Bola A. Akinterinwa
The international community is currently and quietly witnessing an unconscious descent into an unprepared Third World War (WW III) in the making. The new pointers are not far-fetched: arrogant display of manifest power; competing sovereignty over islands located in thousands of miles away from their Metropolis (for example, the United Kingdom-Argentinian dispute over the Falklands); increasing hostility towards international migrants (U.S. new policy of non-preparedness to give visas to applicants claiming fear of persecution in their home countries); contestations on control of global shipping lanes and unravelling of world’s seas from Strait of Hormuz to Panama Canal), etc.
Without doubt, everyone wants peace, but peace is also a reason for war. Carl Von Clausewitz, the Germano-Prussian military theorist, has argued that whoever wants peace must prepare for war, meaning that war is an instrument of peace-making. The U.S. and Israel perceive Iran as a major threat to their existence and, therefore, want a sustainable or permanent peace by engaging in unprovoked wars of aggression against Iran. In this regard, it is frequently argued that economic prosperity prevents war or that democracies do not fight themselves.
To an extent, the postulations are valid. However, foreign policies of many democracies are still largely guided by the need to be more powerful than perceived rivals, especially in terms of self-sufficiency and self-reliance. The need to be more powerful than the enemy has also engendered the targeted killings of key political opponents and complete disregard for rules-based governance.
And more importantly, there is the rise in national protectionism which is particularly manifested in President Donald Trump’s doctrine of MAGA (Make America Great Again), disagreement with the policy of nuclear non-proliferation, Euro-American recolonization by manu militari, non-preparedness to democratise the United Nations, conscious disregard for international law, and forceful acceleration of annexation of occupied territories. This is not to mention the consciously AI-enabled misinformation in the conduct and management of global governance. These are the main definienda of the emerging WW III.
‘Make America Great Again’ as Major Dynamic
The most critical dynamic of WW III in the making is President Donald Trump’s doctrine MAGA. The MAGA is also a political movement with an ideological belief in white nationalism, supremacy and strong conservatism. MAGA members are proponents of use of violence to attain their objectives. They spread conspiracy theories and erosion of trust in democratic institutions.
As revealed in some polls, not less than 40% of supporters of MAGA believe that force should be used to preserve the American way of life and objectives of the movement. With conspiracy theories and media hostility, MAGA promotes misinformation, like the case of false claims and the 2020 alleged Joe Biden’s stolen election. If MAGA has much delight to undermine democratic norms and institutions, with much intolerance of political opponents, and if the MAGA not only believes in white nationalism, but also in Christian nationalism and racism, the quest for peaceful coexistence as being preached since the time of the 1955 Bandung Conference cannot exist in international relations.
As again noted on 24 July, 2024, by J. Michael Atherton, in his “The MAGA Cult’s Behavioural Problems,” (democrats.org), ‘MAGA folks seem unable to control themselves. Always shouting, cursing, and waiving war flags. Good people must ask why all this anger. Certainly not because of Biden.’ More significantly, Michael Atherton also had it that MAGA supporters ‘take the whole complex world and reduce it to black and white contrasts. No Gray, just one or the other. It is either Trump’s way or damnation. They will do whatever Trump says in order to remain a member of Trump’s cult. The complex outside the tribe scares them… MAGA crowds cannot manage their emotions, so they constantly erupt with anger and rage. They use harsh words, group charts, bizarre letters to the editor, travel in pseudo-military packs, war flagging, aggressive signage, and physical confrontation.’
United States foreign policy under President Donald Trump is largely predicated on this MAGA philosophy. Its manifestations are having catastrophic implications for the maintenance of international peace and security. The first manifestation of MAGA is in the form of tactical foreign policy, that is, ‘America First’ attitude. The attitude prioritises economic nationalism and protectionism, which is about reasserting American industrial dominance; transactional diplomacy, which seeks to secure more favourable terms for the U.S. and which considers foreign relationships as transactional deals and not as long-term alliances; as well as putting national sovereignty above supranational and multilateral alliances. ‘America First’ is a potent instrument of sovereignty which has no respect for the traditional international norms and state sovereignty.
For example, in an attempt to reassert U.S. spheres of influence in Latin America, the U.S. invaded Venezuela, and kidnapped Nicolas Maduro, the Venezuelan President, and his wife. They were flown to New York for immediate court trial. The ‘America First’ attitude imposes aggressive tariffs. It is about the challenge of traditional alliances, limitations of migration to the U.S., direct confrontation with opponents and consideration of U.S. global engagement as an evidence of American power. In the eyes of the U.S., Americans are considered the victims of foreign hostile institutions, and therefore, the U.S. should not be party to such organisations. In terms of international migration, it is considered as a national security issue, especially migration from the developing countries. In this regard, the policy of very strict border control is adopted. The inflow of migrants is reduced, and power rivalry with China is given priority.
And perhaps more disturbingly, MAGA policy considered the European Union as an extension of the domestic political opposition in the U.S. The U.S. sees Europeans as an extension of U.S. domestic affairs, only want to rip off Donald Trump and America. Consequently, this is why President Trump is eliminating ties binding the U.S. to Europe, and then transforming Europe in his own image, as well as intimidating any transatlantic resistance into submission. In essence, MAGA can be summarised as a policy adopted and meant for implementation at home and abroad.
At the domestic level, MAGA is built on a tripod of three methods: ‘elimination, transformation, and subjugation.’ The three methods are adopted to ‘eliminate the deep state, transform liberal America into nationalist America, and subjugate opponents into submission or capitulation.’ At the international level, the three methods are meant ‘to eliminate alliances and international commitments, transform Western liberal democratic allies into nationalist vassals and subjugate opponents into exploitative transactions.’
The problematic here is that, President Donald Trump of yesterday is also believed to have not changed, and therefore he is still the same President Donald Trump of today. In the same vein, the Donald Trump at the home level is not in any way different from Donald Trump abroad. This means that the operational area is only one, no differentiation between the domestic and external environments. Consequently, whatever policy decision is taken at the domestic level, is not simply meant for implementation by the U.S. citizens at home, but particularly by all other citizens of the world outside of the U.S. In this regard, it can be argued that Donald Trump wants to rip off the world but vehemently opposed to by several world leaders.
Put differently, Donald Trump wanted in September 1987 Japan, Saudi Arabia and some other allies of the U.S. to pay the U.S. for securing the Persian Gulf for their interests. Donald Trump also wanted in 2024 the Europeans to pay the costs associated with helping to bomb the Houthis in Yemen. Can there be one world with the U.S. as the global capital and one central command? How can Donald Trump govern the whole world bearing in mind how he conveniently sat down and watched the January 6th assault on the Capitol? If Donald Trump is a dictator, does he expect the whole world to be governed unconstitutionally and by dictatorship? There is nothing to suggest so.
At the level of the EU countries, the reaction has been the pursuit of the policy of strategic autonomy rather than seeking to avoid conflicts with the U.S. It should be recalled that, in June 2025, NATO allies, excepting Spain, not only accepted to spend 5% of GDP for defence, the EU also launched 90 billion euros loan package in order to sustain Ukraine independently in 2027. This is an action and message to Donald Trump that total dependence on the U.S. in matters of defence may sooner than later be thrown into the dustbin of history.
And perhaps more interestingly, the EU countries are pushing back on what they have called ‘imperial meddling’ in European affairs. The U.S. national security strategies tried to encourage local resistance in the EU to distance the EU from the U.S. In the same vein, the EU strongly supported Denmark in rejecting the U.S. geo-economic claims over the Greenland in early 2026
Other Third World War Dynamics
Opinion on the making of another World War is still mixed. Some observers believe it is still remote. Many even think that the deployment of nuclear weapons cannot but be a rarity. Whatever is the case, there is no disputing the fact that a third World War is gradually in the making. There are several social, political, economic and military dimensions to the making of the war. There are also technological innovations in which machines now replace workers. Robot, a word coined in 1921 and meaning machines replacing people, has become a critical issue. And true enough, the current technology revolution is driven by Artificial Intelligence (AI). Apart from this and the impact of digital on children, assassination of key political opponents is being made the new normal now in the conduct, management, and maintenance of international peace and security.
The politics of nuclear non-proliferation also has the great potential to generate World War III. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, simply referred to as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), was opened to signature on July 1, 1968 simultaneously in three depository capitals: Washington, D.C., London, and Moscow. On that very day, 59 countries signed the agreement. The NPT entered into force on March 5, 1970 following the ratification by the three depository States and 40 other countries. Considering the potential dangers of nuclear proliferation, the validity was extended in 1995 indefinitely.
The Treaty which was done by 191 Member States of the United Nations, is defined by three objectives: prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons (principle of non-proliferation), facilitate nuclear disarmament, as well as promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. These objectives are made difficult to attain because of their politicisation. There is the first difficulty of some nuclear states that are outside the NPT framework: India, Israel, and Pakistan. They never signed the NPT agreement. A second difficulty is the possibility for any signatory to withdraw from the Treaty. For example, North Korea withdrew from it in 2003. Another difficulty is the unfaithfulness of the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) which are also the P-5 of the United Nations Security Council (U.S., UK, Russia, China, and France). The NWS pledged commitment not to aid and abet the proliferation of nuclear weapons but never kept to it.
Even in the beginning of the negotiations, China and France refused to sign the agreement in 1968. They only acceded to it in 1992 after they felt satisfied with the perfection of their nuclear capability. North Korea that initially signed the NPT opted to withdraw in order to develop its own nuclear capability. Thus, some have the natural right to develop nuclear capability while some forcefully acquired the capability. The forceful acquisition is acquiesced. The intention of Iran to also forcefully acquire the same nuclear capability is vehemently opposed to by the U.S. and Israel. This is largely the major dynamic of the current unrest in Iran, and particularly for the Irano-U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz as of today.
It is most dishonest not to be doing something concrete to facilitate nuclear disarmament provided for under Article VI of the NPT under which the NWS admitted still having 13,400 warheads in their combined stockpile. As observed by Wikipedia, ‘UN officials have said that they can do little to stop states using nuclear reactors to produce nuclear weapons. True enough, nuclear reactors are used in the production of commercial electricity,, marine propulsion, weapons production and research. If the UN says there is not much it can do to stop States from using nuclear reactors, what should the world do? Is this not a reason why the U.S. and Russia are not complying with the obligation of nuclear disarmament in spite of the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons? For as long as global governance will be guided by injustice, unfairness, holier than-thou or by better than thou, a WW III cannot be ruled out.
Refusal of the big powers to accept to democratise the UN, and particularly the UN Security Council (UNSC), is another major dynamic of the WW III in the making. Majority of the UN Member States have been complaining about the need to reform the UN, especially from the perspective of democratisation but the complaints have been to no avail. One reason for this is the statutory requirement of consensus of the P-5 provided in Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter according to which two-third majority vote seeking amendment of the Charter must include the vote of the P-5. In other words, the consensus of the P-5 is required but the P-5 has never unanimously agreed to this.
On the specific issue of veto, the P-5 are not against the expansion of the membership of the UNSC. They are also, stricto sensu, not against permanent membership of additional members of the Council. Their major issue of concern is the concession of veto to any new member. The P-5 use the veto basically to protect their national interests and not for the protection of those of the collective UN interests. This has made the UNSC inefficient in field operations. The UNSC that has the mandate to maintain international peace and security engages more in unilateralism. Russia’s special military intervention in Ukraine and Israelo-U.S. assaults on Iran are manifestations of the unilateralism.
The inefficiency of the UN cannot be separated from the liquidity crisis with which the organisation has also been faced. Member States do not settle in full and promptly their assessed dues. This has not always been helpful to operational capacity. Efforts are being made to change from the UN ‘Culture of Process’ to the ‘Culture of Results’ but this cannot be done with poor funding. The U.S. is the biggest donor but has cut down on its funding in matters of peace initiatives.
Perhaps the intention of President Donald Trump to possibly replace the UN with his own Board of Peace should be looked into more critically, especially in terms of the implications. The Board of Peace is chaired by President Trump. When he is still in power, the Board can still have meaning. When he will no more be in office, will the Board still be relevant? Can the Board really replace the UN? If the UN is to be replaced, what will happen to the UN Headquarters in New York? If the UN offices elsewhere are maintained and the UN moves its headquarters away from New York, can the U.S. have any international relevance? The U.S. is able to engage in jots of braggadocio because it is not only playing host to the UN headquarters, but also because of its membership of the many UN agencies. If the U.S. withdraws from the UN or gets the organisation dismantled or replaced, which platform will the U.S use for self-projection? Which countries will want to join his Board of Peace as a new international organisation?
Without any whiff of doubt, MAGA is a major threat to international peaceful coexistence, maintenance of international peace and security, and peaceful settlement of disputes in international relations. The likelihood of an AI-enabled misinformation on the intentions of Donald Trump also has the great potential to incite an unprecedented hostility vis-à-vis the United States. Disregard for international law is an invitation to lawlessness on the part of those countries currently observing the U.S. in its attempt at recolonization by manu militari and technology. Forceful annexation of sovereign territories for whatever reason is lawlessness and, therefore, unacceptable. The dangers MAGA poses at the domestic level of the United States are much concerning, but not as greatly threatening as it is in Africa. The MAGA, with other supporters, account for about 40% of the U.S population. They believe that the use of force to achieve political objectives is legitimate. In fact, millions of Americans now support political violence to achieve political objectives. This mania of thinking must never be allowed to be brought to Africa, as continental integration in Africa is still very fragile. Africa’s zero tolerance for unconstitutional change of Government does not mean much. African unity, based on the current Malian experience, has the potential to destabilise the whole of Africa because of foreign involvements. This cannot but be so, because there is yet to be any meaningful impact of the US troops in Nigeria in the containment of terrorism in Nigeria.
Credit: Source link
