Connect with us

Features

How a historic victory really happens

Published

on

Last Saturday’s 2025 Australian federal election was a historic landslide victory for the Labor Party, led by Prime Minister Albanese. Labor, led by Prime Minister Albanese, won a historic landslide victory, winning at least 87 seats so far, far more than the 76 seats needed to form a majority government. This is the first time since the formation of the federal government in 1901 that the Labor Party has expanded its seat count in a re-election and has reshaped the national political landscape. Labor not only managed to take a number of seats from the Liberals in Queensland, but also made significant gains in key marginal electorates in Tasmania and Western Sydney. In contrast, the Liberals suffered a major defeat under Dutton’s leadership, losing not only the mid-range election, but also Dutton’s own seat in Dickson, which he had held for 24 years, making him the first opposition leader in Australian political history to lose a seat in a general election.

It has been suggested that the result of the 2025 federal election marks a significant turning point in Australia’s political evolution. Since the formation of the federal government, Australia’s political ecology has been dominated by two major parties, Labor and the Liberal Party, which has resulted in a stable system of two-party rotation. Under this system, when one of the parties gains a majority of seats, it becomes the ruling party, while the losing party becomes the opposition party, which not only monitors the government’s administration, but also prepares for the next election victory. In many cases, the difference in the number of seats won by the two parties is not very large. This time, the Labor Party won more than 60% of the seats in its re-election bid, which is rare in history.

Prior to the 1980s, Australia’s economic structure was dominated by agriculture, and the political center of gravity was therefore more in favor of the Liberal-National coalition, which represented rural and conservative interests, while Labor was often in the position of the opposition party. However, after the Rudd-led Labor Party defeated the Howard government in 2007, and caused Howard to lose in the electorate, this stable political situation began to change, and party turnover became frequent. In this federal election, Albanese became the first Prime Minister since Howard to lead a party to a second term, symbolizing Labor’s return to a dominant position and marking a major milestone for the party.

 

Mandatory voting key to Labor victory

Just because Labor won the 2025 election by a large margin does not mean that all voters are satisfied with its performance over the past three years. In fact, many Australians were still unhappy with the high cost of living, heavy housing burdens and slow wage growth before the election, and were even disappointed with the Labor government’s effectiveness in dealing with these issues.

However, under Australia’s mandatory voting system, all eligible voters must vote or be fined, so many voters had to make a choice even though they were dissatisfied with the ruling party. And because the Liberal Party, as the opposition party, was even more confused in this election, many voters ended up choosing the Labor Party, which was not as bad. To put it bluntly, they voted for the Labor Party out of distrust and unacceptance of the Liberal Party, not out of enthusiastic support for the Labor Party.

Take Victoria as an example, people’s swing towards the Labor Party in the two-party preference voting was only 1.8%, and the Labor Party’s primary vote only slightly increased by about 1%. It can be seen that voters’ support for the Labor Party in Victoria has not increased significantly, but is more like the result of having to choose. For these voters who are dissatisfied with the Labor Party’s performance, despite their grievances, they have no choice but to cast their votes to the incumbent ruling party in the face of an opposition party with confusing policies and a tarnished image, so as to seek for a seemingly more stable government. This is another aspect of the reality of the mandatory voting system. Votes are sometimes cast not out of trust and hope, but out of disappointment and rejection of another option.

Liberal Party’s boom and bust dragged down by ‘Trump’ persona?

Since the end of 2023, Australia’s opposition Coalition Leader David Dutton has maintained his lead in the polls and is seen as a formidable challenger. At the beginning of the year, polls showed Labor and the Liberals neck and neck, which boosted the morale of the conservatives. Dutton, who has been dubbed “Australia’s Trump”, has become more hard-line and conservative, advocating a crackdown on immigration and a reduction in the number of federal civil servants, a stance that is highly similar to that of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Dutton has not only publicly praised Trump on many occasions, but has even emulated his policies. Earlier in the year, polls showed that 34 percent of Australians thought he was the best candidate for prime minister to deal with Trump, but much of that perception came from the similarity in the two men’s images rather than out of trust.

On January 20, 2025, the day Trump was sworn in as President of the United States, the Australian Coalition also had a 51.1% approval rating, ahead of the ruling Labor Party’s 48.9%. Right-wing thinking seemed to be sweeping across the Western world. Only 40% of Australians thought Trump’s election was bad for Australia.

But Dutton was no Trump. He’s a tough guy, but he lacks a track record. During the election, Mr. Dutton made a number of gaffes, made unclear policies, and even proposed controversial policies such as drastic cuts to the public service and nuclear energy. This style of leadership has caused many voters to feel a lack of stability, and has even provoked alarm and resentment towards ultra-conservative politics.

At the same time, Trump’s controversial policies around the world are beginning to generate more opposition. By March 2025, dissatisfaction with Trump in Australia had risen to 60%, and climbed to 68% before the election. This anti-Trump sentiment quickly spread to other countries as well. Four days before the election in Australia, the Liberal Party in Canada took advantage of the public’s dislike of Trump to defeat the Conservative Party and become the ruling party. This seems to indicate that many elections around the world have been deeply affected by the Trump effect, with people becoming increasingly disenchanted with conservative forces.

This sentiment is also reflected in the shift in traditional vote share in the Australian election. According to census data, the Liberal Party retained only five of the 50 highest-income electorates in the country. In this election, voters in high-income electorates generally shifted from supporting the Liberal Party to Labor or independent candidates, with about half of the electorates swinging by more than 4%. This can be partly attributed to the fact that the middle class, affected by the US trade war, lost confidence in the economic outlook and switched to the Labor Party, which has more protection for them.

Speaking to The Australian, Mr. Dutton said Trump was “not someone to be feared, but a partner we can work closely with” and that the two were “easier to get along with”. Earlier too, 34% of respondents thought that Dutton would be suitable to deal with Trump, while only 18% thought Albanese would be more suitable. But as the US continues to push for trade protectionism, many Australians are coming to realize that what they really need is not a leader who can “get along” with Trump, but a prime minister who will stand firm against his policies.

What’s even more ironic is that in a post-election interview, US President Donald Trump said, “Albanese is a very friendly friend of mine …… I don’t know the other guy he ran against”, a statement that seemed to erase Dutton’s admiration and emulation of Trump for the entirety of his campaign, which ultimately appeared to be just wishful thinking. In the end, it seems to be just his wishful thinking – or is he just a throwaway move?

Furthermore, unlike the American electoral system, Australia has mandatory voting, and the electorate structure is more representative of overall public opinion. Under such a system, an anti-immigrant stance in a multicultural country with a high proportion of highly educated immigrants is an electoral disadvantage.

When Trump’s trade policies triggered global economic turmoil, more Australians realized the potential threat. Had Mr. Dutton responded to Trump’s election with a more detached, clear-cut approach, the situation today might have been more favorable for him. Instead, Dutton’s repeated association with Trump further dragged the race down and ultimately led the Coalition from a lead to a rout.

 

Voters prefered Local Policies to Noble Left-Wing Ideas

While ideology does have an impact on the direction of the vote, in today’s economically stressed society, ideals are not food. This is most evident in the Green Party’s loss. As the largest minority party in Parliament, the Greens have long advocated left-wing ideas, emphasizing environmental protection, social justice, democracy and peace, and had 11 seats in the Senate and 4 in the House of Representatives, with their support rate rising steadily.

However, the Greens suffered a crushing defeat in this election, and may even lose all seats in the House of Representatives. Even the Melbourne electorate, which has been held steadily by party leader Bent since 2010, is at risk.

It is worth noting that the Australian Federal House of Representatives uses a preferential voting system. Unlike other jurisdictions, voters must rank all candidates in order of preference. If the first choice is not elected, the votes are shifted in that order until a candidate receives a majority of support. Traditionally, the Liberal vote has favored the Greens, making it possible for a Green candidate to overtake Labor. However, this time, the Liberal Party received fewer votes, which in turn led to fewer votes being allocated to the Greens, and the Greens may lose all seats in the House.

Meanwhile, although the Labor Party also emphasizes on human rights and tolerance, it has obviously toned down its idealistic slogans in this election, focusing more on livelihood policies instead, and portraying an image of being close to the people.

The core issue of this election is undoubtedly the public grievances triggered by the cost of living crisis. Theoretically, this should have been an election in which the Liberal Party would have had an edge, after all, the party has long boasted of its ability to manage the economy. However, Dutton’s repeated attempts to be pro-people have backfired. For example, he cited his own son as an example of the housing difficulties of young people, only to be revealed as the owner of a number of properties. He was also challenged for “going off the reservation” when he put the price of an egg at A$4.20 during the debate. In contrast, the Labor Party has been vigorously promoting livelihood policies, emphasizing that social welfare will not be reduced, expanding free medical and healthcare services, and proposing tax cuts for all, giving voters the impression that the government is taking livelihood issues seriously. In addition, most of the candidates of the Labor Party are political veterans without any political baggage, which has successfully impressed the voters and stabilized the base.

 

How migrants Voted?

The Liberal Party’s main policy theme is to blame immigrants for Australia’s cost of living and economic problems, so cutting immigration has become the focus of his solution, the same as Trump. Criticisms of Chinese immigrants, including the perception of Chinese immigrants as Chinese spies, have further cost the Liberal Party almost all of the electorates with a large Chinese population.

It is important to remember that most immigrants do not grow up in democratically elected countries and do not have a good understanding of the development of Australian society, so it is not easy for them to understand how party policies affect social development. For many immigrants, they only look at which party’s policies are favorable to their lives. The Liberal Party has always emphasized the equality of all people, and has seldom provided policies and resources to promote the development of a multicultural society. Therefore, it has been said that the Liberal Party does not care about immigrants. If the Liberal Party fails to change this concept, the main reason for the depletion of votes for the party is that it has not been able to get the first generation of immigrants to recognize, understand and support its policies.

The Scanlon Social Cohesion Study 2024 shows that Australians generally believe and support the contribution of immigrants to Australian society despite the increased pressures of life. One explanation for this is that the majority of Australians have been migrants for the past two or three generations, and therefore it is widely recognized that it is the responsibility of the government to set up policies to help migrants integrate into the community.

 

People’s livelihood matters

The future of Australian politics will undoubtedly depend on whether the government can effectively respond to people’s livelihoods. As mentioned earlier, even if Labor wins this election, it may not reflect the people’s wishes. Voters may be motivated to vote out of dissatisfaction with the opposition parties, or they may be constrained by the compulsory voting system, or the votes of the supporters of small parties may eventually go to the big parties. Under such circumstances, in order to consolidate its support, the Labor Party has to solve real livelihood problems such as the soaring cost of living as soon as possible in order to gain long-term trust.

In addition, as a trading economy, how to renegotiate economic and trade relations with the US will also be one of the issues of great concern to voters. In the face of the trend of protectionism in the US, the Australian government needs to strike a balance between safeguarding domestic interests and maintaining diplomatic stability.

As for the Liberal Party, although it has lost almost all of its seats in some constituencies in this election and the situation is uncertain, crisis often breeds opportunities. The key lies in whether the Liberal Party truly understands the aspirations of its voters – what kind of leadership are they looking for? Is it hard-line and out-of-touch internally, but nice externally? Or is it caring on the inside and resolute on the outside?

If the Labor Party fails to fulfill its election promises and public opinion rebounds, the Liberal Party will have a chance to make a comeback. However, the prerequisite is that they must thoroughly rethink their current line and rebuild their trust with the public.

 

Article/Editorial Department Sameway Magazine

Photo/Internet

Continue Reading

Features

Walking with the Solitary (1): The Lonely People

Published

on

Raymond Chow

My New Challenge

Over the past few decades, I’ve written numerous books and articles on a wide variety of topics. However, last October, I decided to write a book entirely different from anything I had done before, titled Solitary but Not Isolated. I chose to publish it through crowdfunding. Readers interested in supporting this book can visit the following webpage to learn more and help make it a reality.

I attended a rooftop school in Hong Kong for primary education (a unique feature of Hong Kong in the 1960s: temporary classrooms built on top of apartment blocks in resettlement areas to accommodate children who had moved into the district). Resources were extremely limited. In sixth grade, the school principal gave me and seven other students the opportunity to post our writings on the bulletin board every two weeks for the whole school to read. This was my first experience of writing for a public audience.

In secondary school at Queen’s College, the school published the annual magazine The Yellow Dragon, the earliest and longest-running secondary school annual in Hong Kong. My writings were never published there, though my photos occasionally appeared in reports of school activities. At university, I volunteered as editor for a scholarly publication by the Science Society called Exploration, but after two or three years it was discontinued as no one wished to continue it.

During university, I studied mathematics, which required little essay writing—mostly problem-solving. After entering the field of education, I wrote numerous articles on Hong Kong education that were published in newspaper columns. Later, through curriculum development and teacher training in Hong Kong, I had the rare opportunity to write and publish mathematics textbooks spanning from Grade 1 to Form 7—something unprecedented in Hong Kong.

After moving to Australia, I served as editor of the Christian publication Living Monthly, and eventually founded Sameway magazine, which continues today. From the first issue, I wrote the opening column Words of Sameway, and over 21 years, I have written a total of 745 pieces—a record of my life.

Yet writing Solitary but Not Isolated is something I never anticipated doing since I first learned about autism decades ago. Publishing this book is closely connected to my work with Sameway. I can only say this is a new challenge given by God, a chance to take Sameway to a new stage.

Those Who Love Solitude

Solitary but Not Isolated tells the story of a person with autism. Based on her experiences, the Happy Hands Organization has developed a bilingual training program to help autistic individuals transition from school to the workplace. Launched this year, the program aims to support others in similar circumstances.

Most people with autism do not actively seek social interactions. When they do engage with strangers, they may appear difficult to connect with or communicate with, often leading to social neglect or isolation. For parents and family, this creates a lifelong burden. Even those who complete secondary or tertiary education, despite having professional knowledge, often cannot fully utilize their abilities at work because of incomplete social understanding and lack of basic communication skills. Consequently, they are frequently relegated to jobs that do not match their abilities or are assigned work requiring minimal interaction.

Western society’s understanding of autism began with the lifestyle demands of modern life, emphasizing early social engagement and learning in school. Families, having fewer children, often pay close attention to each child’s development and have higher expectations. Over the decades, understanding of autism has evolved—from viewing it as a mental illness to recognizing it as a deviation from typical personality development. Yet how society should assist their growth remains uncertain.

Decades ago, Western focus was on “treating” autism. Research into genetic, environmental, or physical causes has made limited progress. Interventions to change solitary behaviors are also limited—for example, providing speech therapy in childhood or occupational therapy for daily living skills offers only partial support. While societal acceptance and support for autistic individuals have greatly increased, parents feel that more is needed when their children enter adult life and the workforce.

In short, those inclined toward solitude still face a gap in having equal opportunities to thrive socially and professionally.

Understanding Society and the World

Many autistic individuals focus intensely on specific interests, with little experience in social relationships or current events. As adults, this often leads others to perceive them as unaware of society, or even “odd.” In workplaces, where collaboration is essential, they may face exclusion. Many end up in solitary work with minimal social interaction.

Among Chinese communities, first- or second-generation immigrants with autism often face compounded challenges due to limited knowledge of society. Parents, unfamiliar with Australian systems, cannot fully guide their children, and these high-ability individuals rarely integrate with society, limiting opportunities to demonstrate their potential.

In 2024, ABC launched The Assembly, a TV interview program where host Leigh Sales trained 15 autistic individuals to conduct interviews and produce the show. Participants significantly increased their understanding of society and the world, and their communication and social skills improved greatly.

Last year, Sameway had the opportunity to train a bilingual autistic new immigrant, successfully helping her become a magazine editor. Meanwhile, the Happy Hands Organization developed a workplace adaptation program for bilingual, high-functioning autistic individuals. Through four to six months of training, this program offers these often-overlooked individuals a chance to adapt and develop in Australia.

Thus, Sameway is not only an information platform supporting immigrant communities but also provides a development space and opportunities for those with special needs. Readers interested can contact our magazine or the Happy Hands Organization for details.

The Loneliness of Immigrants

Many immigrants arrive in Australia as adults. They often lack opportunities to understand society deeply and, due to work and life commitments, rarely have the time to engage fully with their new environment or develop close relationships with Australians. Consequently, most live within Chinese communities with similar backgrounds. Passive personalities or limited social skills often lead to intense feelings of loneliness.

Leaving their original home and social networks creates a sense of marginalization similar to that experienced by some autistic individuals. Many immigrants are willing to understand and engage with their new society but face personal limitations and a lack of proactive governmental support, leaving them unable to integrate fully into Australian life.

Chinese immigrants, in particular, may rely heavily on long-term Chinese social media and information platforms, further isolating them from the broader society. This social isolation significantly affects their participation and engagement in Australian life.

The goal of Sameway is to assist immigrants in integrating into Australia, fostering participation and engagement in society. We hope that with continued support, we can go further and achieve more.

Continue Reading

Features

Walk With the Needy

Published

on

During the Christmas and New Year period, “Sameway” relocated though only to a spot less than 100 meters across from their original office. It was a tiring task, but we have finally settled in, allowing us to take a longer break during the holiday.

However, the world still undergoes significant changes. The President of Venezuela has been forcibly taken to New York for trial, while the new leader of Venezuela is willing to govern in line with U.S. interests. The longstanding alliance between Europe and the U.S. has become history in light of the U.S. attempt to purchase Greenland. The “Board of Peace” established by Trump requests that nations place the keeping of global peace in his personal hands, but attendees at the invitation include authoritarian dictators who have initiated wars multiple times. The generation that has grown up advocating for global integration, respect for human rights, and peaceful coexistence is now at a lost and confused. Will the world revert to a chaotic state governed by the law of the jungle, where strong countries dominate weaker ones, or can humanity choose to move forward in civilization by learning mistakes from history? We truly have no sure answer.

However, it is a time where the rise of Trump and the increasing power of global far-right political forces, coupled with the internet and social media replacing traditional media as the main source of information for many people. This has led to a society overwhelmed with information and challenges in distinguishing truth from falsehood, which is equally as frightening as an era where information is blocked, preventing access to necessary knowledge.

In Australia, as a multicultural country, immigrants face significant difficulties in obtaining lifestyle information through mainstream media. I believe that to build Australia as a harmonious and cohesive society, the government must invest substantial resources to assist immigrant communities to establish high-quality and credible multicultural media, and to accelerate the integration of first-generation immigrants into society, allowing them to become a driving force in social development.

In the past year, we have strengthened the current affairs information provided on our website. In the coming year, we will focus on enhancing our information services for the Chinese community through our broadcasts and magazine publications. I hope you can support us in achieving the goal of promoting the development of the Chinese immigrant community.

Starting this year, in line with the REJOICE’s initiative for bilingual new immigrants with autism, I will be writing a brand-new column to explore this topic with the community as they navigate With the NDIS program. I hope this innovative program by the REJOICE will receive your support for promotion and development within the community.

Additionally, after three years of training aimed at encouraging seniors to use social platforms to expand their community engagement, we will take a further step this year by launching training courses to assist seniors in using artificial intelligence. Our goal is to help Chinese seniors in Australia stay up-to-date and enjoy a higher quality of life brought about by AI.

In the new year, let us work together to build a stronger local Chinese community.

Continue Reading

Features

Entering Trump 2.0’s New World

Published

on

Since January 20, 2025, when Trump assumed the U.S. presidency once again, domestic issues in America have been frequent and complex, but the world cannot deny that his foreign policy has reshaped the global political landscape, ushering in a new era.

Over the past year, Trump has been extremely proactive in foreign affairs—from Greenland to Venezuela—demonstrating relentless ambition to expand U.S. influence abroad, even amid controversy and the risk of destabilizing other nations.

Prelude to 2025

Let’s briefly review Trump’s major foreign policy actions in 2025.

First, his involvement in the Gaza Strip cannot be overlooked. In February 2025, he publicly stated that the U.S. would play a more active, even leading, role in the region, supporting Israel’s security needs, including strengthening border defense and intelligence sharing. He also attempted to broker ceasefire talks in the U.S.’s name, coordinating Egypt, Qatar, and other countries as intermediaries. By October, Trump personally attended a multilateral meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh, pushing for a ceasefire agreement and reconstruction framework between Israel and Hamas.

While opinions on his approach were divided, with some critics arguing that direct intervention could heighten regional tensions, Trump nonetheless reaffirmed America’s influence and presence in Middle Eastern affairs.

Early in 2025, the Trump administration reviewed all foreign aid and temporarily halted military assistance to Ukraine, using it as leverage to push forward negotiations. By mid-March, following U.S.–Ukraine consultations, military and security support resumed, including air defense systems, drone technology, and financial assistance. The U.S. also advocated international sanctions against Russia, such as high-tech export restrictions and asset freezes. These actions demonstrated Trump’s support for strategic allies and further solidified U.S. influence in Europe.

While these events may seem unrelated, they set the stage for early 2026’s diplomatic developments.

The Venezuela Raid

Trump’s most notable action in January 2026 was the sudden capture (or abduction) of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

In fact, as early as December 1, 2025, Trump had called Maduro, demanding he step down. When Maduro refused, Trump publicly ramped up pressure in mid-to-late December, applying economic and military pressure—including blockades, intercepting suspicious ships, and bolstering military deployments—to isolate the Maduro government. He even hinted that further U.S. action might follow if Maduro continued to resist, signaling a preemptive warning.

The result: U.S. forces launched a large-scale operation codenamed “Absolute Determination”, storming Caracas, capturing Maduro and his wife, and transporting them to New York for trial. The justification cited Maduro and his inner circle’s involvement in drug trafficking and terrorism, including conspiracies to smuggle cocaine into the U.S. At the same time, Maduro’s government had close ties with China and Russia, who provided military and economic support, posing a threat to U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere.

The operation was also seen as a move to block rival powers from gaining leverage in Venezuela. More importantly, given Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, Trump clearly aimed to reassert U.S. dominance in the hemisphere and secure economic benefits. For many Americans, the raid showcased U.S. military might, boosting Trump’s prestige and approval. True to form, Trump paid little attention to criticism, focusing instead on praise, and was visibly self-satisfied.

International reactions were strong. China and Russia immediately condemned the U.S. action, calling it a severe violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and international law. Iran and other nations with tense U.S. relations also criticized the operation as unilateralism under the guise of anti-drug and anti-terrorism efforts, destabilizing the region.

European responses were mixed. Some EU countries long critical of Maduro still expressed reservations about the U.S. bypassing international authorization for direct military action, emphasizing that even dealing with authoritarian regimes should follow international mechanisms. This tension revealed the strain Trump’s style places on traditional allies.

In Latin America, reactions were split: anti-Maduro governments and Venezuelan opposition privately supported the move as a chance to break political deadlock, while others feared overt U.S. military intervention might revive Cold War-era “Monroe Doctrine” fears, worsening regional security.

Currently, former Vice President Rodríguez serves as interim president of Venezuela, cooperating with the U.S. while maintaining loyalty to the domestic ruling class, keeping the country relatively stable. For Trump, the goal of preventing other powers from gaining influence in the Americas and securing economic gains was achieved. Many Americans saw the raid as a demonstration of military strength, reinforcing Trump’s image as a decisive leader.

Trump’s Greenland Gambit

Since 2025, Trump has repeatedly brought Greenland into the spotlight, making it one of the most challenging and controversial topics of his second term.

Greenland, the world’s largest island, is under Danish sovereignty but enjoys local autonomy. Its location between North America and Europe along the Arctic shipping route has made it strategically valuable. Previously overlooked due to extreme cold, climate change and melting ice have expanded Arctic navigation, increasing Greenland’s military and technological importance. The island also contains vast deposits of rare earth and critical minerals, essential for modern technology and defense systems.

Trump’s assertive approach clearly aimed to maximize U.S. influence over Greenland. In 2025, he publicly expressed interest in buying Greenland and urged negotiations to secure it, even hinting at military options. This escalated tensions with Denmark and Europe.

European reactions were unanimous: Greenlandic leaders stated the island is “not for sale”, and massive protests erupted in Greenland and Denmark. The UK prime minister warned Trump that high tariffs or aggression would be a grave mistake, while EU countries—including Denmark, France, Germany, and the UK—supported Danish sovereignty. Even European far-right parties, traditionally aligned with Trump, criticized his Greenland strategy as overt aggression, causing internal rifts.

At the 2026 Davos World Economic Forum, Trump and NATO Secretary-General Rutte reached a “preliminary framework” focusing on Arctic security cooperation rather than territorial control. Trump framed it as safeguarding U.S. military bases and economic interests, while Denmark retained final authority. However, Greenland’s government stressed it was not fully involved in negotiations, highlighting an ongoing tension. Analysts debate whether this is a tactical retreat or pragmatic compromise.

Even with the temporary easing of tensions, U.S.–Europe trust has been strained, showing how far-reaching Trump’s assertive diplomacy has become.

Iran Unrest and U.S. Pressure

From late December 2025, Iran experienced nationwide protests, initially triggered by economic collapse, currency devaluation, and skyrocketing living costs, evolving into broad dissatisfaction with the regime. The government’s harsh crackdown led to casualties and arrests on a scale unseen since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The U.S., which maintains heavy sanctions against Iran citing terrorism sponsorship and nuclear/military threats, seized this moment to intervene. Trump publicly announced deploying a fleet—including aircraft carriers and missile destroyers—to the Persian Gulf to deter further escalation. He emphasized a preference for avoiding force but warned of potential military action if the regime continued violent repression.

Trump also communicated with Iranian protesters via public statements and social media, encouraging demonstrations and denouncing government violence. He canceled all official diplomatic talks until Tehran ceased the crackdown. While some protesters hoped for U.S. support, the absence of direct action led to frustration and feelings of abandonment.

Iranian Revolutionary Guard leaders warned that any U.S. strike would be considered a full-scale war. Protests and anti-U.S. imagery reflected strong resistance. Intelligence reports indicating a temporary halt in state violence led Trump to consider pausing military actions while closely monitoring the situation, balancing threats with cautious observation.

Trump’s strategy combined military presence and public warnings to pressure Tehran, deter large-scale killings, and strengthen U.S. influence in the Middle East. Yet this high-risk approach also raised the possibility of miscalculations, where tensions could escalate unintentionally, making the U.S. a target for criticism and resistance.

The “Board of Peace”

Traditionally, the U.S. has been seen as the global big brother. But with China’s growing influence and global economic support programs, U.S. presidents often feel impatient with Beijing’s increasing UN sway. Trump, ambitious and assertive, sought to take matters further.

At the 2026 Davos Forum, he launched the “Board of Peace”, initially proposed to address Gaza peace but now expanded to serve as a broader global conflict mediation mechanism. The initiative leverages U.S. influence to create an alternative diplomatic platform and invites multiple countries to participate.

However, critics question whether it is more for show than genuine peacekeeping. The EU’s concern lies less with the stated goals and more with the lack of clarity: the legal status, decision-making process, funding, and international law accountability remain unspecified. Unlike multilateral bodies like the UN or OSCE, this U.S.-backed, president-driven mechanism risks becoming a coercive tool rather than a genuine mediator.

The EU fears it could undermine Europe’s long-standing role in Middle East diplomacy, forcing it from rule-maker to follower. China was excluded, reflecting Trump’s view of Beijing as a competitor, not a partner. The Board aims to present participation as a political statement, effectively creating a U.S.-led bloc in global conflict mediation.

For Australia, the Board is a hot potato. Prime Minister Albanese received an invitation but has not confirmed participation. Several NATO and EU countries have declined, while Canada was disinvited over disagreements on China policy. Thirty-plus leaders who accepted include war actors like Putin and Israel’s Netanyahu. How they could effectively promote peace remains questionable, and handling the invitation diplomatically will test Albanese’s political skill.

Trump’s Diplomatic Logic

Across Gaza, Ukraine, Venezuela, Greenland, Iran, and the Board of Peace, Trump’s strategy is consistent: proactive engagement, pressure, disruption of norms, and forcing allies and adversaries to recalculate. He eschews slow multilateral negotiations in favor of military, economic, and media leverage, coupled with highly personalized decision-making, shifting power quickly at the negotiating table.

To Trump, diplomacy is a continuous game of strategy, not merely maintaining order. He pushes situations to the edge, then retreats strategically to gain advantage. While controversial and eroding trust among allies, it successfully recenters U.S. influence.

Crucially, Trump applies pressure not only to adversaries but to allies, forcing them to demonstrate loyalty or strategic value. This increases U.S. bargaining leverage but consumes trust capital, making international relations more transactional and short-term, and setting the stage for future friction.

Costs and Risks of Assertive Diplomacy

Reliance on pressure and uncertainty may yield short-term results but risks long-term instability. Highly personalized, low-institutional approaches erode trust in rules, procedures, and multilateral cooperation. Misjudgments are more likely in opaque, high-stakes situations. Allies and adversaries may misread threats, escalating conflict even without provocation.

Trump is reshaping U.S. diplomacy from guardian of order to rewriter of order, providing tactical flexibility but weakening institutional credibility. Whether the U.S. can balance assertive pressure with sustained trust will determine its long-term global leadership.

Ultimately, Trump’s strategy may open new strategic space for the U.S. or provoke deeper backlash and confrontation. One thing is certain: the international stage in 2026 is no longer the old world, and Trump is the key variable driving this structural transformation.

Continue Reading

Trending