Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer

Donald Trump’s presidency has been a transformative period in the history of U.S. foreign policy. His return to the White House solidifies his role as a pivotal figure, much like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, who redefined the role of the United States on the global stage. While Roosevelt’s multilateral approach shaped “The American Century” and Reagan championed “peace through strength,” Trump embodies a new era: the age of nationalism. This shift reflects a broader global trend that began in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, characterized by protectionism, hardened borders, and economic nationalism.Trump’s foreign policy approach raises significant questions about the future of U.S. relations with China, Russia, India, and emerging global powers. Under both Trump and his successor, President Joe Biden, Washington has focused on consolidating U.S. power, particularly by countering China’s economic and military rise. This emphasis on great-power competition has led to an aggressive economic strategy, marked by tariffs and export controls designed to weaken China’s economic influence. Instead of fostering global economic growth, U.S. policies have prioritized supply-chain resilience and economic security, leading to a more insular and protectionist stance.The resurgence of nationalism has influenced not only the United States but also other nations across the world. Figures such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, French far-right leader Marine Le Pen, and Trump himself have capitalized on nationalist sentiments, advocating policies that prioritize national sovereignty over global cooperation. Washington has played a role in reinforcing this trend rather than challenging it. The shift from economic interdependence to protectionist policies reflects a global retreat from the liberal order that defined much of the post-World War II era.The pivot to great-power competition underscores this nationalist shift. Rather than fostering a new internationalist order in the tradition of Roosevelt’s multilateralism, the United States has sustained an outdated model based on U.S. primacy. This approach has limited the ability of policymakers to envision a world order that prioritizes peace and stability over geopolitical rivalry. The framing of China as an existential threat, akin to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, has exacerbated tensions and deepened the global divide between democratic and authoritarian regimes.If the United States aims to restore its leadership in addressing global challenges such as climate change, democratic backsliding, economic inequality, and sovereign debt crises, it must move beyond the age of nationalism. Roosevelt’s vision of a multilateral order sought to maintain peace and global justice by leveraging U.S. economic and military power in collaboration with international partners. The post-World War II order, though imperfect, created space for emerging economies to assert their interests through institutions such as the United Nations and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). This period of international cooperation enabled economic growth and political stability, despite ongoing disparities between developed and developing nations.Following the Cold War, the United States shifted from fostering multilateralism to pursuing unilateral primacy. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the United States as the dominant global power, leading to the assumption that liberal democracy would spread worldwide without significant opposition. However, the post-9/11 “war on terror” further eroded internationalism, as Washington used its influence to pressure nations into supporting military campaigns without considering the long-term consequences for global relations.The global financial crisis of 2008 marked a turning point in the trajectory of international relations. As economic growth stagnated, governments prioritized domestic economic stability over global cooperation. The United States focused on bailing out financial institutions and protecting domestic markets, while China pursued large-scale infrastructure projects to sustain economic growth. The growing debt burdens of developing nations further fueled nationalist sentiments, as governments sought to reclaim economic control from international financial institutions. Beijing emerged as a key lender to many nations, providing an alternative to Western-controlled financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.Economic nationalism gained traction in the 2010s, with populist leaders advocating protectionist policies to shield their economies from globalization. In Europe, leaders like Orban criticized international institutions, blaming them for economic instability and declining national sovereignty. In the United States, Trump capitalized on these sentiments, framing his “America First” policy as a means to reclaim economic independence and protect American jobs.

During his first term, Trump embraced nationalism and great-power competition as central tenets of U.S. foreign policy. While President Barack Obama had sought cooperative engagement with China, Trump’s 2017 National Security Strategy emphasized economic and military competition over global collaboration. The administration withdrew from key international agreements, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Paris Climate Agreement, signaling a retreat from multilateral commitments.Trump’s trade policies, particularly the imposition of tariffs on Chinese imports, escalated tensions between Washington and Beijing. While these measures aimed to reduce U.S. dependence on Chinese goods, they also increased consumer prices and disrupted global supply chains. Despite his rhetoric, Trump’s nationalist policies did not fundamentally alter global economic dynamics but instead contributed to a climate of uncertainty and instability.

Although Biden initially promised a departure from Trump’s “America First” approach, his administration has largely maintained key aspects of economic nationalism. While emphasizing alliances and partnerships, Biden has continued protectionist policies designed to counter China’s rise. Legislation such as the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act reflect a broader trend toward state-led industrial policies, mirroring strategies employed by nationalist governments worldwide.The emergence of economic nationalism and great-power competition has reshaped the landscape of U.S. foreign policy. The transition from Roosevelt’s multilateralism to Trump’s nationalist agenda represents a fundamental shift in how the United States engages with the world. While Roosevelt sought to build an international order based on cooperation and collective security, the contemporary era prioritizes national interests over global stability.To reinvigorate its role as a leader in international affairs, the United States must reconsider its approach to foreign policy. Addressing transnational challenges such as climate change, economic inequality, and democratic backsliding requires a commitment to global cooperation rather than nationalist isolation. The lessons of history suggest that sustainable peace and prosperity depend on inclusive multilateralism rather than unilateral dominance. By broadening its strategic vision and embracing international collaboration, the United States can help shape a more stable and just world order in the 21st century.

By: Qamar Bashir

Donald Trump has redefined diplomatic norms by shifting high-level discussions from closed-door negotiations to public confrontations. His treatment of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the White House—inviting him as a guest only to dismiss him gracelessly—was a stark departure from traditional diplomacy.

Diplomacy thrives on negotiation, compromise, and conflict resolution, with disagreements handled professionally and follow-up discussions scheduled if needed. However, in an unprecedented public spectacle, diplomacy was replaced with an open display of hostility, where accusations and counter-accusations were aired before the global audience, undermining the dignity of both leaders and their respective nations.

Trump’s conduct toward Zelensky was less about diplomacy and more about coercion. While he and his Vice President claimed to advocate for diplomatic solutions, their actions contradicted diplomatic norms by humiliating a sovereign leader.

Trump’s demand that Ukraine cede control of its natural resources and accept Russia’s terms to end the war—without addressing Ukraine’s security concerns or considering Europe’s stakes—was not a negotiation but an ultimatum.

This approach disregarded the fact that the U.S. itself played a key role in Ukraine’s resistance by providing military, economic, and diplomatic support to counter Russian aggression. It also ignored the reality that the Russia-Ukraine war was largely influenced by NATO’s expansion with the USA in charge, which Moscow viewed as a direct threat to its security.

This pattern of shifting U.S. foreign policy is not new. Successive American administrations have started wars, supported allies, and then reversed their positions based on changing political priorities.

Pakistan experienced this firsthand when the U.S. backed it during the Cold War, only to abandon it during critical conflicts with India. The same happened after Pakistan played a frontline role in pushing back the Soviet Union from Afghanistan in the 1980s, only to be left in economic and political turmoil once U.S. interests were fulfilled. A similar pattern unfolded after 9/11, where Pakistan faced the consequences of America’s shifting counterterrorism strategy. Many other countries have also suffered due to the transactional nature of U.S. foreign policy, which prioritizes immediate strategic gains over long-term commitments.

Ukraine has now become the latest example of this shifting U.S. approach. Under the banner of “America First,” Washington’s demands for access to Ukraine’s rare earth resources and its sudden disengagement from Kyiv reflect a self-serving agenda.

The public humiliation of Zelensky was not just an insult to Ukraine but to Europe as a whole. European leaders now find themselves in an awkward position, having invested years in shaping a pro-Ukraine narrative with U.S. backing, only for the new American administration to discard it overnight.

This has left Europe feeling exposed, powerless, and forced to reassess its dependency on U.S. security assurances. By undermining Zelensky in such a public manner, Trump has effectively diminished the collective influence of European powers, reducing their strategic clout in the ongoing conflict.

Europe’s core narrative on the Russia-Ukraine war revolves around defending Ukraine’s sovereignty, upholding international law, and ensuring European security. The war is seen as an unprovoked act of aggression by Russia, violating Ukraine’s territorial integrity and challenging the post-World War II order that forbids changing borders by force.

European leaders argue that if Russia is not stopped in Ukraine, it could embolden further territorial expansion, particularly toward NATO’s eastern members like the Baltic states and Poland.

The conflict is framed as a battle between democracy and authoritarianism, with Ukraine representing European values of self-determination, democracy, and human rights.

As a result, Europe has provided military, economic, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine while imposing severe sanctions on Russia to weaken its war efforts. The invasion has also forced Europe to rethink its energy security, accelerating efforts to reduce reliance on Russian oil and gas and diversify energy sources.

At the same time, European leaders recognize the risks of escalation and have been cautious about direct military involvement to prevent a broader NATO-Russia war. While countries like Poland and the Baltic states advocate for maximum support to Ukraine, others like Germany and France have pushed for a balance between military aid and diplomatic efforts to seek an eventual resolution.

The war has also prompted major geopolitical shifts, with Sweden and Finland abandoning neutrality to join NATO and European nations increasing their defense budgets. Europe views its support for Ukraine as not only a necessity for regional stability but also a test of its strategic autonomy and long-term security framework.

However, as U.S. priorities shift under new leadership, European leaders now face the challenge of maintaining a unified stance without guaranteed American backing, raising concerns about the continent’s future security landscape.

There are three likely outcomes for Europe in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The first is to yield to U.S. pressure and abandon its efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO, withdraw from Ukraine’s internal affairs, allow Zelensky to step down, and accept Russian-installed leadership in Kyiv.

This would also require Europe to stop pushing the narrative that Russia poses a direct threat to other Eastern European states. In return for its past support of Ukraine, the U.S. would gain control over Ukraine’s valuable mineral resources.

This approach would effectively acknowledge Russia’s dominance over Ukraine, reshape the geopolitical balance in Eastern Europe, and shift the focus of Western nations away from prolonged conflict. However, this would come at the cost of Ukraine’s sovereignty and European credibility, as it would signal that Western security commitments are conditional and subject to political convenience.

The second option for Europe is to break away from U.S. influence and adopt an independent and unified stance on the Russia-Ukraine war. This would require European nations to fill the strategic gap left by U.S. disengagement, significantly increase defense spending, and enforce even harsher sanctions on Russia.

To maintain Ukraine’s resistance, Europe would have to consider direct military involvement, ramping up arms production, and converting civilian industries to support the war effort, effectively committing to a long-term military confrontation. However, such a course of action would be financially and politically costly, leading to economic decline, inflation, and potential social unrest across European nations.

Another alternative would be to persuade Trump to modify his stance and work toward ending the war in a way that secures Ukraine’s sovereignty and ensures Europe’s security. Yet, given Trump’s “America First” policy, convincing him to re-engage without tangible benefits for the U.S. would be a difficult challenge.

By: Qamar Bashir

 Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)

 Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France

 Former MD, SRBC

 Macomb, Detroit,