The great escape from Globocop

STUDENTS at some liberal US universities have been so distressed by the election of Donald Trump that special rooms have been laid on with counsellors, puppies and soft toys. Many of their professors are in a state of grief, too.

Some, including Simon Schama, detect the thud of the fascist jackboot behind the rise of Trump, Farage, Marine Le Pen in France and Dutchman Geert Wilders. But perhaps the defeat of Hillary Clinton can be seen differently – as America’s and the West’s great escape.

For all his bluster, perhaps President Donald Trump will make the world a safer place by halting the slide towards international confrontation.

It is telling that many on the ideological Right are not happy with a Trump presidency either. These neo-cons don’t normally mind the thud of boots, preferably into Arab faces, and believed the hawkish Clinton would continue their evangelical warmongering. And just look how that turned out.

Since 9/11, the US has acted as a ‘Globocop’ in the Middle East, North Africa and Afghanistan. The result has been the death of millions, the rise of Islamic State, failed states, the spread of terrorism and a flood of refugees destabilising Europe.

This chaos has compounded the effects of ‘digitisation’ and ‘globalisation’ on ordinary working people and no one’s job is safe. Computers, industrial robots and outsourcing have destroyed many livelihoods. Unprecedented levels of migrants only adds insult to injury. That’s why I believe the liberal hysteria about Trump is misplaced. With a promise to militarily intervene only when US national interests are at stake, he could be just the right President for our times. The outcome could be a new, multipolar, world order.

New world orders have usually been built in the aftermath of cataclysmic war, as happened in 1648, 1815, 1918 and, above all, in 1945. Now we face a disintegrating Middle East, a poor but assertive Russia, a China that will soon be (and on some indices already is) the world’s largest economy, and regional powers such as India or Iran who want their voices heard. Times have changed and international politics must change with it.

The key problem is how to accommodate the widespread desire to reshape global institutions the wartime victors imposed in 1945. Then, only America could afford to be the world’s policeman. But now, with the US in debt to China to the tune of £1.2trillion, its underwriting of the defence of the Western and Pacific world is becoming increasingly resented by the American public. China wants to take over running UN peacekeeping missions. It already contributes the largest contingent of troops, and is the second highest contributor to the £6.3billion budget.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, who would have clashed with Vladimir Putin from the outset, Trump says he wants to establish better relations with Russia. He is right that the Russians could join the US (and others) in destroying IS. With intelligent advisers he might discover that a relatively Westernised Iran is a better ally than the Saudis, who have spent the past four decades propagating Islamist extremism.

But all this will come at a cost. We will have to accept that we can no longer export our ideas of human rights and democracy to the rest of the world. These new authoritarian powers believe no one should interfere in a state’s internal affairs. They believe in the ‘diversity of civilisations and traditional values’ – code for stopping the proliferation of Westernbacked revolutions and the spread of European liberalism, which the Russians call ‘Gayropa’.

Indeed, a large part of Putin’s appeal to ordinary Russians is based as much on conservative Orthodox Christianity as Russian nationalism.

The new world will include some bizarre alliances. An officially atheist China is already in league with an aggressively Christian Russia, the Iranian Shia theocracy, and the Sunni Saudis, with African, Asian and Latin American add-ons. They actively assist each other too.

Instead of threatening military force, we should encourage these powers to engage in common institutions and to observe the rules, even if that means parking some of our own beliefs outside the door.

But it is important we don’t make compromises at home. Western admirers of Putin and the rest should just think about what being Russian, Chinese or Iranian would mean for you, with your future decided by corrupt oligarchs, party officials or clerics. Trump needs to remind the authoritarians that we have values we will never surrender. That involves pointing out what is more free about our way of life. Maybe we should tell ourselves that more often too.

This liberal hysteria about Trump is misplaced