A NEW WORLD ORDER?

Are we moving, have we already moved, to a new world order where raw power brazenly trumps values? Thus far the world has extolled, at least on paper, or in constitutions and laws, the value of equal rights.

We know, too, that the world can practice equality. We see this virtue in places like a public park, the voting booth, a bus, a sidewalk, a public eatery. Whether you are physically strong or disabled, rich or homeless, defenseless or armed, you enter, enjoy, and exit such places freely and like anyone else. Again, the world usually honors the idea of caring for someone in need. It finds something lacking if you don’t help, when you can, the victim of an accident or assault.

“Idealism ain’t dead,” I wrote on March 4 in this space. As I start typing this column an hour before the much-heralded Trump-Putin conversation is to begin, I feel certain that a deal for a ceasefire in Ukraine will be announced. Neither the White House nor the Kremlin would encourage worldwide expectations unless a deal’s essentials have been agreed upon.

Any deal will be hailed in the names of large numbers of Ukrainians and Russians (and North Koreans and who knows who else) whose lives would have been ended by the war’s continuance. I too will welcome the war’s official end, although the actual silencing of all guns, rockets, and drones may be beyond the capacity of the Putins and Trumps of our world to arrange.

But even while welcoming a ceasefire, I wouldn’t call it, or any deal accompanying it, a victory of ideals or values. The deal will be seen as a major milestone in our world’s return journey to what will be called “national interests”. Trump has been saying day after day that the US must above all take care of its own interests. America first! Entanglements beyond its borders must end, although he’d be more than glad, Trump freely admits, to extend the US’s borders.

INVITED NO REBUKE

The Trump-Putin virtual summit was barely preceded by – it almost coincided with - the killing, in a massive bomb attack, of hundreds of children, women, and men in Gaza. A media release by the Israeli Defense Force claimed that “a political echelon” in Israel had ordered the attack in response (it was alleged) to Hamas’s breach of a promise to return, dead or alive, every hostage it had taken. This latest large-scale slaughter in Gaza has invited no rebuke or even regret from any major nation. Palestinian lives are not human lives.

The days just before the latest attack on Gaza also saw large-scale US attacks on targets in Yemen, carried out in the cause of subduing if not eliminating Iran’s allies in the Middle East.

Also coinciding with the grand virtual summit is a visit to Asia by Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence and former presidential candidate. A former military officer as well, and possessing links to Hawaii and American Samoa, Gabbard became a Hindu in her teens. A Democrat for many years and an outspoken foe of militant Islam, she turned Republican in 2024 and endorsed Trump. Hindu nationalists exercising power in India have given Gabbard the warmest of welcomes in New Delhi, from where she will go on to Thailand and Japan.

Israel’s triumphs, the weakening of Arab states, Iran’s isolation, and the rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in India add up to a large setback to the Muslim world, even as much of the rest of the world seems to be coalescing.

THE NEW ORDER’S MAP

Is that going to be some kind of a map of the new world order? The US, Russia, Israel, India, and some other countries dominate, while the Muslim world and maybe large parts of Latin America and Africa are asked to remain content in humble positions? Where does Europe fit into all this? What happens to NATO? What about China, Japan, Korea?

The world was given a hint of an emerging new order about three weeks ago, on the 24th of last month, when the US joined Russia in voting against a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling to reaffirm Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and Israel, on its part, supported the two formidable powers who were now in unexpected agreement.

Israel’s vote, which according to the Times of Israel was “likely an overture to US President Donald Trump,” marked “the first time the country has voted against Ukraine and with Russia since the war began.” Until then, Israel had “maintained a delicate balance between its principled support for Ukraine and its need to preserve ties with Moscow, due to its influence over Syria,” the newspaper added.

Despite the joint stand of the US, Russia, Israel, and a few other countries, the resolution critical of Russia was adopted by the UN with an overwhelming majority, with 93 member states agreeing to condemn Russia’s 2022 invasion and demanding that it return the Ukrainian territories it had occupied in the course of the war. Alongside Israel, the US and Russia, opponents of the resolution included North Korea, Hungary and 13 others. China, India, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and Argentina were among 65 countries that abstained.

The Times of Israel story also pointed out that in a CNN interview on February 23 Trump’s special envoy for talks with Moscow, Steve Witkoff, had “declined to blame Russia as the war’s sole instigator and suggested that Ukraine’s desire to join NATO had provoked the invasion.”

“WENT VERY WELL”

As I continue to write these lines, CNN reports that the summit has ended. “President Vladimir Putin’s phone call with US President Donald Trump went very well,” a Russian source with knowledge of the call tells CNN.

Putin’s special envoy Kirill Dmitriev says in a post on X that “the world has become a much safer place today” due to Putin and Trump’s leadership. Earlier, White House deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino said the call was “going well” when he provided a status update on social media.

Details will soon be with us, but it seems clear that “the strong shall rule” view is prevailing in much of the world. Idealism isn’t dead and will never die, for the human spirit is immortal. Yet there are times when values such as an equal say for all, irrespective of strength or weakness, are shoved aside. This could apply to questions within a nation, between nations, and in the world as a whole.

Some might suggest that democracy in the US is taking a beating, but others would interject, “Wait a minute, haven’t you just heard that the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, has made a rare public statement disputing President Trump’s call for impeaching a judge who had ruled against a deportation order?”

Someone else would point out that courageous Jewish NGOs in the US are persisting in their criticism of Israeli attacks on Gaza and the West Bank. The world order may be questioned and from time to time revised, but silencing America’s individuals and democratic institutions will not be an easy operation.

Here, in any case, is the White House’s official statement after the summit:

“Today, President Trump and President Putin spoke about the need for peace and a ceasefire in the Ukraine war. Both leaders agreed this conflict needs to end with a lasting peace. They also stressed the need for improved bilateral relations between the United States and Russia. The blood and treasure that both Ukraine and Russia have been spending in this war would be better spent on the needs of their people.

“The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace. These negotiations will begin immediately in the Middle East.

“The leaders spoke broadly about the Middle East as a region of potential cooperation to prevent future conflicts.... The two leaders shared the view that Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel.”

Let me end with a momentary glimpse of the India-China relationship, which is not unconnected to any new world order. After Prime Minister Modi recently told US-based podcaster Lex Fridman that normalcy had returned to the India-China border following Modi’s recent talks with President Xi Jinping, a spokesperson for Beijing’s foreign ministry, Mao Ning, said to reporters that a friendly "dragon-elephant dance" was the only correct choice for the two neighbours.