A New World Order? Understanding the Logic Behind Trump’s Comments and the UK’s Need for Collaboration | US News

During his inauguration on January 20, Donald Trump will address the American public regarding his initiatives to Make America Great Again, while already signaling his intentions to the global community.

In a spontaneous press conference last week, he emphasized his resolve to prioritize American interests in international relations.

The president-elect did not dismiss the option of using military force or economic pressure to exert control over Greenland and the Panama Canal. He cautioned NATO allies to allocate 5% of their GDP to defense if they wish to remain under the security umbrella provided by the U.S.

In a further contentious statement, he suggested renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, and has dismissively called Canada “the 51st state,” labeling its prime minister as “governor.”

In a specific remark aimed at the UK, Sebastian Gorka, a senior Trump advisor, told The Times that “any nation wishing to be perceived as a serious ally and friend of the most powerful nation in the world must act in ways reflecting that commitment.” This includes potentially repatriating around 70 Islamic State prisoners and their families to the UK, among them Shamima Begum, who has been stripped of British citizenship.

Trump’s assertions of territorial expansion have incited a typical backlash. Leaders from France and Germany have declared that “borders must not be altered by force.” The French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot lamented a “return to the law of the strongest.”

While Trump’s proposals challenge the established world order and come with significant risks, they should not be dismissed as mere ravings of a bully.

There is a calculated logic to Trump’s discourse. Steadily, albeit hesitantly, some allies, particularly the UK, are beginning to grapple with his perspective.

The new British administration is reworking its foreign policy, recognizing this as “a moment of great uncertainty.”

Two veterans from the pragmatic New Labour era have been reinstated: Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the U.S. and Jonathan Powell as national security advisor.

A new leading diplomat is set to guide the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office – Sir Olly Robbins, recognized as Theresa May’s chief negotiator with the European Union.

David Lammy, the newly appointed foreign secretary, articulated last week: “The post-Cold War peace is now a reality of the past. We inhabit a newly altered strategic landscape, characterized by more conflicts than since 1945.”

The key takeaway, which appears to resonate within Whitehall, is that a “UK First” strategy is mandated. While this may seem self-evident—given that all governments strive to prioritize national interests—the context has shifted.

Western nations can no longer thrive by depending on an increasingly globalized, rules-based world order; that era is definitively over. While Trump may exemplify this decline, he is not the root cause of it.

Trump’s threats to discard international treaties and rules for territorial gains, justified in the name of U.S. “national security,” are representative of an “if you can’t outmaneuver them, join them” philosophy.

These assertions bolster President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s ambitions regarding Taiwan, serving as post-facto justifications for longstanding territorial aspirations by both nations, which have emerged as significant threats to global peace and Western interests.

Trump believes his vision could enhance security for all, not merely for the U.S. This includes nations aiming to maintain their allegiance to the American-led Western coalition.

Greenland and Panama are relatively small and vulnerable, with populations of around 4.5 million and 57,000, respectively; however, both hold immense strategic significance. The Panama Canal represents the sole direct maritime trade route connecting the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.

Greenland is geographically part of North America; its capital, Nuuk, is closer to New York City than to Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark, under which it holds autonomous status. It offers the most direct maritime route from the U.S. to Europe for ships and critical communications lines.

The waters between Greenland and Iceland serve as a strategic gateway for Russian and Chinese vessels, becoming increasingly appealing as the Arctic ice cap continues to melt. Once heavily monitored by the Royal Navy, these waters are no longer under such scrutiny.

Read more:
Trump 2.0 – the complete guide to his inauguration
Why did the LA fires spread so quickly in January?
All living US presidents pictured at Jimmy Carter’s funeral

Currently, there are U.S. military bases and radar installations in Greenland, which is also rich in oil and important minerals, potentially essential for digital technologies seeking to reduce dependence on China.

The current Chinese and Russian administrations are actively antagonistic towards, and in direct competition with, Western democratic allies. Through the BRICS organization, they are striving to draw other nations to their cause.

If either Greenland or the Panama Canal were to come under Chinese control, America, along with its allies, would be profoundly vulnerable.

Trump’s approach to foreign policy is akin to his business style—transactional and self-interested, reflecting his perspective outlined in The Art of the Deal. His preliminary assertions are negotiating tactics intended to sharpen focus, rather than concrete ultimatums.

Trump’s calls for increased defense spending from European nations may be hyperbolic—like his suggestions regarding the renaming of the Gulf—but the essence of his statements is undeniable.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

In light of Russian territorial aspirations, European countries, including the UK, will need to enhance their defense expenditures.

Trump’s vocal demands might serve as leverage, potentially simplifying the task for leaders like Keir Starmer to advocate for increased spending among their constituents.

The incentive here is that if Europe commits to shouldering more of its responsibilities, the incoming president is not indicating a withdrawal of the U.S. as the ultimate safety net, which would be in America’s own interest as well. This may lead to unexpected bolstered support for Ukraine from the Trump-led administration.

The latest report for global leaders attending the World Economic Forum in Davos later this month indicates a fading globalist vision, ushering in “a new, more unsettled, and unpredictable phase” marked by “political and geopolitical turbulence.”

The UK now operates independently, outside of the EU, with Trump’s administration as a less dependable partner.

Professor John Bew, who conducted the security review for the previous Conservative administration, acknowledges the shifting landscape: “In this era of raw power, one thing is clear: fortune favors the bold,” he remarked. “Thus, the national interest of the UK—defined as enhancing the security and economic stability of the British populace—compels us to diligently pursue tangible economic and security outcomes, rather than indulging the wishes of those whose perspectives may not align with our own.”

Many in the UK are not fond of Trump’s worldview, especially since it lacks viable solutions to pressing issues like climate change and mass migration.

However, the UK, alongside its European counterparts, may find it prudent to cooperate with Trump. The U.S. will continue to be an essential, albeit challenging, ally in countering the threats posed by Chinese and Russian authoritarianism in an increasingly perilous global environment.