In the final analysis, both the ‘East’ and the ‘West’ are constructs. Consider the West first. Is it a geographical zone? Or a conceptual one? Is the west defined by a common set of values? Or standards? In the same vein, is the East more geographical or conceptual? A sober assessment lends itself to the conclusion that there’s elements of each in the construction of the west and the east. But both the west and the east get reified when placed in opposition to each other.
The dialectic that ensues makes something that is more a construction real. This is not to state neither the east nor the west exit. They do. But unlike self-serving theses like the one propounded by the late Samuel Huntington (The Clash of Civilizations) that anticipates the great Gibbons musings on the rise and decline of civilizations and tries to pre-empt it by presenting the east as the ‘natural other’ of the west. But given the world we inhabit both ‘entities’, normatively speaking, must work toward a shared future.
This is to state the obvious. The question is how?
To put the proverbial cart before the horse, it has been suggested that free trade, industrialism (or post-industrialism now) constitute the elements that can bind the East and the West together. This, however, constitutes fallacious thinking. The reasons pertain to the genesis and provenance of these. While trade and trading are perhaps a feature of history of contact between peoples, but not industrialism.
Robust, vigorous and deft industrialism is the concomitant of the Renaissance West – a reflection of the primacy of science. Scientism and their predicate reason. Industrialism then has a clear western ingress. While this is not to state that there is a deliberate design to employ industrialism to make the East western, but that is the logical corollary of the same. Does industrialism (or post-industrialism) then present a Hobson’s choice for the East?
Consider facts here.
The post-World War II, post-decolonization political economy paradigm of autarky which sought to protect the newly formed nations’ independence. In this schema, the recently decolonized nations desired industrialism and trade but at the same time sought to ‘contain’ it. The attendant paradigm came to be called autarky. While autarky hemmed in free trade and contained industrialism within the nation state, it may be critiqued on many ‘fronts’.
One that stands out is that it mostly benefited the elite of decolonized countries. (For the poor, it would appear, independence did not mean much in real terms. In fact, the subaltern classes of decolonized countries could be said to have formed the new underclass of these countries). The same, in a different permutation, combination and context, could be said of neo-liberal globalization.
While there was some amelioration of the condition of the subalterns and there was no real ‘trickle down’; mostly the elites benefited. The reconfiguration, re-ordering and reconstruction of ‘time and space’, through power-political and policy pushes - an enabler of the ICT’s revolution merely, or mostly, titillated the subalterns. (Refugee pulls into the west could be one manifestation of this).
From a structural perspective, free trade and industrialism – the latter a necessity and the former not entirely free - in the aggregate may have created a world economy. In the realm of the particular, the benefits were uneven, even in the incubus (ideological) of the same, the United States.
With respect to free trade, more an ideological construct than a concept with broad empirical robustness and a slant toward consumption (cheaper goods for, say Americans, at Wal Mart) but with clear negative political and welfare implications, it is not an unalloyed ‘good’. But industrialism (or post-industrialism) is a necessity. How then can the proverbial ‘circle be squared’?
There can or should be spread of either, in a non-zero sum, non-political and non-ideological way all over the world. This isomorphism must take place in a manner that is, to use President Donald Trump’s parlance, constitutes the best ‘deal’ for each nation.
In this schema, some degree of international trade based both comparative and competitive advantages of nations, is the sine qua none of both survival and prosperity. To protect both sovereignty and independence of all nations, some interdependence is important.
But free trade, free flow of capital (which is an ideal type) but when wedded to organization- industrial or post-industrial - and free flow of peoples (again an ideal type) will collapse nations into an ‘unknown unknown’ indeterminate condition. This condition can become both a proximate and distant cause for conflict.
A comprise is needed here – between capital, labor and factors of production - in a way that redounds to the betterment of the human condition without nations losing their sovereign identity. All this meshes into the ‘east west conflict’, cooperation and even dialogue. And it is here that Donald J Trump and his presidency become important.
Donald Trump assumes the presidency of the United States at a critical and delicate moment in both American and world history. Despite relative decline, the United States is a very important and powerful country. (How it sneezes determines whether the world catches a cold or not). But Trump is demeaned and discredited as a ‘narcissist, ‘self-serving transactionalist’ who neither has vision nor a strategy and so on.
(This would appear that this media portrait of Donald Trump is a motivated caricature. The ceasefire between Hamas and Israel - something that remained remote and a far-fetched possibility till just a little while ago - is now real - just before Trump enters the White House).
In a world defined by flux and fluidity, which present an opportunity to reshape world order and international relations, world politics and political economy thereof, Donald Trump, can re-shape and reset relations between the ‘east’ and the ‘west’ He can begin by crafting the international arena as a shared space by placing America as ‘primus inter pares’ (first among equals) - not as a hegemon that dictates to the world.
By creating a ‘living space’ for all, Trump’s America regains both legitimacy and credibility. This ‘shared space’ would be one where every nation has both a stake and a voice - of commensurate with a range of metrics. Catalyzing this is obviously not merely a political endeavor but one where a new bargain of political economy complements politics.
In this new bargain, the first idea, concept and practice to be given short shrift to ‘social Darwinism’ and hyper individualism - frauds and the conjurer’s tricks promoted by Ayn Rands of the world. In the schema of both, the ‘weak’ have nowhere to go and ‘fools die’.
But the world as we know, there’s the weak, the strong, the intelligent, the not so intelligent and so on. Each has a right to ‘life, liberty and happiness’ like any other.
The new president of America then must craft a social contract in America where the state sits atop society in a way that does not diminish liberty but protects both the liberty - negative and positive - of citizens and promote their welfare at the same time.
Re-international relations, Donald Trump must reach out to all nations of the world. A courtesy phone call to every national leader across the world would be a good starting point. It must be followed by frank and honest conversations about issues, themes and actionable agendas.
Trump must reassure world leaders of America’s benign intent- that he is neither seeking hegemony nor monopoly over power and what have you. The best illustrative and appealing ideal for world leaders must be America itself - a renewed America, that is true to its word, an America that is ethical and an America where liberty and equality is a reality for all Americans.
This broad political approach must be complemented by Trump making an address at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) where he unabashedly makes the case for Making America Great Again in a non-abrasive way and complementing the address by clearly and explicitly referring to a shared future for and of the world.
While history casts a shadow on the present, it need not on the future. Here Trump must make a plea to the ‘East’ and tell it that a unique constellation of events and forces and his ‘will to power’ have made him president of the world’s most powerful country.
But with great power comes great responsibility. This makes it incumbent upon him to, one, make America great again but two, America can only be great again when the world, or the nations and peoples of the world, be they from the ‘east’ or the ‘west’ see and make a buy in of a shared future.
This delineation and its reification are challenging and some of its elements might be contra some of Donald Trump’s instincts. But it, pared to essence constitutes a win-win for both America, the ‘East’ and the West - resetting the relations between the two.
Can Donald Trump see its merit and play a catalytic role in a bold and beautiful shared future – that redounds to the benefit of the human condition - for the world?
We can only hope for the best!
Have you liked the news article?