SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
north america
Is Trump Taking Foreign Policy Advice From 1984?
Trump’s vision resembles Orwell’s ultimate horror: a world divided into three great continental blocs, with humanity held in thrall to omnipotent leaders like Big Brother through endless wars against an ever-changing enemy.
Apr 14, 2025
Most of us can remember at least a few troubling scenes from George Orwell’s dystopian novel1984: the mandatory love demanded for the spectral dictator Big Brother; the malleability of facts at the Ministry of Truth; or the ruling party’s memorably grim slogans, “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery.” But for me, the most disturbing image of all—and I first read the book in high school—was the “Two Minutes Hate,” aroused among the public by threatening images on giant video screens.
Within just 30 seconds, Orwell wrote, “A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledgehammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic.” As those moments of hate continued, what appeared was “the figure of a Eurasian soldier who seemed to be advancing, huge and terrible, his sub-machine gun roaring, and seeming to spring out of the surface of the screen, so that some of the people in the front row actually flinched out of their seats.”
Finally, as “row after row of solid-looking men with expressionless Asiatic faces… swam up to the screen” and brought those two minutes of Hate to their terrifying climax, the face of Big Brother appeared “full of power and mysterious calm,” prompting spectators to shout, “My Saviour!,” and to break into “a deep, slow, rhythmical chant of ‘B-B!… B-B!’—over and over.”
In its totality, Trump’s vision is of a continental Fortress America, formed by annexing the northern lands of Canada and Greenland, while sealing off Mexico for ethnic reasons as a separate but subordinate state.
For, as Orwell explained, those people of Oceania were “at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia.” Officially, “Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia,” which “represented absolute evil.” Yet through some quirk of memory, the novel’s hero Winston “well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia.”
That was, in some fashion, Orwell’s ultimate horror: a world divided into three great continental blocs, with humanity held in thrall to omnipotent leaders like Big Brother through endless wars against an ever-changing enemy. Even though he published1984 nearly 80 years ago in 1948, just two years before he died, more than three quarters of a century later, in the age of U.S. President Donald Trump, his fictional fantasy is fast becoming an unsettling simulacrum of our current geopolitical reality and that couldn’t be eerier (at least to me).
A Tricontinental Strategy
Amid a torrent of confusing, often contradictory foreign policy pronouncements pouring forth almost daily from the Trump White House, the overall design of his de facto geopolitical strategy has taken shape with surprising speed. Instead of maintaining mutual-security alliances like NATO, President Trump seems to prefer a globe divided into three major regional blocs, each headed by an empowered leader like himself—with Russia dominating its European periphery, China paramount in Asia, and the United States controlling, in a version of fortress America, all of North America (including, of course, the Panama Canal). Reflecting what his defense secretary called a “loathing of European freeloading” and his administration’s visceral disdain for the European Union, Trump is pursuing that tricontinental strategy at the expense of the traditional trans-Atlantic alliance, embodied by NATO, that has been the foundation for American foreign policy since the start of the Cold War.
Trump’s desire for ultimate continental hegemony lends a certain geopolitical logic to his otherwise seemingly off-the-wall, quixotic overtures to claim Greenland as part of the United States, reclaim the Panama Canal, and make Canada “the 51st state.” On his sixth day in office, President Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, “I think Greenland will be worked out with us. I think we’re going to have it.” He then added, “I don’t know really what claim Denmark has to it. But it would be a very unfriendly act if they didn’t allow that to happen because it’s for protection of the free world.” After Vice President JD Vance made a flying visit to a remote U.S. military base in Greenland and claimed its people “ultimately will partner with the United States,” Trump insisted that he would never take military force “off the table” when it came to claiming the largest island on this planet.
Turning to his northern neighbor, Trump has repeatedly insisted that U.S. statehood would mean “the people of Canada would pay a much lower tax…They would have no military problems.” During his first weeks in office, he imposed a 25% duty on all imports from Canada and Mexico, which was quickly followed by a blizzard of similar tariffs that instantly sparked multiple trade wars with once-close allies. In response, Justin Trudeau, then Canada’s prime minister, whom Trump was already referring to as “governor” (as in the head of that 51st state), charged in an emotional speech that the American president wants “to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy, because that’ll make it easier to annex us.”
In his inaugural address last January, President Trump also complained that “the Panama Canal… has foolishly been given to the country of Panama after the United States… spent more money than ever spent on a project before and lost 38,000 lives in the building of the Panama Canal.” He added that “we have been treated very badly from this foolish gift that should have never been made, and Panama’s promise to us has been broken… And above all, China is operating the Panama Canal. And we didn’t give it to China.” To a burst of applause, he insisted, “We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.” No surprise then that, on his very first trip as secretary of state, Marco Rubio stormed into Panama City where he pressured its president, José Raúl Mulino, to placate Trump by withdrawing from Beijing’s global Belt and Road Initiative.
In its totality, Trump’s vision is of a continental Fortress America, formed by annexing the northern lands of Canada and Greenland, while sealing off Mexico for ethnic reasons as a separate but subordinate state. Then, sweeping aside what had long been a U.S. reliance on global multilateral defense pacts and, with the country’s Arctic approaches under its control, the administration would draw a defensive frontier around Greenland and through the North Atlantic Ocean, secure the Panama Canal as a southern bastion, and maintain military control over the entire Pacific Ocean. Every major component of such a strategy would, of course, be laden with the potential for conflict, particularly the administration’s plans for the Pacific, where the U.S. faces a continuing challenge from China.
Demolishing a World Order
Following his second inauguration in January 2025, President Trump has pursued this distinctive tricontinental strategy by working with remarkable speed to demolish the institutional pillars of the “rules-based international order” the U.S. had supported and tried to advance since the end of World War II. Standing in the Rose Garden on his April 2 “liberation day,” Trump proclaimed a roster of tariffs reaching as high as 49% that, saidForeign Policy magazine, “will shatter the world economy” the U.S. has built since 1945, while the respected Economistobserved that it “heralds America’s total abandonment of the world trading order.” After calling the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) “corrupt” and falsely claiming that he had “stopped $50 million being sent to Gaza to buy condoms for Hamas,” Trump abolished just about all the global humanitarian initiatives of that agency. He cut 5,800 programs that provided food rations for a million Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, malaria prevention for 53 million people globally, and polio immunization for millions of children worldwide, among all too many other things. In a further flurry of executive orders, he also shut down the global broadcaster Voice of America, spuriously claiming that it was “radical” (though a judge has, for now, stopped that shutdown process), withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO), and quit the Paris climate accords for a second time. Apart from the harm inflicted on poor communities across three continents, the closure of most USAID programs has crippled the key instrument of America’s “soft power,” ceding China the role as prime development partner in at least 40 countries worldwide.
In junking that Paris climate agreement, Trump has ensured that the U.S. would abdicate any leadership role when it comes to the most consequential issue facing the international community, climate change and the potential devastation of the planet. In the process, he has left a void that China may readily fill by offering stable world climate leadership in contrast to the “aggressive unilateralism” of Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” second term.
With its military alliances compromised and its trade relations roiled by tariff wars, Washington’s international influence will, in all probability, be significantly reduced (or worse) by the end of Trump’s second term in 2029.
Reflecting his aversion to multilateral alliances, Trump’s first major foreign policy initiative was a unilateral attempt to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war. On February 12, he launched peace talks through what he called a “lengthy and highly productive” phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, agreeing that “our respective teams start negotiations immediately.” By month’s end, tensions from that tilt toward Moscow had culminated in a televised Oval Office meeting in which Trump berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, saying, “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out, and if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty.”
That unilateral approach not only weakened Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, but also disregarded and even degraded NATO, which had, for the past three years, expanded its membership and military capacity by supporting Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s invasion. Recoiling from the “initial shock” of that utterly unprecedented breach, Europeans quickly appropriated $160 billion to begin reinforcing their own arms industry in collaboration with both Canada (not eager to become the 51st state) and Ukraine, thereby aiming in the future to reduce their dependence on American weaponry. If his administration does not formally withdraw from NATO, Trump’s ongoing hostility, particularly toward its crucial mutual-defense clause, may yet serve to weaken if not eviscerate the alliance—even as, recently, Trump has also gotten “very angry” and “pissed off” at Russian President Vladimir Putin for not responding effusively enough to his gestures. Consider that an indication that American relations across much of Eurasia could soon prove all too unpredictably chaotic.
Fighting for the Pacific Penumbra
In the Asia-Pacific region, Trump’s new global strategy is already straining longstanding U.S. alliances. At the start of his second term, the American presence there rested on three sets of mutual-defense pacts: the AUKUS entente with Australia and Britain, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (with Australia, India, and Japan), and a chain of bilateral defense agreements stretching along the Pacific littoral from Japan to the Philippines. However, Trump’s disdain for military alliances, his penchant for abusing allies, and his imposition of ever more punitive tariffs on the exports of all too many of those allies will undoubtedly only weaken such ties and so American power in the region.
Although his first administration famously waged a trade war with Beijing, Trump’s attitude toward the island of Taiwan has been ambiguous. “I think Taiwan should pay us for defense,” he said last June during the presidential campaign, adding, “You know, we’re no different than an insurance company.” Once in office, however, his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, issued an interim strategic guidance stating that “denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan… is the department’s sole pacing scenario,” requiring that the U.S. shift some of its forces from Europe to Asia. In similar signs of a commitment to that island, the administration has noisily raised tariffs and technology controls on China, while quietly releasing $870 million in military aid for Taiwan. Should Beijing indeed attack Taiwan outright or, as appears more probable in the future, impose a crippling economic blockade on the island, Trump could find himself faced with a difficult choice between a strategic retreat or a devastating war with China.
However it might happen, the loss of that island would break the U.S. position along the Pacific littoral, possibly pushing its naval forces back to a “second island chain” running from Japan to Guam, a major blow to America’s geopolitical position in the region. In short, even within Trump’s tricontinental strategy, the Western Pacific will remain at best a contested terrain between Beijing and Washington, fraught with the possibility of armed conflict in that continuing great-power rivalry, and war will remain a grim possibility.
A Residue of Ruin
With little chance of success, Trump’s attempt at a grand Fortress America strategy will likely leave a residue of ruin—corroding American global power, compromising the current world order, and harming countless millions worldwide who once benefitted from this country’s humanitarian aid. His attempt at consolidating control over North America has already encountered determined resistance in Ottawa, which responded to him with a strong bid to join Europe’s accelerated development of its own defense industries.
While the Trump administration’s aversion to formal alliances and its imposition of protective tariffs will likely weaken diplomatic ties to traditional allies in Asia and Europe, both China and Russia are likely to gain greater influence in their respective regions. From a strategic perspective, this start of a staged U.S. retreat from its military bastions at the antipodes of Eurasia in Western Europe and eastern Asia will weaken its longstanding influence over that vast landmass, which remains the epicenter of geopolitical power globally. With its military alliances compromised and its trade relations roiled by tariff wars, Washington’s international influence will, in all probability, be significantly reduced (or worse) by the end of Trump’s second term in 2029.
In the meantime, as he takes Americans on his own version of a succession of Two Minute Hates—of freeloading Europeans, prevaricating Panamanians, vile Venezuelans, Black South Africans, corrupt humanitarians, illegal immigrants, and lazy Federal workers—count on one thing: he’s leading us on a path eerily reminiscent of 1984. Unless, of course, like Orwell’s hero Winston, all too many of us somehow come to love Big Brother and so set aside our musty old Constitution and take Donald Trump’s often-repeated hints to elect him to a third term on a planet plunging headlong into a tempest of armed conflict, commercial chaos, and climate change.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Blasting US 'Recklessness,' Mexico Pauses Embassy Relations Over Judicial Reform Meddling
"They have to learn to respect Mexico's sovereignty," Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said of the U.S. and Canada after their ambassadors weighed in on his controversial proposal.
Aug 27, 2024
Outgoing Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador put the embassies of the United States and Canada on time out Tuesday after their top diplomats and other influential figures weighed in against controversial proposed reforms to Mexico's judicial system.
"The relationship with Ken Salazar is good, but it's on pause. We're going to give ourselves our time," López Obrador—who is widely known as AMLO— said during his morning press conference, referring to the U.S. ambassador. The president said the "pause" also applies to Canada, whose ambassador, Graeme Clark, voiced alarm over the proposed reforms.
"They have to learn to respect Mexico's sovereignty, because we are not going to give them advice there, nor to say that it is okay and what is wrong," he added. "We want them to be respectful, there is a reciprocal relationship in terms of sovereignty."
López Obrador's move came after Salazar asserted last week that "popular direct election of judges is a major risk to the functioning of Mexico's democracy."
"We understand the importance of Mexico's fight against judicial corruption. But direct political election of judges, in my view, would not address judicial corruption nor would it strengthen the judicial branch of government," the ambassador continued. "It would also weaken the efforts to make North American economic integration a reality and would create turbulence as the debate over direct election will continue over the next several years."
"I believe faith and trust in the rule of law are one of the many shared values which unite our nations, while for the private sector, they lay the groundwork for building confidence and inspiring investment in a stable and predictable environment," Salazar added.
Clark subsequently said that Canadian "investors are concerned; they want stability, they want a judicial system that works if there are problems."
López Obrador accused the ambassadors of "recklessness" during his Tuesday press conference, adding that "there are things that only concern our country."
It's not just the ambassadors. On Tuesday, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Ranking Member James Risch (R-Idaho), and Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in a joint statement that they "are deeply concerned that the proposed judicial reforms in Mexico would undermine the independence and transparency of the country's judiciary, jeopardizing critical economic and security interests shared by our two nations."
"We are also alarmed that several other constitutional reforms currently under discussion may contradict commitments made in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, which is scheduled for review in 2026," the senators added.
The Global Enterprise Council, the Mexico City-based lobbyist for 63 multinational corporations operating in Mexico—including Walmart, American Express, AT&T, General Motors, Microsoft, and ExxonMobil—is also opposing the proposed judicial reforms, as are other organizations including the New York City Bar Association and the Washington Posteditorial board.
López Obrador's "Plan C" proposes a sweeping overhaul of Mexico's corruption-ridden judiciary. The plan's most controversial reform would make judges at all levels of the judiciary—who are currently appointed—elected officials. All current sitting judges would be up for election in 2025 and 2027.
The president argues these reforms are necessary to combat corruption and impunity in Mexico's judicial system. He has
accused Mexican Supreme Court justices of being "supporters of the oligarchy, not of democracy" and says they oppose Plan C because "they do not want a government of the people."
Plan C—which came after an earlier proposal was blocked by the Supreme Court—has sparked nationwide protests by opponents, who say López Obrador is trying to weaken the judiciary and the National Electoral Institute and entrench his ruling Morena party as former Mexico City Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum, a close ally of the president, prepares to replace him on October 1 after winning June's election in a landslide.
Tensions between Mexico and the United States have been mounting for months over Mexican perceptions of U.S. meddling, including dubiously timed corporate media
reports of alleged links between López Obrador and drug cartels.
Last week, López Obrador said that Salazar's statement "expressing a position on this strictly domestic matter of the Mexican state represents unacceptable interference, contravenes the sovereignty of the United Mexican States, and does not reflect the degree of mutual respect that characterizes the relations between our governments."
"This is an overtly interventionist attitude; I hope it does not happen again," he added.
In separate remarks last week, López Obrador also accused the U.S. of funding organizations working to undermine the Mexican government under the guise of human rights.
For example, the U.S. Agency for International Development—whose decadeslong history of meddling in Latin America runs the gamut from
kidnapping and torturing unhoused Uruguayans to death for instructional purposes to an attempt at toppling Cuba's revolutionary government by infiltrating the island's hip-hop scene—has financially supported Mexicans Against Corruption and Impunity, a frequent critic of the López Obrador administration.
During his Tuesday press conference, López Obrador reminded Mexicans of centuries of U.S. aggression and meddling in Mexico's internal affairs.
"For many years… the United States has applied an interventionist policy throughout America, ever since it established the Monroe Doctrine," he said.
López Obrador recounted how Mexico lost half its territory as a result of the 1846-48 U.S. invasion—carried out on false pretexts decried by a young congressman from Illinois named Abraham Lincoln—and endured seven months of U.S. occupation of Veracruz in 1914.
The president stressed that having trade agreements with the U.S. does not mean that Washington has the right to meddle in Mexican affairs.
"The treaty is not for us to cede our sovereignty, the treaty is about trade, about forging good economic and commercial ties that suit both nations," he said Tuesday. "But that doesn't mean Mexico must become an appendix, a colony, or a protectorate."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The New Normal': Extreme Heat Imperils Millions Across Northern Hemisphere
"Getting off fossil fuels is the only way to stop this crisis from getting worse," said one campaigner.
Jul 17, 2023
Millions of people and ecosystems across the Northern Hemisphere continued to suffer Monday amid ongoing heatwaves exacerbated by the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency.
The "intolerable" conditions, some of which are detailed below, have reignited demands for far-reaching climate action. Meanwhile, many countries—including the wealthy ones most responsible for the greenhouse gas pollution causing increasingly common and severe extreme weather—are still permitting the increased production of planet-heating fossil fuels, ignoring the international scientific consensus and endangering societies and biodiversity around the globe.
Asia
China has confirmed the northwestern village of Sanbao reached 126°F on Sunday. This marks the hottest temperature ever recorded in the country, with little relief in sight this week. Fears are growing of a potential repeat of last year's historic drought. Elsewhere in the country, Typhoon Talim became the first to make landfall this year.
The Persian Gulf International Airport in Iran reported a heat index of 152°F on Sunday. This is the brutal result of a 104°F temperature combined with 65% relative humidity and approaches the limits of human survivability.
Japanese officials have reportedly issued heatstroke alerts for tens of millions of people residing in 20 of the country's 47 jurisdictions.
In South Korea, flooding and landslides provoked by monsoon rains killed at least 40 people over the weekend. Storms of this kind are growing in frequency and intensity as the warming atmosphere holds more moisture.
Europe
Several European nations continue to roast amid raging wildfires and a suffocating heatwave, already the third this summer. Many long-standing temperature records are expected to fall this week across Southern Europe.
Italian officials on Monday issued additional heat warnings as the islands of Sicily and Sardinia brace for temperatures of nearly 120°F in the coming days, possibly the hottest ever recorded in Europe.
"The heat is forecast to intensify by the middle of the week (July 19) in parts of the Mediterranean, including Greece and Turkey," the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said Monday. "A further continuation into August is likely."
Wildfires burning near Athens prompted evacuations on Monday. Wildfires are also presently torching landscapes in Spain.
Research published last week revealed that last year's historically hot European summer killed more than 61,000 people across the continent.
North America
A second Canadian firefighter died Saturday as the country continues to battle hundreds of blazes during its worst-ever wildfire season—one that scientists say is inseparable from escalating heatwaves and droughts that leave behind large amounts of dry kindling.
Large swaths of the United States are also being pummeled by extreme weather, with roughly one-third of the country under heat warnings, wildfires burning, and multiple cities reeling in the aftermath of climate change-intensified floods. Temperatures in Death Valley along the California-Nevada border reached 128°F on Sunday, close to the area's likely all-time high of 130°F set in August 2020 and July 2021 (weather historians dispute the accuracy of a 134°F reading from 1913).
Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn on Monday urged U.S. President Joe Biden to "declare a climate emergency and use the additional powers to rapidly scale renewables (and transmission lines) and stop new fossil fuel development."
"Getting off fossil fuels is the only way to stop this crisis from getting worse," he added.
Climate scientists said that last month was the hottest June since scientists began record-keeping in the 1880s. With its blistering start, this July is on track to shatter the monthly record set just years ago. The recent arrival of El Niño conditions is projected to make an already dangerous situation even worse, with the WMO warning earlier this month of "a likely surge in global temperatures and disruptive weather and climate patterns."
"In many parts of the world, today is predicted to be the hottest day on record," World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus tweeted Monday. "The climate crisis is not a warning. It's happening. I urge world leaders to act now."
"The struggle to avert systemic failure is the struggle between democracy and plutocracy. It always has been, but the stakes are now higher than ever."
U.S. climate envoy John Kerry arrived in Beijing on Monday for a series of talks with his Chinese counterpart Xie Zhenhua about four months ahead of the start of the United Nations' COP28 conference. The two diplomats—from the world's largest historic emitter of heat-trapping gases and its biggest current polluter, respectively—aim to discuss how their countries can jointly slash methane emissions and coal-fired power.
"In the next three days," Kerry said, "we hope we can begin taking some big steps that will send a signal to the world about the serious purpose of China and the United States to address a common risk, threat, challenge to all of humanity created by humans themselves."
But not all humans have played an equal role in creating or perpetuating the climate emergency.
Since raking in hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in 2022, oil and gas giants—which knowingly suppressed warnings about the climate crisis for decades—have reneged on their emission reduction targets and made clear they intend to expand drilling operations in the coming years. Policymakers have shown little willingness to stop them, as COP27 ended with no commitment to phase out fossil fuels.
On Saturday, The Guardian columnist George Monbiot alluded to overlooked new research sounding the alarm about the growing risk of simultaneous crop losses in the world's major growing regions due to climate breakdown and argued forcefully that "the struggle to avert systemic failure is the struggle between democracy and plutocracy."
"It always has been," he added, "but the stakes are now higher than ever."
On Monday, WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas similarly stressed that "extreme weather—an increasingly frequent occurrence in our warming climate—is having a major impact on human health, ecosystems, economies, agriculture, energy, and water supplies."
"This underlines the increasing urgency of cutting greenhouse gas emissions as quickly and as deeply as possible," said Taalas. "In addition, we have to step up efforts to help society adapt to what is unfortunately becoming the new normal."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular