Last December, while introducing legislation to outlaw foreign interference in Australian politics, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told the Australian Parliament that the scale of the threat to Australian democracy and sovereignty from foreign influence campaigns was “unprecedented.” Turnbull did not name any country in particular, but the proposed laws were clearly aimed primarily at Chinese covert interference.
Some great power relationships are indeed reverting to a more tooth-and-nail kind of competition. China and Russia are ever more determined to claim the status and influence they believe is their due. But the response likely to emerge from these strategies, a reaction with deeper roots in U.S. foreign policy than the views of any one administration, deserves a more significant debate.
The royal wedding is a national cultural event. There was a time, however, when it would have also been naturally understood as an expression of national interest and international ambition. If the British public hasn’t been thinking of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle as diplomatic actors involved in a venture of international relations, that is a sign of their present roles — but also of how much Western diplomacy has changed since the days when royal marriages were major political events.
From the Punic Wars (264–146 b.c.) and the Hundred Years War (1337–1453) to the Arab–Israeli wars (1947–) and the so-called War on Terror (2001–), some wars never seem to end. The dilemma is raised frequently given America’s long wars (Vietnam 1955–75) that either ended badly (Iraq 2003–11) or in some ways never quite ended at all (Korea 1950–53 and 2017–?; Afghanistan 2001–). So what prevents strategic resolution?
Is Donald Trump reviving the “madman theory” of diplomacy, introduced by Richard Nixon to instill fear in America’s adversaries? North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s description of Trump as “mentally deranged” suggests that such a ploy might be working – or else Kim is more right than he, or the rest of us, would like.
The future for the US-Russia relationship after the American attack on a key Russian ally is, like Trump himself, hard to predict. Many observers believe that outwardly, Putin is feigning anger at the move but will be patient, recognising Trump’s current difficulty in moving towards a closer relationship in view of the scrutiny he is under at home.
The first face-to-face meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump on April 6 and 7 will have profound political, economic and military implications for the world, especially the Western Pacific.
When President Xi Jinping meets his US counterpart Donald Trump, tea rather than beer might be the best way to oil the wheels of the diplomatic relationship. Xi was quick to cross the cultural divide and share an ale with former British prime minister David Cameron in 2015 but that tactic will not work for Trump, a teetotaller since the death of his brother from an alcohol-related illness in 1981 at the age of 43.
Washington, which is believed to want a woman in the U.N. role, has been backing Argentina’s foreign minister in the secretive selection process, U.N. sources say. Meanwhile, U.N. sources say Russia is angling for a female Bulgarian diplomat with family ties to the Soviet Union, a nod to its desire to see an Eastern European in the job.
While economics works well between China and the United Kingdom, it is a tricky diplomatic route for Cameron and he will have to ensure that his newfound bonhomie with Xi doesn’t make the old ally in Washington too nervous. He will have to carefully walk the fine line between keeping old, historic ties in place and nurturing his new relationship with an ambitious China that would only want more in the long run.
