In recent days the presidents of arguably the three most important nations in the modern world gave addresses to the 70th annual opening of the United Nations General Assembly. Style and content of the three addresses could not have been more different. They are highly instructive of the way the three nation’s leaders perceive both their own countries and the role of their respective problems in addressing the major geopolitical issues facing the world today.
The first of the three addresses chronologically were that of United States president Donald Trump. It was also the shortest of the three speeches, totalling barely two pages of printed material. Even making allowances for the fact that Trump is facing an election in a little over a month’s time and clearly had a domestic audience in mind, the speech was remarkable for its focus on specifically American concerns.
This is not an issue unique to Trump but reflects a primarily American preoccupation with defining international issues solely in terms of how they reflect and advance American interests.
Trumps speech did however reflect what is an overwhelming contemporary American concern, and that is the alleged role of China whom Trump perceives as the source of the world’s ills. China makes the first of its 10 appearances in Trump’s short speech in what was the second substantive sentence in his speech when he referred to the “invisible enemy – the China virus.”
This reflected a contemporary American fixation, the blaming of China for the origin of the pandemic currently sweeping the world. As such it was perfectly in tune with Trump’s antipathy to China, his scapegoating of that country, and his total disregard, not for the first time, of truth and evidence.
The World Health Organisation is “virtually controlled by China”; it is the world’s biggest polluter; destroys “vast swathes of coastal reef”; emits “more toxic mercury into the atmosphere than any country”, and its carbon emissions are “nearly twice what the US has, and it’s rising fast.” None of this is true.
The United States’ prosperity he claimed, was “the bedrock of freedom in security all over the world.” “The United States spent $2.5 trillion over the last four years on our military. We have the most powerful military anywhere in the world-and it’s not even close” (presumably referring to the United States’ main military competitors Russia and China.)
Trump even boasted about the totally unlawful execution of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, whom he labelled the world’s “top terrorist”. The United States was “working to end the war in Afghanistan” {no mention of the United States starting that war and causing the huge cost in lives and social fabric of that country) and “America is fulfilling our destiny as peacemaker.”
It is frankly impossible to equate Trump’s rhetoric with the reality of the post- World War II history that has seen the United States involved in almost continuous warfare somewhere in the world, killed millions of mostly civilian populations, and bullied, extorted and threatened any country that sought to oppose America’s lawless global rampage.
All of which was entirely predictable. If the speech contained any surprises it was its silence on Russia. That absence was more than made up by its extraordinary preoccupation with China, who in Trump’s eyes is clearly evil personified.
The speeches by Xi and Putin could not have been in greater contrast. Xi also identified the Covid 19 coronavirus as worthy of major focus. There was however, praise for the World Health Organisation and the joint international effort to combat it. In what was clearly a rebuttal of Trump’s approach, Xi said that “any attempt of politicising the issue or stigmatisation must be rejected.” Even in times of a global pandemic such as the coronavirus, Xi referred to what is his trademark phrase of people everywhere “craving peace, development and a win-win cooperation.”
Xi then set out four ways in which the Covid 19 crisis could be utilised to improving the position of all nations in the world.
First, he urged international cooperation and a rejection of beggar – thy-neighbour approach. Secondly, the coronavirus reminded us that we live in a world of economic globalisation and the challenge is to achieve a full and balanced development that all the people of all countries share.
Thirdly, the virus should prompt the launching of a green revolution that preserves the environment, and that development must be matched by comparable measures of environmental protection and restoration.
In complete contrast to Trump, Xi saw the Paris agreement on climate change as a chart to the transition to a green and low carbon development. Fourthly, the Covid crisis reminded the world that the global governance system needed reform. It should be based, he argued on “extensive consultation, joint cooperation and shared benefits.” Differences between countries were natural, he said, but what was important was “to address them through dialogue and consultation.”
Xi concluded by reminding his audience that China was a country committed to peaceful, open and cooperative development. He concluded by announcing a series of financial commitments aimed at international corporation through multiple organisations aimed at improving the lot of ordinary people through international cooperation and development. The contrast with Trump could not have been greater.
Of the three leaders, Putin gave the longest speech. He largely ignored Covid 19, preferring to focus on wider geopolitical issues, the challenges of which both pre-date Covid-19 and will continue to challenge the world long after Covid-19 ceases to wreak its current havoc. In what may be interpreted as a direct rebuttal of the United States approach to major issues, of which Trump is merely the latest exponent, Putin identified other key issues.
Those principles he said include “the equality of sovereign states, non-interference with their domestic affairs, the right of peoples to determine their own future, non-use of force or the threat of force, and political settlement of disputes.”
Putin did not mention Trump or the United States by name, but the message could not have been clearer. To reinforce the point, he reiterated the importance of the United Nations’ founding principles that were designed to “prevent unilateral actions that may result in a direct military confrontation between major States,……… avoid solutions which would be completely unacceptable to others and act within the framework of international law, rather than a vague, grey area of arbitrariness and illegitimacy.”
The message could not have been clearer, although Putin did not once refer to the United States directly other than in the context of the Russian – United States Strategic Arms Treaty which expires in February 2021. In the context of that forthcoming deadline, Putin expressed the wish that the United States refrain from expanding its medium and long- range missile system in Europe. The fact that the United States had failed to respond to Russian suggestions for discussion and settlement of these issues is a clear indication that the United States is not interested in dialogue, or in scaling down its continuing expansion of its military presence close to Russian borders.
What is most starkly revealed by a comparison of the three United Nations addresses is that the United States has no interest in pursuing multilateral discussions on the basis of mutuality of interest or a desire to reduce global tensions. Trump’s speech spells out as starkly as possible that the United States has a unilateral approach to the resolution of global issues. Other countries are either with them, that is accepting their “leadership” or they are condemned to being an adversary, against whom all United States actions are entitled.
The three speeches encapsulated the difference of approach. It would be unrealistic to expect any fundamental change in the United States approach irrespective of who wins the November election. The more realistic approach by both Xi and Putin is to continue the collaborative efforts, particularly in the Eurasian context and hope that the reality of their military superiority, despite Trumps vainglorious boasting to the contrary, will defer the United States from more ill-advised unilateralism. The symptoms however are not encouraging.
James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
