By PETER YOUNG

For those who write regularly about foreign affairs and attempt to analyse complex international issues last week was out of the ordinary. A series of significant events took place around the world that offered a plethora of choice about what to cover. Developments came so fast that it was hard to keep up. It was also a good week for photojournalists.

Unsurprisingly, the frantic pace of what amounted to a diplomatic whirlwind was set by none other than the unpredictable President Trump who, in his first hundred days in office, has surely created some sort of record for his level of activity in domestic affairs and in relation to issues around the world like Ukraine and Gaza.

The week was dominated by Trump’s 4-day tour to three energy-rich nations in the Middle East – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, specifically Abu Dhabi – when he signed a number of lucrative trade and investment deals. Significantly, he did not go to Israel, presumably because of differences with prime minister Netanyahu over Gaza and the nuclear talks with Iran.

Surrounded by all the pomp and pageantry these Gulf states could muster, Trump was feted by these staggeringly wealthy countries who lavished adulation on him. But, apart from the trade and investment deals he signed, critics are questioning whether all this was rather more show than substance?

One British journalist described him as bestriding the world stage as he switched from topic to topic during his stay in the Middle East. For example, he lifted sanctions on Syria and met the nation’s new leader who had hitherto been categorized as a terrorist; secured the release of a US citizen held by Hamas; ended military strikes against the Houthis in Yemen; slashed US tariffs on China; ordered Ukraine to hold talks with Russia in Istanbul; continued quiet negotiations with Iran over a nuclear deal to the extent that talk of joint US/Israel military action has dissipated; and even claimed, without justification, responsibility for brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in relation to Kashmir.

But, in doing all this and no doubt dealing at the same time with a host of other issues, does it all amount to making decisions and conducting foreign policy on the hoof in accordance with Trump’s declared aim of being recognised as a peacemaker – and, as some observers have suggested unkindly, is it not much more than “bromance diplomacy”, with Trump stressing his simplistic approach that “profit brings peace”?

A recent example of Trump developing policy as he goes along was his announcement, almost en passant, to journalists on board Air Force One that the essential next step to achieving peace in Ukraine was for him and Russian leader Putin to meet or talk directly – and, lo and behold, the next thing we are told is that Trump planned to telephone him yesterday, and also speak to Zelensky after that, though at the time of writing there is no read-out yet on either of these conversations.

In Saudi Arabia, President Trump delivered a major speech emphasising the importance of trade in a modern interconnected world, saying that in the Middle East there should surely be “commerce not chaos” and that it should be a region that “exports technology not terrorism”. However, he is, of course, already known as a protectionist president who always puts America first. As he has said repeatedly, “my job is to protect America”. Yes, indeed. But securing world peace should also be a priority.

Observers quickly spotted that there was no mention in his speech of collective action the US has taken with other countries about issues on a multilateral basis, and no mention of concerns, for example, about a challenge to democracy in the region or to doubtful human rights records; and, equally, there was nothing about ideology or values. Nonetheless – rightly in the view of many – he spoke out against the so-called neo-conservatives in the US for giving lectures to the rest of the world about how they should live or govern their affairs. These interventionists had “wrecked more nations than they had built”, he said.

This pattern of impulsive decision-making brings with it a lack of consistency and continuity together with the uncertainty produced as a result of Trump constantly changing his mind; for example, in relation to the peace negotiations surrounding Ukraine. What is said today may be reversed tomorrow. His reported habit of rushing at things, which is widely assumed, is hardly conducive to wise and considered decision-making - instead of exercising restraint in the manner of a famous British statesman who kept on his desk a sign reading “Cool, calm deliberation disentangles every knot”.

Trump’s emphasis is on making deals above all else. Critics say this is done too often without adequate consideration of the wider implications and potential repercussions of a particular course of action through a proper and careful government decision-making process in order to determine whether or not a particular course of action is in US interests.

Can it be right for a country like the US with its immense wealth, power and influence in the world to allow its foreign policy effectively to be in the hands of one individual, even if, as an elected president, he is the ultimate decision-maker. One recent example was Trump’s agreement, during his Gulf tour, to meet Syria’s new president, a former proscribed jihadist, and lift sanctions on Syria. Was it in the US interest to do that and was that even given any consideration? Or could it have been a quid pro quo for the deals in Riyadh?

Finally, in this context, the evidence shows that the terrible events in Gaza have now reached another point of crisis with over 150 people killed there in the last twenty-four hours. According to reports, the Israelis have not allowed any food or other supplies in to Gaza since March 2 and have now mounted a sustained bombing attack that is horrifying the world. Israel has imposed a blockade preventing delivery of all food and other humanitarian supplies for more than ten weeks. Up to two million people are now said to be at critical risk of famine. Aid agencies, who have adequate supplies on the border ready for distribution, are now condemning Israel for its actions and are calling them ‘simply unforgivable’.

The BBC has reported that, if the aid crisis is not resolved soon, this manmade hellish situation affecting such a large number of people will result in further unspeakable tragedy. How much longer can this barbarity be allowed to continue? It is surely clear that Trump has the power to control the Israelis without destroying them as a nation.

US’ shocking change of direction

In last week’s column I wrote about the effects on other parts of the world of the change of direction of US foreign policy under new president Donald Trump. There is more to say and I should like to return to the topic today.

It is clear that the US no longer sees Russia as a threat to itself. But European nations do regard Putin as a serious threat to them – very much so – and the closer they are geographically to the former Soviet Union the greater is their concern. Furthermore, they emphatically do not share Trump’s benign assessment of Putin’s longer term intentions, not least because Putin continues with his imperial delusion that war in Ukraine and in the Second World War should be conflated.

Rather than Russia then, the US views China as its most important strategic threat. So its foreign policy seems now to be concentrated on Asia. For years, the US was the anchor for the West’s rules-based order and its security. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 the world changed from the Cold War to a unipolar one in which a single nation state holds a dominant and unrivalled level of power and influence. The US was that powerful nation. But, as it withdraws from this position in a new multipolar world that has been developing –  and in which the balance of power is redistributed – people have been shaken out of their comfort zone. The result is that countries are rethinking their position in the world and their relationships as they realise that they can no longer count on the US.

Nonetheless, some prominent voices at home have strongly criticized Trump for his indifference – even unawareness – in alienating allies after America had spent 80 years building up trust, strong economic partnerships and military and political alliances. Antony Blinken, Secretary of State under President Biden, has described it vividly as an “act of vandalism”.

It follows that Europe needs to wean itself away from the strong transatlantic bonds and security support forged after the Second World War. People on both sides of the Atlantic are saying that Trump has been single-handedly responsible for weakening those bonds of common values, shared visions of democracy, security and the rule of law.

One fear Europe has is that the US may stay as a member of NATO, but in name only so that there will be a gradual move away from an American-led organization to a more European one and with Europe in the lead. Thus, in the face of a threat to peace they may be left alone to defend themselves for the first time since WW2. It is no surprise, therefore, that boosting defence spending is now a big topic in Europe.

What happens next is probably up to Europe. There is an opportunity for some inspired statesmanship as plans for a European so-called reassurance force in Ukraine are under way as part of contingency preparation for another Russian attack either there or elsewhere in Europe. There is also the Weimar Triangle group created to promote collaboration among the major European countries, including the UK, in cross-border and wider European issues. The group recently announced a commitment to increase support for Ukraine.

It has quickly become evident that the security of the European continent is a common responsibility for its own nation-states and that they are now working together to strengthen their collective defence capabilities. However, people remain baffled at the US’s overall major change of direction.

Sport and entertainment always to the fore

While researching the horrors happening around the world, I noticed three unrelated noteworthy events due to take place last weekend which will have brought joy to many but disappointment to others; namely, the annual Eurovision Song contest in Basel in Switzerland, the final of the ladies singles at the Italian Open tennis tournament and the FA Cup Final in Britain. My wife and I were able to watch live parts of all three.

What is often known simply as Eurovision, this international song contest has been organized annually by the European Broadcasting Union since 1956. It used to be an old-style somewhat limited mainly TV event, hosted by the previous year’s winner. But it has developed into an extraordinary extravaganza of music and dancing routines with a huge global audience of millions of viewers. Thirty-seven countries competed in the final this year, with Austria the overall narrow victors and the UK a disappointing nineteenth. The event was partly marred by pro-Palestinian demonstrators clashing with riot police. But the Israeli contestant, who was a Hamas massacre survivor, did well and came in second despite being booed and jeered during her performance.

As for the tennis, the leading woman player in Italy, Jasmine Paolini, had a dominant two-set victory in the final of the Italian Open over the US star and world-ranked player, Coco Gauff. She was the first home winner of this tournament for 40 years, and on the strength of this moved up to No 4 in the world rankings. Reportedly, this will give her a top seeding in the French Open which begins next Sunday. Then, to put the icing on the cake, on Sunday she also won the ladies doubles at the tournament with her Italian partner. Needless to say, she has become the darling of the Italian crowds who are enjoying some well-deserved national pride.

Lastly, the final of the Football Association Challenge Cup, commonly known as the FA Cup, was played at Wembley Stadium in London on Saturday. It is one of Britain’s sporting institutions and this year attracted some 85,000 spectators as well as a massive TV audience. The underdogs, Crystal Palace, beat the famous Manchester City team 1-0 – winning the first major trophy in the Club’s history – in what turned out to be a fine exhibition of football at its best in fine weather with incredibly good ball control, precision passing, and thoughtful positioning in both attack and defence.

What a pleasure it was to be able to pause research on the internet and watch these three enjoyable and fun events.