Predictably, present US efforts at exercising suzerainty, as it were, over the rest of the West and outside are facing stiff challenges. The foremost counter-challenge to these hegemonic aims comes from the EU. Next in line is an Arab plan to reconstruct and develop the war-shattered Gaza Strip, in an outright rejection of President Trump’s ‘Middle East Riviera’ fantasy.

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was forthright and lucid recently in Europe’s decision to stand by Ukraine in the face of the Trump administration’s efforts to implement a so-called peace plan involving, among other things, the selling of Ukraine’s mineral rights to the US. As should be expected of an extreme Right wing US Republican regime, there are no pretensions here to be on the side of principled politics. On the other hand, monetary gain is the uppermost consideration for the regime.

The EU chief said: ‘We are living in the most momentous and dangerous of times. This is a moment for Europe, and we are ready to step-up.’ She had gone on to elaborate to the West on a ‘5 part plan to strengthen Europe’s defense industry and provide “immediate” military support to Ukraine.’

Right now, Europe cannot measure up to the US in terms of the quantity and monetary value of military assistance supplied to the Ukraine and other ‘trouble spots’ that matter to the West, but what is noteworthy is that Europe is losing no time in coming out with viable defense plans to support Ukraine in its wasting war with invasive Russia.

That is, Europe is very much on the ready with a ‘strategic plan’ to implement its international defense commitments with or without the US. It is aptly called ‘Re-Arm Europe Plan’ and is worth 800 billion pounds. In fact, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is already on record as having promised to deploy ‘boots on the ground and planes in the air’, if required, in defense of Ukraine’s sovereignty.

At present, though, there is recognition on the part of Europe and the US that they need each other for the achievement of their respective international policy aims but Europe’s defense plans for Ukraine amply demonstrate that, going forward, it would not be a question of Europe tamely falling in line with the US.

To express it bluntly, it would boil down to the US not going unchallenged in its efforts at exercising any suzerainty over the rest of the West.

Besides, the world is yet to be informed of any principal peace component in the US’ plans to end the Ukraine war. The sale of Ukraine’s strategic resources to the US does in no way equate with any peace plan which should not only involve Russia getting back to its internationally recognized boundaries with Ukraine but should also feature a recognition by Russia of Ukraine’s sovereignty or its right to self-determination. In the absence of such conditions, any purported peace plan would need to be dismissed as a farcical document.

In fact the Trump administration is right now providing the world with quite a few ‘laughs’. For instance, why should Ukraine be ‘grateful’ or ‘thankful’ to the US? If in the past the US provided military assistance to the Ukraine, it did so for strategic and other reasons that dovetailed with the US’ national interest. It was not a matter of the US bestowing any kindness on Ukraine.

Besides, President Trump cannot expect any excessive cordiality from a visiting head of government by ‘talking down’ to him, which is what the Trump administration did recently when Ukraine’s President visited the White House. Civility in bilateral relations, after all, is a two-way process.

As notable a challenge to the US as that being posed by the EU comes in the form of an Arab plan to take on the reconstruction and development of the Gaza in the event of some peace and stability descending on the region.

Arab leaders at an emergency summit recently in Cairo reportedly evolved a $53 billion reconstruction program for the Gaza, which is seen as outrivaling the US plan to ‘take over Gaza’ and turn it into a ‘Middle East Riviera’. Further, the Arab countries concerned are firmly opposing moves by the US to move out the Palestinian community from the Gaza for the furtherance of its fanciful project.

The latter development is doubly significant in view of the fact that the Arab plan also endorses the ‘Two State’ solution in the Middle East, which for most sensible sections, is the only path to a measure of stability in the region. If the Arab plan meets with wide acceptance, the next step for the Arab world would be to enlist Western support for it. Subsequently the difficult undertaking of getting Israel to agree to it should be taken on by concerned sections of the international community. It goes without saying that the plan should also satisfy the security needs of Israel.

Thus, it would not be a question of the US acting unilaterally or going ahead without being challenged in the implementation of its plans for the Ukraine and the Gaza. The sizeable opposition it would be facing on both fronts would require it to negotiate with the utmost insight with both the EU and the Arab world.

Moreover, there are ‘bread and butter’ issues that ought to stop the US in its tracks and make it think long and deep on the consequences of the cavalier course it is currently taking in international affairs. For instance, stock markets worldwide have been rattled by US plans to slam unacceptably high tariffs on exports from Canada, Mexico and China. Since these tariffs would not go unchallenged by the countries concerned, the world would need to brace for prolonged and destructive trade wars among the above countries which would have the effect of adding to the cost of living bill of citizens the world over.

Needless to say, excessive economic pressures are the ideal breeding ground for stepped-up social and political discontent anywhere. Considering the foregoing, the Trump administration would do well to bring a measure of perceptiveness and foresight to bear in its management of international affairs. Among other things, it would do well to rein-in its fatal tendency to dabble dangerously in populist politics.