US policy under Trump isn't a sudden rupture but an acceleration of decline, mirroring Britain's Commonwealth. As global power shifts, America faces a choice: build a colonial-style Commonwealth or enable a European federation. Europe must unite or accept subordination.
The initiatives undertaken by President Trump in the first year of his second term have astonished the world. No one expected such a radical shift in US policy, and many have been left disoriented, both by the substance and by the manner in which the American government’s actions have unfolded.
However, it is rare in history to witness true ruptures. More often, one observes accelerations or slowdowns of ongoing processes. A thread unwinds—sometimes beneath the surface, sometimes making evident a long-term process of change. Believing that one is witnessing ruptures in historically significant developments often stems from an inability to understand the phenomena and the links that connect them. Interpretation is easier for historians, who analyse different eras and the changes that characterised them ex post; understanding change is more difficult for contemporaries who experience these processes in real time.
Can these very broad observations help guide our reflection in understanding the changes underway in the twenty-first century?
A few years ago, a small group of highly cultured diplomats hypothesised that the United States would move toward replicating the experience of the British Commonwealth, mutatis mutandis. This group consisted of diplomats belonging to the generation that formed the élite of the civil service.
A few years later, it is becoming increasingly clear that this hypothesis was well-founded in several respects. In light of recent events, useful lessons may be drawn from a deeper examination of the British Commonwealth experience, compared with the international order now taking shape.
Consistent with the approach developed here, attention should not be limited to the initiatives of the Trump Administration; one must seek the roots of these initiatives, which lie in recent history.
The Pillars on Which the British Commonwealth Was Founded
The British Commonwealth rested on several strengths, all tied to Britain’s leading position.
- Britain was not a centralised bureaucratic nation-state like France. Scotland, Ireland, and Wales had systems with significant autonomy and shifting relationships with England over time. The central government could pursue unified initiatives thanks to the role of the Crown and its control over strategic powers: the army, the economy, the currency, and finance.
- Britain possessed the world’s most advanced fleet, capable of protecting the country’s insularity and supporting foreign policy on a global scale.
- The Industrial Revolution was born in Britain; initially, the country held a global monopoly on modern industrial production. This superiority ensured a privileged position in trade and imperial expansion.
- The limited understanding of the distinction between liberalism (state and market) and laissez-faire (market without state) legitimised the fact that liberalism prevailed within Britain, while laissez-faire was promoted abroad. In this way, Britain extended its governing capacity across the world.
- Within this framework, Britain successfully developed public–private relations, giving rise to the first forms of multinational enterprises and protecting the competitiveness of British firms.
- The British pound could serve as a global payment and reserve currency thanks to the country’s trade surplus, gold convertibility, and the City of London’s role as the world’s most advanced financial centre.
These strengths, working together, created a self-sustaining system that activated a virtuous cycle believed to be long-lasting. The armed forces could deter any opposition. The Commonwealth served as the cornerstone of the international order.
No empire, however, is eternal. The thousand-year Nazi empire collapsed after a decade, leaving immense tragedy in its wake. Countless other examples exist worldwide. History is an unstoppable process of evolution. How, then, could a system as solid as the Commonwealth come to an end?
The Decline of the Commonwealth
The decline of the Commonwealth did not begin with a crisis in Britain, but with the development of the rest of the world. It was a long process, lasting until the Second World War.
- The Industrial Revolution spread from Britain to major European states, the United States, and later to most countries. This gradually eroded Britain’s privileged economic position and its ability to maintain a superior military force.
- Global development fuelled the desire of an increasing number of countries to achieve autonomy, reducing Britain’s ability to govern the international order. The face of the sovereign remained on the coins of Commonwealth members, but Whitehall was increasingly ignored. Britain’s influence over major decisions diminished gradually, and the collapse came when, during World War II, Britain’s ability to withstand Nazi Germany depended on help from Commonwealth members.
- The British pound gradually lost its status as an international payment and reserve currency. With the Bretton Woods agreements, the US dollar assumed the role of global pivot currency. As a result, the foundation of the City’s centrality as the leading international financial centre disappeared.
- Institutions often outlive their original purpose, sometimes becoming think tanks that capitalise on their expertise. This rule was confirmed—materially, though not formally—by the Commonwealth, as some member states came to play a more significant international role than Britain itself.
The Atlantic Alliance as a Democratic American Commonwealth?
World War II established the United States as the leading global power, taking over the role once held by Britain. It was conceivable that the British Commonwealth would be followed by an American Commonwealth, since the US possessed strengths corresponding to those Britain had when it created the original Commonwealth.
- The United States represented the most advanced democratic system, with a strong federal government that overcame the limitations of small European nation-states and those of large continental states still developing.
- Thanks to the size of its domestic market, the US developed the Second Industrial Revolution, enabling industrial production to reach unparalleled levels of competitiveness. This superiority ensured a privileged position in trade, a surplus in the balance of payments, resources to build an unmatched army, and the ability to influence international decisions.
- The dollar increasingly assumed the role of global payment and reserve currency, and Wall Street became the leading financial centre.
A profound difference, however, distinguished the United States from Britain’s historical role. This difference was embodied by F.D. Roosevelt, an interpreter of the secular ethical values of the American people, capable of using the nation’s strength to help build a better world.
He was aided by his close friend Jean Monnet, the foremost twentieth-century interpreter of Enlightenment values.
In the 1920s, Monnet served as the first Deputy Secretary-General of the League of Nations and developed close ties with the American higher classes and Roosevelt. At the outbreak of war, he wrote for the President the strategy by which the US would win the conflict. During the war, he discussed with Roosevelt the role of the United Nations. After Roosevelt’s death, he continued to collaborate with his successors, influencing their decisions.
A personal anecdote may be allowed here. As a very young man involved in the process of European unification, I once spoke with a senior EEC official who summarised Monnet’s role in US relations: “Until the Kennedy presidency, Monnet could enter the Oval Office without knocking and be listened to attentively” (author’s personal recollection). The lesson conveyed to me in those few evocative words was clear, given the source.
The Atlantic Alliance was born—not an American Commonwealth.
It is now up to historians to clarify the implications of this difference, which all Europeans should be aware of, now more than ever.
The Decline of the Atlantic Alliance
The decline of the Atlantic Alliance began, as with the British Commonwealth, due to the development of the rest of the world.
- The scientific revolution, born of the Second Industrial Revolution, advanced with contributions from countries that, until recently, were considered part of the developing Third World.
- The economic strength of Western countries diminished in relative terms. The dollar weakened in its monetary role; the European Union created the euro, but the new currency did not reshape the international monetary order as needed.
- US public debt grew to levels incompatible with America’s ability to sustain balanced global development.
In this context, two alternatives are emerging: the development of an American Commonwealth or a European Federation.
The Development of an American Commonwealth or a European Federation
The main strength of US policy today lies in its armed forces. The US Navy possesses a level of power unprecedented in human history, even relative to global economic development. American corporations are also a strength, though a lesser one; they are supported by US fiscal policy and by tax advantages granted to them by America’s allies at Washington’s request. Recent events suggest that the United States might base the creation of an American Commonwealth—whatever name it may be given to obscure its aims—on forms of colonialism.
Force may be sufficient to command, but not to govern. Governing requires consent. Force allows command only for short periods—short, that is, in historical terms. For history, a century is the blink of an eye, like a human life.
If these considerations are valid, the development of an American Commonwealth would represent a transition toward a multipolar order, not a new long-term equilibrium. Such a transition would involve the use of force, since force would be its foundation.
The radical alternative to a new Commonwealth is a process leading toward a World Federation; this process could be initiated by the creation of a European Federation, which would also reshape the meaning of a multipolar order in the near term.
This alternative must be defined clearly. Words must provide certainty and clarity for choices. Renegotiating the Atlantic Pact could lead to an ambiguous outcome: either a form of Commonwealth or an equal partnership between Europe and the Americas, made possible by the establishment of a European Federation.
Today, the strongest countries confront one another by privileging the use of force. But it is up to a weak Europe to make the most important choices, beginning with giving itself a government capable of difficult, possible, and necessary decisions.
