elmundo.es
US Hegemony in Transition: Malamud's Analysis of Trump's Geopolitical Strategy
Political scientist Andrés Malamud analyzes the current global power transition, highlighting the US's disruptive role under Trump's leadership, and its implications for future conflicts and alliances, considering demographic shifts as a key factor.
- What is the core geopolitical shift underway, and what are its immediate implications for global stability?
- Andrés Malamud, a political scientist, believes the world is undergoing a power transition, similar to past hegemonic shifts, but with the unique characteristic of the existing dominant power (US) being the disruptive force, not the rising one.
- What are the long-term demographic trends and their potential impact on global power dynamics and the likelihood of future conflicts?
- Malamud suggests Trump's seemingly erratic actions, like aiming to acquire Greenland or Panama Canal, are strategically driven by a vision of a future world shaped by Arctic access and control over crucial shipping routes. This vision prioritizes power dynamics over traditional alliances.
- How do Trump's actions towards traditional allies, such as suggesting annexation of Canada or Greenland, fit into the broader context of a shifting global power dynamic?
- Malamud highlights the paradoxical nature of the current situation: the US, under Trump, challenges the very order it established, leading to uncertainty among its allies. He cites Nathalie Tocci's assessment that US actions constitute 'treason' – remaining in shared institutions while undermining them.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the article presents Trump's seemingly erratic behavior as potentially strategic geopolitical maneuvering. The headline and opening paragraph suggest a deeper meaning behind his actions, predisposing the reader to interpret his actions favorably. The author's use of quotes framing Trump's plans as 'good' even when potentially detrimental to allies, primes the reader towards positive interpretation. This framing, while presenting a nuanced perspective, risks overlooking other valid interpretations and potential negative consequences of his policies.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language at times. Terms such as "madness," "traición" (betrayal), and "suavecitos" (soft), carry strong connotations that could sway the reader's perception. While the author offers a somewhat balanced view, these charged terms could subtly influence the reader towards a particular interpretation. The positive framing of potentially negative actions (e.g., suggesting Trump's willingness to sacrifice allies as "good" for peace) also introduces a subtle bias.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the geopolitical perspective of Donald Trump's actions and largely omits analysis of domestic impacts, the opinions of his political opponents, and a detailed examination of his economic policies. While the author mentions the potential negative impact on Mexico and Taiwan, a broader discussion of potential consequences within the US and globally is absent. This omission limits the reader's ability to form a comprehensive understanding of Trump's actions and their implications.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic eitheor framing of Trump's actions, portraying them as either 'madness' or a potentially beneficial geopolitical strategy. This oversimplification overlooks the numerous criticisms of his policies and the complex interplay of domestic and international factors shaping his decisions. While acknowledging some negative aspects, it ultimately leans toward portraying his strategy as potentially positive for global peace, neglecting the broader spectrum of potential positive and negative impacts.
Gender Bias
The article overwhelmingly focuses on male political figures, with only passing reference to women in positions of power, such as Nathalie Tocci. There is no overt gender bias in language, but the dominance of male perspectives in the analysis subtly reinforces existing power imbalances in international politics.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article analyzes the international power transition, highlighting the potential for conflict but also the possibility of a peaceful resolution. The discussion of potential conflict between major powers and the impact on international institutions is directly relevant to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The author suggests that despite Trump's disruptive actions, his focus on transactional relationships and lack of interest in traditional military engagements might ultimately reduce the risk of major conflicts.