war with Russia, instead insisting on the truth: Russia violated Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s 57 members could collectively introduce a censure resolution in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) condemning any suggestion of expelling all Palestinians from Gaza, as Trump casually suggested last month, while reaffirming a collective commitment to a Palestinian state.
It may prove even more consequential if European countries (EU members plus Switzerland, the UK, and Norway) joined strategic partners such as Canada, Japan, South Korea, and Australia in outlining the global chaos that Trump will unleash if he tries to take Greenland by force, thereby legitimising war as a foreign-policy tool. These denunciations should be issued repeatedly in all appropriate international fora.
The second step is to push back hard on Trump’s provocations – escalating to absurdity. If the US raises tariffs from 100% to 200%, governments should announce that they are raising them to 400%. This is a game of chicken, not a negotiation.
The US may be the world’s largest economy, with a gross domestic product of nearly US$28 trillion, but the combined economies of the EU member states, the UK, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, and Australia are 25% larger, totalling nearly US$35 trillion.
Instead of coming to the White House with hat in hand and flattery at the ready, hoping to get an exemption from the coming trade wars, world leaders would be better off presenting a united front.
Third, use law to counter Trump 2.0’s lawlessness. The rule of law is not simply a code of conduct approved by duly constituted authorities. It is an entire system designed to channel dispute away from the battlefield and into the courts, to replace armed combat with legal jousting before an impartial referee.
To the extent that the Trump administration ignores or rejects national and international law, foreign governments, businesses, and civil-society groups should use their own courts to make their case and enforce their rights.
“Lawfare” could be especially useful for fighting corruption and economic malfeasance. When the actions of US officials violate cross-border contracts or give illegal advantage in international business deals, local prosecutors should apply their national law.
This could help create a “zone of law” for global commerce. But under no circumstances should they engage in vendettas or politically motivated prosecutions.
The fourth step other countries must take is to create a thriving domestic tech sector. This requires time, but few things are more important over the longer term. Governments and citizens should have options other than US or Chinese tech, particularly in the AI phase of the digital revolution.
Moreover, as the EU well knows, competing with the existing tech giants requires the removal of trade barriers and the integration of capital markets, both important steps towards enhancing regional power on the global stage.
Lastly, the Trump administration has made clear its disdain for multilateral institutions, having rejected the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and questioning whether UN agencies’ projects “reinforce US sovereignty by limiting reliance on international organisations or global governance structures”.
Other countries – especially rising middle powers – should seize this moment to take over these institutions and make them their own.
It is time, for example, to give up on the UN Security Council. The permanent members will never agree to reform it and will continue to veto resolutions affecting their own interests, as the UN’s founders expected.
Russia’s veto in the council means that the UNGA has already become the primary forum for addressing issues regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Rising middle powers such as India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia should seize the opportunity of great-power deadlock or collusion to align global institutions with the actual configuration of power in the world.
They should insist on equal representation and promote decision-making based on weighted majority rule, which would give every country a genuine voice. The EU would have much to gain by supporting such reforms, but even if it does not, an international system designed by the victors of World War II must either change or sink into irrelevance.
These are radical moves. But the leader of the world’s most powerful country is implementing a radical agenda. The US system of checks and balances is the primary means of protecting democracy. The world can help. - FMT
Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former director of policy planning in the US state department, is CEO of the think tank New America and professor emerita of politics and international affairs at Princeton University.The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---