"The New World Order", which shines through Trump's policies, is neither new nor an order. In geopolitical terms, it implies imperialism and the division of the world between great powers. What does this mean and where does Bulgaria fit in?
The Munich Security Conference also dispelled the last hopes that President Trump simply has a cowboy negotiating style, but at heart is a defender of the united West and free democracy. Vice President Vance's speech made it clear that there are two things on the agenda of the new American administration that Europe should seriously consider.
First, Trump wants to dismantle the EU and to that end is isolating it from any negotiations on the future of Ukraine, while openly flirting with anti-European political forces. The most scandalous is the official support for the “Alternative for Germany“, but in practice this pattern is repeated from Britain to Romania. The second important characteristic of the new administration is that under the formula “freedom of speech”, it aims to turn democracy into a dictate of the temporary majority, which is exempt from the restriction to respect the rights of minorities (sexual, ethnic, religious and migrant). New, supposedly benign formulas will be launched, such as "majority rights", which will aim to weaken the constitutional protection of groups and individuals.
Imperialism and the division of the world
The "new world order" that is visible behind Trump's two policies is neither new nor an order. In geopolitical terms, it implies imperialism and the division of the world between great powers. The EU is a major obstacle to this vision, because it enables smaller and medium-sized countries to defend their interests together without losing their identity and sovereignty. If this model proves successful, the "great powers" will not be able to divide the world into "zones of influence". But more importantly, imperialism has always led to global conflicts, and it is not clear why we should expect anything different from it this time.
The other idea of "majoritarian democracy", in which the winning majority rules and reigns, is also not a historical novelty. Aristotle considered it simply a deviation from the good democratic model of the Athenian "polity", and John Stuart Mill called it "dictatorship of the majority". Majoritarian democracy leads to partisanship, polarization and internal conflicts, even civil war. In American history, all major internal conflicts were ultimately won by liberals: from the Civil War, through McCarthyism, to the fall of segregation and the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Confederalists, anti-globalists, racists, homophobes and anti-vaxxers may be getting some temporary revenge at the moment, but the general trend is not in their favor. In Eastern Europe, however, majoritarian democracy usually does not lead to a victory for the liberals, but degenerates into semi-authoritarian, ultra-conservative regimes. This is also a historical fact.
Europe faces an existential choice
Many have already declared that the world has already returned to imperialism and the dictatorship of the majority. Most of these prophets actually approve of this development, not least because it reminds them of the old Soviet times. But the “new world order“ is far from a fact - there is simply an American administration working in its favor, together with Putin and other dictators. Which is puzzling, as was Vance’s speech in Munich, which repeated some of the pillars of Putin’s anti-EU propaganda. (Interestingly, even by conservative think tanks like Cato, Western European countries enjoy a greater degree of freedom of speech than America itself. In Eastern Europe, we lag behind the US, but since the airwaves here are full of Putinists and Trumpists, Vice President Vance shouldn’t be critical.)
The behavior of the new American administration is not the end of the civilized world. But Europe is faced with a real existential choice. So far, the EU’s inaction has usually reinforced the status quo in relations between its members. But this cannot go on forever – inaction in the current context will lead not to the preservation of things as they are, but to their disintegration. Europeans must make decisions on the following issues, with great urgency:
Common Defense
The US is gradually withdrawing from Europe. Whether it is a wise decision or not is a separate issue, but the EU together with the UK must create a sufficiently powerful military alliance that can guarantee the security of the countries in the event of weakened support from the Americans. There are enough resources for this purpose, but efforts must be coordinated and difficult political decisions must be made. Military spending will need to be temporarily removed from the eurozone accounts, for example, to overcome the lag. It will be more difficult to coordinate the military-industrial complexes of the member states and avoid destructive competition or protectionism. Technological lag compared to the US and China will also be a problem in this area, but here too Europe has sufficient resources. The most difficult, but not impossible, is the creation of a pan-European army - so far there have only been pilot projects that have little practical significance. All this must happen within five or six years, which is not impossible, but it is a huge “challenge“, as the Europeans like to say.
Ukraine
As a matter of urgency, the EU (together with the UK again) must come up with a position on Ukraine in the new circumstances. Trump will probably aim for a halt to military action in exchange for the lifting of sanctions by the Putin regime and territorial concessions at the expense of Ukraine. It would be absurd for the US and Russia to negotiate, and for guarantees for Ukraine's security and its reconstruction to be at the expense of the EU. A basic rule of international law is that you cannot negotiate things that affect third parties without their consent.
In fact, Trump seems to want to negotiate with Russia the withdrawal of the US from Ukraine in exchange for a temporary cessation of hostilities. Europe is aware that this approach will neither permanently stop the war nor guarantee security in the region. Therefore, an alternative plan is needed, backed by sufficient financial and military resources. And here too there are difficult decisions to be made. For example, sending a peacekeeping corps under the European flag to Ukraine to prevent future Russian aggression. Also of key importance will be the agreements between Ukraine and NATO countries (but not NATO itself), guaranteeing the security of this country.
Economy
Vance's speech will probably be followed by trade tariffs against the EU or individual member states. Europe must have a unified response to this trade war, in which there is unlikely to be a winner and which meets the definition of stupidity - an action that benefits no one. The EU's enormous resource is its internal market, complete with the eurozone. If these two elements are broken, the plan to parcel out Europe and prepare it for division among global powers will have succeeded. But this plan has relatively low chances of success, barring some suicidal actions by the Europeans themselves.
There is still much to be said about all these issues. The situation seems dire, but it provides both a goal and a direction for Europe's development. Deepening integration in the military and foreign policy fields is a key priority. Developing the EU as an economic union is also a key priority. It is not excluded that some countries will drop out of the project in this process. Especially those in which ultra-conservative majoritarian democracy has already won, they may be tempted to embark on global politics alone or seek opportunistic alliances with China or Putin. But the drama of Central Europe, at least, has always been exactly that - in its desire to be great and more cunning than the others, it has traditionally been divided between the surrounding empires.
Bulgaria's place
From this point of view, Euro-Atlanticism and Europeanism in Bulgaria acquire a very clear and categorical meaning, related to the survival of the country as a sovereign and the avoidance of its inclusion in the "sphere of influence" of either Russia, Turkey, or some more exotic candidate. Membership in the eurozone - for starters - is a true value choice and it must be realized in the shortest possible time. (We already formally meet all the criteria, it is time for Temenuzhka Petkova to submit a normal budget, for which she has all the prerequisites. And to demand the coveted convergence report) However, Bulgaria must also strive to enter and remain in the core of the member states that are deepening integration with each other. This is the only serious guarantee, both for sovereignty and for democracy in our country.
It should not be forgotten that Europe and the USA will be the closest in terms of values in the world, whatever happens. Japan, Canada, Australia and many other countries should also be added to this community. The closeness of values cannot be erased by one or another administration. Nor can the USA be expected to maintain a greenhouse for the secure existence of Europe indefinitely. It is time for Europe to emerge from its foreign policy puberty and start making mature decisions that correspond to its weight in the global world.
And this burden is by no means small.
This comment expresses the personal opinion of the author and may not coincide with the positions of the Bulgarian editorial office and the State Gazette as a whole.