By definition, nationalism puts itself first.  Its rise across the globe bodes ill for international organisations like the UN, the WHO, or the WTO based on international collaboration.  It is a cause of deep concern for the future viability of internationally coordinated efforts to tackle climate change (which the Far-Right regards as a hoax), based on international coordination.  And it should be ringing alarm bells for Supra-National organisations like the EU.

One of the founding principles of the EU was to invest individual countries so totally in the success of the European Continent as a whole, that wars over territory would become unthinkable.  For 70-plus years, that precept held and, perhaps naively, we grew to believe that the era of territorial acquisition by force was over.  But then Putin invaded Ukraine in a blatant piece of Nationalist expansionism.  Whilst the Centre held in opposition to his military invasion, there was hope that the post-World War II order of respect for the rule of international law could survive. 

But earlier this week, we were treated to the unedifying spectacle of the US President-elect questioning the territorial integrity of Panama, Canada and Greenland (and thus Denmark) and in the process threatening to unleash a chaotic free-for-all across internationally-established borders.  Should we deduce that Putin’s adventurism in Ukraine has led Trump to the conclusion that the Modern World Order demands the return of the doctrine of Might is Right?  Only strength is respected? Territorial expansion is the new modus operandi of the early 21st Century?  Or is this a negotiating tactic?  

Whether this is an Art-of-the-Deal opening gambit, or a dead-cat diversionary tactic, the very fact that the Leader of the Free World is prepared to openly muse about coercive territorial acquisition will have Putin turning cartwheels of delight in his spacious Kremlin halls and Chinese hawks, covetously eyeing Taiwan, rubbing their hands in anticipatory glee. Leaders all over the world glancing enviously at the greener grass on the other side of their borders will be wondering whether the time is right for the oft-dreamt-of, long-delayed military incursion. The seriousness of the potential impacts can be seen from the riposte by French, German and Spanish leaders openly condemning the ‘threat to EU sovereign borders’.

Musk and European elections

Which, in a round-about sort of way, leads us to Elon Musk...What on earth is he playing at? His love-in with Reform, followed by his very public divorce from Farage and support for Tommy Robinson.  His direct and increasingly bitter fight with Starmer, Jess Philips, Ed Davey and the broader British political establishment.  His support for AfD.  His attacks on Olaf Scholz and Spain.

Some of this interference may be motivated by a genuine political desire to advocate for right-wing and anti-woke politics in Europe.  This Times article questions whether there is some historical/psychological explanation.  But I wonder whether the real intention here is the same as that which underpins Zuckerberg’s decision to roll-back Meta’s fact-checking. 

Leaving aside the happy domestic coincidence of the timing of Zuckerberg’s rapprochement with Trump (who, it just happens, will soon have the power to end the Federal anti-trust case against Meta, and amend regulations to relieve pressure on big tech and offer a supportive AI environment), the EU has some of the world’s toughest online content legislation constraining social media companies, requiring them to moderate content and giving the Commission the power to impose significant fines for failure to do so.  The UK has its own (similar) version of this legislation. 

Whilst there is no indication that Musk (or Zuckerberg) is operating under direct orders from Trump, there is equally no indication that the diatribes flung at allies are being met with disapprobation by the President-elect. Which raises the question of whether this is another Art-of-the-Deal gambit to use pressure on digital regulation as a negotiating lever in future trade deals, whilst simultaneously creating permissive space for right-wing social media companies, unconstrained by other jurisdictions’ legal boundaries (as Maria Ressa commented, Meta’s decision leads to ‘a world without facts’, which was ‘right for a dictator’ and scorched Zuckerberg’s claim that the decision to end fact-checking was about freedom of speech noting it was possible to make that claim ‘only if you want power and money’).  

If this is another negotiating ploy, then perhaps we should view Musk’s interference with European politics as another form of nationalist expansionism whose objective is to support regressive political parties and, in the process, undermine the EU?

Geopolitics of climate change

The prospect of Trump#2 has already had a significant impact on US domestic climate change policy.  Trump views climate change and net zero goals as part of a ‘woke agenda’.  He is not alone.  A Republican Party-backed backlash against US climate change legislation had begun before Trump even announced his intention to run again (perhaps anticipating his victory), with the largest US asset management firms facing legal action for adopting pro-climate policies to reduce reliance on coal; and the Republican judiciary Committee of the House accusing a financial firms of cartel behaviour in colluding to impose ESG goals on US companies.   Uncertainty over his approach to the Inflation Reduction Act has already chilled renewable investment in the US. 

US domestic climate policy has a significant extra-territorial impact.  Legal action against asset management companies has implications for European financial services companies as well.  Trump’s plans to deregulate the US energy sector and dismantle environmental protection rules whilst encouraging greater oil and gas exploitation will destabilise global hydrocarbon markets. EU (and UK) officials are working on plans to increase imports of US gas as part of any trade-off to avoid Trump’s punitive tariffs (with implications for other hydrocarbon-exporting States). JP Morgan is the latest of the six largest banks in the US to pull out of the global Net Zero Banking Alliance in response to Trump’s electoral victory.  And his pledge to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement (again) throws the global struggle against climate change into question: if the US ramps up hydrocarbon-based growth, how will China respond?  What about India?  Does US action strengthen or weaken protection of the Amazon (and other) rainforest?

Conclusion

Ironically, even though Trump’s political discourse is US-first nationalism, because his policy focus is driven by the intense struggle with China for natural resources (Greenland) and economic (Panama) and political supremacy, its impacts are global and hugely expansionist in effect.

The geopolitics of this are highly – perhaps uniquely – complex: how China responds; Russian reaction to US territorial expansionism; the implications for the Gulf of an increase in US hydrocarbon production; the consequences for the EU of a Trump#2 Presidency pulling at the seams of its unity; how a suddenly-isolated and exposed UK will navigate these increasingly choppy waters.  Companies seeking to trade across frontiers will be faced with exceptionally complicated and unpredictable challenges - being able to understand, predict and successfully mitigate the impacts of these geopolitical currents could make the difference between commercial and economic success or failure.