Connect with us

Features

Productivity Summit: Is Labor’s Reform Momentum More Than a Temporary Ambition?

Published

on

August 18, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers hosted a three-day Economic Reform Productivity Summit in Canberra, inviting about 30 leaders from business, unions, civil society, and policy circles to discuss the future trajectory of the Australian economy. The summit focused on boosting national productivity and was organized around three themes: resilience, productivity, and fiscal sustainability with tax reform.

Speakers included Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe, Productivity Commission Chair Michael Woods, and Dr. Satyanapalli, Director of the Grattan Institute. The government also revealed that it had received 900 submissions from experts, industry, and the public to inform the discussions.

Chalmers stated that the summit discussions would form the basis for “the next three federal budgets and even longer-term policy initiatives.” Topics under consideration were broad and sometimes controversial, including tax system restructuring, relaxing AI regulations, and promoting a four-day workweek. The government hopes to generate “concrete recommendations” to accelerate economic growth, improve living standards, and gradually repair the budget deficit.

This summit represented a significant move by Labor, bringing together representatives from multiple sectors to signal the new government’s commitment to reform.

Labor and the Unions: Historical Context

The Australian Labor Party (ALP) emerged in the 1890s, founded by unions, and remains one of the few parties in the world that allows direct union affiliation. By the early 20th century, most unions—especially blue-collar ones—joined Labor, giving unions significant influence over party structures and decision-making. Labor’s policies have long reflected union priorities, including wage protection, workplace safety, working hours, and collective bargaining rights. Unions could even influence parliamentary candidate nominations.

Through internal structures, unions exercise “low-key but effective” lobbying, collaborating closely with party elites to shape policy formulation and implementation.

Australian unions occupy a unique societal role as the largest civic representative bodies, with membership exceeding the population that regularly participates in religious services. In the late 19th century, Australian workers faced harsh conditions: low wages, long hours, and no work injury protections. These struggles prompted strikes and protests, particularly by Queensland shearers, directly contributing to the creation of unions and the Labor Party and establishing a deep institutional link between the two.

The 1890s marked the peak of union activism in Australia. Widespread strikes and work stoppages were common. One notable tactic was the “sympathetic strike,” where workers at other companies would strike in solidarity when one business treated its staff unfairly. While demonstrating strong unity, this approach was controversial and eventually outlawed.

Today, unions remain a vital force in labor rights advocacy. Surveys indicate that roughly 20% of non-members would join if given the chance, over 60% of Australians see unions as critical to protecting workers’ rights, and nearly half believe that stronger unions would benefit society overall. Currently, unions collectively represent about 60% of the workforce through enterprise agreements and award systems.

This structural alliance forms a dual “ideological and resource” partnership: unions influence policy, while Labor relies on unions for campaign funding and manpower—a historically close, mutually beneficial relationship.

Beyond a “Workers’ Party”

As manufacturing has declined, traditional blue-collar union influence has weakened, while unionization among white-collar and professional workers has risen. Today, Australia’s largest unions are no longer miners or factory workers but nurses, with the public sector providing the bulk of union membership. Many white-collar and professional unions (e.g., nurses, teachers, academics, state public servants) are not formally affiliated with Labor. Thus, typical union members today are often white-collar professionals in non-affiliated unions.

For Labor to maintain its role as “the nation’s largest party” following federal election victories, it must expand beyond its image as a purely “workers’ party” to represent a broader constituency, becoming a government “for all Australians.”

The summit symbolically reflects this shift. Beyond unions, it included representatives from banking, mining, universities, superannuation funds, think tanks, and independent MPs, signaling the Albanese government’s ambition to pursue cross-sector collaboration and a “more sustainable, inclusive” approach to economic governance in its second term.

Australia’s Parliamentary System

Labor also needs to engage diverse stakeholders, including other parties and capital, to secure future governance—particularly given Australia’s parliamentary system.

The Australian Parliament comprises the House of Representatives and the Senate, both of which share equal power on most legislation.

The House of Representatives (lower house) has 150 seats elected directly from constituencies. Candidates must secure over 50% of votes to win. States with larger populations have more seats. A party holding a majority in the House forms government, with its leader becoming Prime Minister. For example, Labor formed the government in the last election, with Albanese as Prime Minister.

The Senate (upper house) has 76 seats, with 12 per state and 2 per territory, elected via proportional representation for up to six-year terms. Equal representation across states gives the Senate a crucial role in balancing large and small state interests.

The two houses also act as checks on each other. Bills originate in the House but require Senate review and debate; if the Senate rejects a bill, it fails. Thus, even with a House majority, Labor must seek cross-party support, especially in the Senate, to ensure smooth passage of legislation.

Post-Election Economic Pressures

In the recent federal election, economic issues were among voters’ top concerns: rising living costs, housing challenges, tax cuts, and employment opportunities—all areas voters expect Labor to address.

One key pressure is that wage growth has lagged far behind inflation. During the pandemic, real wages fell while prices surged. Although real wages began to recover by 2024, past declines make the path to recovery uncertain.

Structural changes also matter. In the 1960s, manufacturing and blue-collar sectors dominated, and unions helped drive wage growth. Today, manufacturing accounts for less than 7% of employment; blue-collar work has largely been automated or outsourced. Emerging sectors like education and healthcare initially boosted wages but have been constrained since 2012 by wage cap policies.

This has led to income stagnation, greater reliance on government support, rising public spending, and fiscal pressure.

The central question: how can Australia generate more wealth? Reliance on foreign exchange and taxes is no longer sufficient. Boosting national productivity is key to improving living standards, enhancing competitiveness, and overcoming current economic challenges.

The Centrality of Productivity

On the eve of the summit, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cut interest rates and downgraded productivity growth forecasts from 1% to 0.7%. The RBA warned that continued productivity weakness would profoundly affect corporate profits, household income, and overall demand.

RBA Governor Lowe noted that slowing productivity not only suppresses wages but also threatens Australia’s global competitiveness. She delivered a speech on day two to outline these challenges.

Chalmers acknowledged: “Productivity is the most pressing challenge in our economy.”

In economics, productivity measures efficiency: output per unit of input (labor, capital, technology). Productivity growth is thus crucial not just as an economic metric, but as a foundation for higher living standards and national competitiveness.

According to the Productivity Commission, Australians in the 1960s worked five hours more per week than today, with reduced hours reflecting productivity gains and increased leisure. If growth stalls, future outcomes may reverse. The Commission estimates that by 2035, weak productivity could leave full-time workers earning AUD $14,000 less annually than potential levels.

Lowe emphasized: “Slow real wage growth stems from stagnant productivity. Boosting productivity will raise real wages, benefiting all Australians.”

Albanese’s focus, therefore, is on enhancing national productivity to address structural economic challenges, beyond implementing piecemeal policies.

Reform Commitment and Skepticism

Despite this, some remain skeptical about Labor’s reform resolve. ABC reported a leaked Treasury document suggesting that some policy directions may have been pre-decided, making the summit largely ceremonial. Opposition MP O’Brien criticized it as a “talkshop to endorse Labor policies” benefiting the “privileged.”

Albanese countered that good policy arises from open discussion and institutional processes, not predetermined outcomes. Chalmers’ spokesperson emphasized that the government is “ready to consider” new ideas.

However, the Treasurer has ruled out a union-backed four-day workweek; Finance Minister Gallagher expressed openness to flexible and remote work arrangements.

Tax reform remains highly contentious. While Chalmers stressed that deep tax reform is essential for breakthroughs in productivity and fiscal sustainability, Albanese repeatedly emphasized that the government will only implement election-promised tax policies, raising doubts about whether major reforms will be delayed until the 2028 election.

Economist Richard Holden bluntly remarked: “The question is whether the summit will truly spark bold thinking—or just another political show, with three days ending in a press release and everything staying the same.”

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