Trump Challenges Assumptions Again

This post concerns an article on the bizarrely named website “Slugger O’Toole,” about Trump’s willingness to recognize Russian control of the Crimea.

This lengthy article is a fascinating mixture of insights and misconceptions. To start with the latter, it repeats, of course, the usual pablum about Westphalia and the origins of sovereignty. It also engages in the Leftist discourse against neutral application of laws: “This exposes a deeper tension within the international order: it operates on the premise of universal rules, but in practice, it reflects hierarchies of power.” No doubt that is true to some extent, as it is in every system; the powerful are in the best position to manipulate laws to their advantage.

On the other hand, the author’s examples are not particularly convincing. He argues that China is at a disadvantage to the United States because trade laws are not enforced against America, which is a strange position considering China’s willingness to circumvent or outright ignore trade laws in so many cases. If anything, America has more to complain about here. The author really loses me when he claims that, “while some territorial conflicts, like Russia’s in Ukraine, are met with widespread condemnation and sanctions, others, like Israel’s actions in Palestine, receive a far less forceful international response.” I suppose he probably believes this, but it is difficult to give credence to such a ridiculous statement when Israel has received more international criticism than almost any state in history. It is hard to conceive of a more forceful response than bringing up the head of a state charges of genocide before the World Court.

Ironically, then, I find myself in agreement with this author’s main point, which is that the international system is rigid and guided by teleological thinking that likes to pretend that we’re all moving toward world peace. It reminds me of Francis Fukuyama’s now thoroughly discredited book from 1992 arguing that the world was moving toward liberal democracy — an idea that seems laughable thirty years later. The author notes that states are going to act in what they perceive are the interests of their security, sometimes at odds with international law. This has been my argument with Russia’s attack on the Ukraine. I think it’s terrible and should be opposed, but it is also not a shocking developement. The West needs to consider Russia’s security concerns when deciding how closely to integrate with Ukraine. It is true that it is unfair for the West to limit Ukraine’s freedom to associate with whom they choose, including joining NATO. It is also true that the international order is not based primarily on fairness. We should strive to make it more fair, but not at the expense of ignoring realities that could lead to war — an outcome that is usually far worse than the unfairness that could have prevented them.

How does this relate to Trump? Well, Trump has suggested that the United States should perhaps recognize Russia’s acquisition of the Crimea, allowing us to normalize relations and build closer economic co-operation. This is a challenge to the strictly rule-based approach of the moralists, but it brings many potential advantages that promote peace and economic developement, which everyone purports to want.

Do I think the annexation of the Crimea was just? No, and I would continue to complain about that. However, on an official level, it might be time to give it up. In practice, there is virtually no chance the Ukraine is going to get the Crimea back. The irony is that the world long ago gave up on recognizing Taiwan, a peace and democratic state, in favour of closer ties with a despotic, murderous regime in mainland China. There is something to be said in favour of that decision, but it is odd that the same people who support it have drawn hard lines in other cases that are no more egregious.