Trump takes the American cultural wars to international level at U.N.
How the U.S. president’s speech played around the world
The United Nations General Assembly has long been the venue of idealism, solemn pledges of a brighter tomorrow, and a mandate of the nations of the globe to adhere to each other and act cooperatively.
On Tuesday, it turned into something different: the place where U.S. President Donald Trump brought America’s sour culture wars to an international stage.
His campaign style and grievance rhetoric gave international audiences and diplomats much to ponder.
To Americans, who were watching the speech, it was embarrassing. To the world, it was an eye-opener. Polarized politics in Washington may tint the way international relations are done, whether in terms of migration or global warming.
Immigration and climate as global battle line
Much of Trump’s speech was focused on two points: first, mass migration and what he called the “hoax of global warming.” He called green energy programs frauds that were killing the majority of our world, as countries were threatened that they would not pass without ditching renewable energy investments.
As he was concluding his speech, he moved to his second grievance: Trump asserted that immigration is very expensive. It is a fundamental threat to peace and prosperity across the globe, he said.
The language was familiar to his home he said: a depiction of migrants through a lens of national security, and climate action as a trap on the economy. However, when Trump gave these themes the U.N. treatment, it was the entire world needed to battle according to his commands.
A Rally of a Speech Like That
Trump’s speech was observed by many. It was at times lighthearted, sometimes antagonistic, featuring rips at the prior administration of President Biden — and a few accounts of malfunctioning teleprompters and escalators. He boasted about “ending unendable wars” within eight months in Middle East, Southeast Asia and African since beginning his second term in office.
“I had completed seven intolerable wars in eight months. This is not done by an American president so far, they were unendable. You’re never going to get them solved. Some were going for 31 years…”
But those claims were quickly corrected by international analysts and fact-checkers. Not all of these disputes are resolved, and some were not stopped but suspended. However, the flourish underlined the fact that Trump loves credit and said that everyone believes that he deserves to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Global perspective exporting America culture wars
For foreign diplomats, analysts, and pundits, the most memorable aspect of the speech was not Trump’s self praise, but that the United States domestic matters were laid at the feet of other nations.
Behnam Ben Taleblu of the Foundation of Defense of Democracies, told the Christian Science Monitor that the appearance of Trump demonstrated the pronounced difference between his second term and the presidency of Biden, one-term: “What we heard was … American president quoting in the U.N. two areas of issues in the center of American political polarization in a way never heard before.”
Such framing — making climate action seem a scam and migration seem an existential threat — compelled the 193 member states to view global challenges in the perspectives of partisanship of the U.S.
The Christian Science Monitor attended to higher dynamics.
“The end of multilateralism that Donald Trump drew was not as near to the end of multilateralism as the end of multilateralism into which United States was the core.”
That is, the vision of Trump is not the withdrawal, but the demand of cooperation, though only modelling the internal culture wars of America.
Since Gaza to Ukraine selective moral outrage Gaza to Ukraine
The only applause accorded to Trump was when he urged Hamas to “set the hostages free now!” — a phrase that resonated with the current war in Gaza. But he mentioned only Hamas in regards to the war in Gaza, leaving Israel, recently accused of genocide by the United Nations Human Rights Council, unmentioned.
However, Russian President Vladimir Putin was in the verbal line of fire regarding the war that was still being waged in Ukraine.
He threatened to impose sanctions on Russia, but only in case European countries cease to buy its energy: Europe, he said, “is fueling the Russian military machine through energy. As it turned out, in a later post about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump would claim that, with the help of Europe, “Ukraine could free occupied lands.”
Such positions, stern as they were, served to emphasize the selectivity of the Trump outrage customer service to the enemies of America but transactional paeanism of friends.
Questioning the U.N.’s value
All through the speech, Trump doubted the usefulness of the U.N. itself, describing the U.N. as a breeder of global issues rather than a tribunal of solutions. He denounced the migration policies of the multinational organization, and proposed that bilateral deals and great-power politics were more practical.
The executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, Trita Parsi, cautioned that such an attitude is in line with his overall mistrust of international institutions:
“His withdrawal from multilateral agreements … showcased an unusual disdain for international institutions and cooperation.”
On social media, Parsi added:
“It is reasonable to expect that once Trump comes in, he will go after the ICC and the ICJ in ways that profoundly damages the multilateral system.”
This cynicism caused larger doubts to many onlookers: whether the U.N. is marginalized, who shall set the world standards and conflict management? And how will smaller countries compete in a world where the domestic struggles of America are exported to the international arenas?
Style or substance?
Not all people believed that what was expressed by Trump at U.N. was a true pivot. The large apparent likenesses are elsewhere rejected by Behnam Ben Taleblu as providing no more than a change of style rather than a change of substance on part of world leaders (The Guardian). Here his critic finds his reflection: did the speech of Trump represent a reorientation of the American international policy or a rejoinder at theatrical antics aimed at exporting the American oratory to other countries?
To a large number of capitals, the response is not as important as the outcome. Although considered theater, the speech can affect the immigration, climate and security discussions in other countries, empowering local extremists and weakening weak coalitions.
Perceptions as a correspondent
I heard most of what Trump covered on that specific day as an international journalist; however, it was the setting that caught me off guard. And it was surreal to watch the representatives of the world not meet the airing of Americans fighting each other at home with a call for mutual interests.
There were those who laughed at his jokes, and there were those who shook their heads. Diplomats, despite any off-the-record bemoaning of American partisanship, were sucked into it. To people who admire the boldness of Trump, it was another show of American strength. To others, it was an indication that Washington takes the polarization of America to the global political arena.
While the U.S. is embarrassed, it matters globally
The performance of Trump in the U.N. was embarrassing to many Americans.
According to U.N. program director Richard Gowan at the International Crisis Group, Trump makes himself blunt.
“I look forward to Trump’s return to U.N.G.A.,” he tweeted, adding a quote from his linked piece in Foreign Policy. “Trump (probably) won’t leave the international body — he will just continue to make its life difficult.”
Gowan predicted Trump’s speech near-perfectly to Reuters nearly a week earlier.
“He enjoys the General Assembly. He enjoys the attention of other leaders,” he said. “My suspicion is he is going to be using his appearance to boast about his many achievements and perhaps once again, make the case he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.”
As a foreign correspondent, I was touched by the discrepancy that Americans shuddered at the image of domestic struggles of their own on the global television screen, and that a decent proportion of foreigners were left virtually speechless, even amused. This dichotomy can point out the fact that initially, Trump was not just exporting the U.S. culture wars but globalizing a feeling of discomfort that would follow.
Trump’s speech showed that U.S. culture wars do not stop at the national level anymore. Once he stated that climate policy is a hoax and migration is a global existential threat, it was used in the global discourse. Countries are under pressure to pick sides — either follow the framing of Trump, or stand against it.
There are risks in exporting polarization:
- Diplomatic tensions make it difficult to cooperate regionally.
- Political contagion causes political leaders in other countries to employ the same rhetoric to restore political support back at home.
- Global issues such as climate change and migration are turned into partisan issues.
The speech at the U.N., in a nutshell, re-emphasized the argument from Trump that the U.S. is dominating the world with its goods, policies, and security, declaring that now it is exporting its own culture wars too.
Ishraq Ahmed Hashmi is a freelance journalist and commentator who concentrates on accessibility, media ethics and social justice. His work discusses the way in which inclusive practices can transform journalism and open up the engagement of people. Follow him on LinkedIn at /in/Ishraq-Ahmed-Hashmi.
This is analysis. It looks at a situation or trend through facts, figures, public reactions, and expert response.
Want more of the Word?
Become a Guide Patron
Love what you’re reading? Want a to read more? Become a Guide Patron and support The Word — and the entire of the EAPM Style and Accessibility Guide.