Unfortunately I've not been able to follow the proceedings of the UNGA. But did the US President really say that? If so, then though it's quite worrying, all hope is not lost.

Remember the US President is elected for a term, and though he is the head of state and government, he also has his personal opinions - opinions which indeed has much effect on the direction of US foreign policy.

But we must also not forget that apart from the President, the US also has several institutions and structures that eventually shape the overall policies of the country. Simply put, the US does not operate by decrees of a President - it is a democratic state and things can change at any point in time - elections, impeachment, judicial reviews, etc. all serve to curtail the whims and caprices of any single individual or group of persons.

In other words, no single person or group of persons can boldly claim and actually cause to effect the rejection of "the ideology of globalism" and the embracing of a so-called "doctrine of patriotism."

On the question of the "new beginning of international order" and "bankruptcy of globalism", I will simply say YES to the former and NO to the latter. However, the "new beginning" in question is NOT the one being suggested by the US President, rather, it a new multi-polar system which is gradually been established.

My humble opinion.

Novus ordo seclorum?

Thomas,

yes, President Trump really said it. You can find it originally here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-73rd-session-united-nations-general-assembly-new-york-ny/

Harun,

I did not want to cause some associations, but yours is the most reasonable

Best regards

Osobka,

Of course, American politics is not a single person's policy. The system "chek and balances" is used there. But the US president won support in his "America frst" program. This means that he wants to strengthen the state in every respect: military, economic, political ...

I think if Mr. Trump continues to ruthlessly contradict the European Union, China, Russia and Iran, in that case we can expect a long-term crisis in the world.

In all this, American big capital plays a major role.

In any case, the American Democrats can change the matter in the upcoming elections.

It is possible to happen and "mpeachment".

Osobka,

The question of the new world order is a very interesting and important issue. However, it seems that the scientific circles do not attract enough attention. Is it exclusively a political issue or has some other aspects?

Of course, this is a multi-dimensional question.

We know that after the First, and especially after World War II, America was the leading democracy in the world. However, many people today ask the question - where does modern-day America go, what does the Tramp administration want? Is US democracy threatened? Has America started today through egocentrism? These questions ask for answers.

We hope that the American people will have the strength to continue through humanism, democracy, peaceful active coexistence, peace and stability ...

Harun,

I'd like to be precise and constantly analyze President Trump speech. I think two questions you asked "where does modern-day America go?" and "what does the Tramp administration want?" probaby already has answers.

If we read thoroughly his remarks given to 73rd Session we can find the following details:

"Here in the Western Hemisphere, we are committed to maintaining our independence from the encroachment of expansionist foreign powers. It has been the formal policy of our country since President Monroe that we reject the interference of foreign nations in this hemisphere and in our own affairs."

Forgive me for letting me briefly explain to those who can read that President James Monroe gave a message to Congress (December 2, 1823), in which he outlined the principles of US foreign policy, i.e. Monro's doctrine popularly termed "America for Americans". There are many indications that Trump is returning to Monroe's doctrine. It is perhaps interesting that the Americans themselves may not be aware of this historical connection.

It's no secret that Trump is not a fan of globalization. His attitude towards the EU is highly controversial, and Brexit rather enjoys him than sad. His actual attitude towards China, despite declarations of good personal relations with President Xi, is also widely known as highly skeptical. He gave that expression by saying:

"I have great respect and affection for my friend, President Xi, but I have made clear our trade imbalance is just not acceptable. China’s market distortions and the way they deal cannot be tolerated."

Finally Tramp said:

"As my administration has demonstrated, America will always act in our national interest."

This is a very clear declaration for me. I know well that the speeches of every American leader (even such as Tramp) is a resultant of the influence of many internal factors. So if these words fall on the General Assembly, I think that we know well that it is time to take more responsibility for ourselves. Both in Europe and beyond...

Best regards

Osobka,

Basically, I agree with your vision of things.

However, it should be kept in mind that it will be Americans vote for Congress in November of 6. This, in fact, will be a sort of referendum on President Trump and his politics.

Some forecasts say that on the "midterm" elections, Tramp Republicans will lose the Lower House, so the Democrats will most likely launch the impeacment procedure.

That would make the Tramp administration change its policy.

So, if we think that Tramps policy is problematic for international relations, then the forecasts are not completely black.

But, it remains to wait and see.

Osóbka, i agree that it's a troublesome matter, however couldn't be consider a new order given that the return to predominancy of patriotric proteccionism to internationational politics has been a well known secret since even before the start of "War on Terror"

Harun,

thank you a lot for your answer. You're absolutely right the following election in US will give us acutal view on President Trump position in American internal policy. But I dare to have doubts if it could make a change in US external relations.

President Trump looks like a person with very, very strong faith on the things he is doing. People with such strong faith usually don't loose it.

Diego,

thank you, too. Probably yes, but, please correct me if I'm wrong, does "War on Terror" comes to end, or does't? :)

Best regards to all of you!

My biggest surprise was not what President Trump said, but the fact that most US commentators ignored the content of the speech and concentrated on the fact that people in the UN General Assembly Hall burst out in laughter when Trump remarked: "In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country."

The fact of the matter is that last year President Trump's worldview and key foreign policy priorities. His administration has accomplished many of these and others are in-progress. With Trump, "what you see is what you get" and I think that commentators should take his remarks more seriously.

My concern, as somebody who teaches courses on the United Nations, is that U.S. support for the post-1945 liberal international order - to use G. John Ikenberry's term - is eroding. And Trump is a symptom and not cause of this change in the national mood. Supporters of Bernie Sanders and Americans in the progressive wing of the Democratic party would not have a problem with a less internationalist foreign policy, the end of globalism or a revision of a global trading rules.

Can the liberal international order operate without a hegemon - as Robert Gilpin would say? Would Americans agree to shoulder the financial burdens of administering the international system?

Another troubling aspect of the speech, which did not get too much media coverage - at least in the U.S. - is Trump proposal to cut the UN peacekeeping budget from 28.5% to 25% and to only fund international bodies' voluntary funds rather than the assessed contributions. If this is carried out, this will further limit the UN's influence and hurt the prospects of advancing the 17 SDGs.

Trump wants to go back to the old days of American foreign policy when the U.S. was not constrained by international institutions and American power set the basis for U.S. interests. Hence, Trump made reference to Monroe Doctrine and reminded the audience that the U.S. military spending has increased to $700 billion and will be increasing to $716 next year.

For my views on last year's speech and my preview of this year's, you can check out my blog post in my new website: http://cyordan.name/ruminations-on-the-un/would-americans-support-a-reduction-of-the-u-s-s-contribution-to-the-u-n-regular-budget/

Dear Carlos,

Thank you for your answer.

As it happens in politics, it may not only be what the US president said, but also what he omitted in his speech. For me, it is unclear about the issues that the US has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council and the continued non-recognition of the International Criminal Court. I would expect the head of the American state to take a closer look at these two topics, which are extremely important for the further functioning of the international community. If such a thing still exists.

The reactions of the German and Russian media to the speech of President Trump were very characteristic. The Russian proved extraordinarily balanced while the Germans launched an attack on him. Die Welt even wrote that "Donald Trump and the UN do not match," and Sueddeutsche Zeitung said that his speech was "non-diplomatic, loud and aggressive." Is it right?