How History Begins Again

This BBC Podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. Tuppelsur per 24 minuter. Kicker här, ja det stämmer vi på hej på Ufter Eber i snabba leverans. Jag finns på lager. Vi plockar packar och skickar varna på direkten. I en värld som rör sig allt snabbare behöver leveranserna hänga med, så jobbet aldrig sannar upp. Hos oss får du mer än bara inredning. Du får snabba leveranser. Välkommen till Lagiprodukter! BBC Sounds, music, radio, podcasts.

You're listening to a point of view, a personal essay from a leading writer. Here's John Gray, said

When Margaret Thatcher was told of Francis Fukuyama's assertion that history had ended, she's reported to have responded the beginning of nonsense. With all due respect to the celebrated American theorist, a subtler thinker in some ways, than is generally realized, I think Thatcher's off the cuff reaction has stood the test of time.

Fukiyama's original article, published in the summer of nineteen eighty nine, was called The End of History There was a question mark in the title, which had disappeared when his book The End of History and the Last Man was published in nineteen ninety two. By then he seemed supremely confident that his prophecy was correct. The end of the Cold War meant the triumph of the Western idea and the unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism.

For Fukuyama, American style liberalism, or as he sometimes called it, democratic capitalism, was the ultimate destination for all of humankind, the final form of human government. All other systems were stages on the way to an idealized version of the type of government the United States had in the early 1990s. He recognized that Western societies are far from perfect. He even suggested that the end of history might be a sad time, and speculated that it might restart out of sheer boredom.

History has begun again, but not because we've grown tired of a life without struggle and conflict. The seeming triumph of liberalism was a phantom, generated by America's position as the unchallenged post cold war superpower, a supremacy that by its very nature was bound to be brief. Every empire imagines itself everlasting, only to decay from within and be succeeded by new contenders for dominance.

As I see it, Fukuyama's prophecy has been turned on its head. With the second coming of President Trump, the type of government Fukuyama expected to become universal seems to be passing away in the country in which it originated. In his first term of office, Trump stacked the Supreme Court with conservative judges he believed would be sympathetic to him.

To some degree the court has become politically partisan, and no one can be sure that the United States is still a constitutional republic in which law reigns over executive authority. Simultaneously, Trump is ditching economic liberalism. Top of his agenda, the protectionist tariffs he's imposing on Canada, and many of those who thought they were America's closest allies. Much of the world may be horrified by Donald Trump's behavior, but he's only doing what he's long said he would do.

In a speech to the UN in twenty eighteen, he warned that Germany was too dependent on Russian energy. He was much mocked, but surely right. He's been telling Europe it must pay more for its defence since at least twenty seventeen, and in this he's also right. He's always been opposed to global free trade, which he thinks has harmed America.

In short, he has always rejected the liberal order that, under presidents of different parties, has ruled America and the world since the Second World War. Why is everyone so surprised? Constitutions and regimes come and go as great powers rise and fall. Founded to be different from the old world, America was meant to be an exception. All Trump has done is show it is no different.

In my view, the principal flaw in Fukuyama's theory is his understanding of history as a series of ideas. This is history with a capital H, a logical and progressive process. The concrete reality is more chaotic and repetitive. History isn't the unfolding of any concept, but an unceasing jumble of events in which human beings struggle with recurring and only partly soluble dilemmas. There is no final form of human government.

As in the past, many human beings will live under tyrannies, theocracies, and empires of various kinds. Failed states and zones of anarchy will be common. Democratic nations are likely, I believe, to be rare and often short lived. To my mind, Fukuyama was misled by the peculiarly ideological quality of the Cold War. Though, like all large conflicts between states, it had geopolitical aspects, it was primarily a struggle between two Enlightenment philosophies, liberalism and communism.

Most of history hasn't been a war of ideas. Throughout much of its existence, the human animal has fought over ethnic and tribal divisions and religious allegiances, while great powers have struggled for control of territory and natural resources. One reason Trump wants a peace deal in Ukraine is because he wants an agreement with Putin over how to divide the country's mineral wealth. The mineral bonanza may be imaginary if it can't be cost effectively extracted.

The personal bond Trump believes he has with the Russian leader, until recently at least, may be a trap, and America and its allies end up the losers. That's how power politics, a game of illusions and deceptions, as much as of military force, tends to work. This is the history to which we've returned.

The power vacuum in Europe left by America's departure won't be easy to fill. Defence spending can be boosted, as recent announcements here and throughout much of Europe indicate. Whether the levels of funding that are being mooted will be enough to placate Trump remains to be seen. If not, is Europe ready to make the large reductions in social spending or raise the extra taxes that will be needed? Or will these cutbacks prove politically impossible?

In any case, we can't take charge of defending ourselves overnight. Replacing American weaponry, logistics, and communications will take years, according to some military experts, a decade or more. Europe is rearming as much as it can. A few weeks ago the Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, told his country's parliament that he wants to withdraw from treaties banning weapons judged to be especially harmful to civilian populations, such as anti personnel mines and cluster munitions.

He also mentioned Poland possibly developing nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia and South Korea are among several states reportedly doing the same. As America goes it alone, it's triggering a global arms race amidst mounting international anarchy. The risks of disaster are self evident, but Donald Trump shows no sign of grasping the dangerous implications of what he's doing. After his brutal ultimatum to Volodymyr Zelensky at their meeting in the Oval Office,

No one can have much doubt how Trump regards his allies. From being anchored in enduring relationships of trust, they become bargaining chips in short term transactions for speculative gain. For all its faults, the Pax Americana secured a sort of stability. Once it's gone, everything is up for grab.

The hallmark of realism in international relations is prudence and restraint. The new regime in the White House may well be ruthless in pursuing what they judge to be good for America, but they are not realists. Yet we can't turn our backs on Trump or his team. Some argue that the King's invitation to the president, which Keir Starmer presented to him in Washington, should be revoked.

I think that would be a grave error. It's in Britain's interest to cultivate good relations with the head of the world's most powerful state. There is, in truth, no practical alternative. Our future may depend on Trump's changing moods and who has his ear in a crisis. In two previous a point of view talks in September twenty sixteen and again in March of last year, I suggested that Trump's opponents were in the grip of a delusion.

They believed the flamboyant showman was a blip on the screen of time, whose deplorable supporters they could safely dismiss. they thought they could revert to a liberal order which, through their hubris, they themselves had undermined. We can't afford to make the same mistake. In a curious coincidence, history has returned together with Donald Trump. Like the fantasy of universal liberalism, his dream of making America great again will quickly fade.

Even so, there's no going back to a pre Trump world. It's going to be a rough ride, and we'd better buckle up. It's a parent's nightmare. So I said, Oh it's a boy. And I was holding my hands out ready to cuddle him and they took him away. Which at birth discovered with the gift of a home DNA test. The so called brother that we grew up with wasn't a brother, and there's someone out there who If he's still alive. Yeah. A race against time.

I don't want this woman to leave this earth not knowing what happened to her son. The Gift from Radio 4 with me, Jenny Kleeman. Listen now on BBC Sounds. Om någon i din närhet visar tecken på akut sötnöd, utfärj genast mun mot kakametoden. för dubbelsurf när du ska.