By PETER YOUNG

The current row in the US about using a commercial app for official discussion of plans for an air strike against the Houthis in Yemen has prompted debate overseas, including in the UK. People are appalled at the carelessness and sheer amateurism of what happened, not least the participation of a journalist that was claimed to have been inadvertent.

There has also been surprise at the lightweight and uninformed nature of the exchanges, and this has also brought a new focus on President Trump’s style of governance – his peremptory use of an authoritarian-type string of executive orders issued in the first weeks of his presidency.

Furthermore, it has stimulated fresh controversy about what this mercurial US president is trying to do and what his long-term intentions are. What is now being called “Signalgate” has also induced concern amongst observers that such unserious and unqualified people can really be in charge in Washington. On the broader front including NATO, people are saying that, on the evidence so far, the Trump presidency has created a crisis for western security that could endure over time because Trump is doing so much damage that there may be problems in recovering from it.

One notably critical headline in the British press said that Trump was “blowing up the world order” and leaving Europe’s leaders “scrabbling”. The article beneath it suggested he was the first US president to challenge the role that America had set itself many decades ago of protecting democracy around the world.

At the Yalta conference in 1945 towards the end of the Second World War, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin basically carved up post-war Europe into “spheres of influence”, with most of eastern Europe under Russia and the western nations as democracies in a transatlantic alliance.

When Britain made it clear after the war that it was pulling out of Palestine (and India) and could no longer protect the Suez Canal that provided a vital trade route, nor protect Greece from the threat of Soviet expansion, the US stepped up to fill the consequent vacuum. There was a commitment by President Truman to support free nations “who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure”. This was the start of what became known as the Truman Doctrine, the basis of which was that it was in the US’s own interests to help defend democracy abroad.

As is well known, of course, the Marshall Plan followed. Its purpose was to help rebuild the destroyed economies of Europe. This was in marked contrast to the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of the First World War. NATO was then established in 1949 to defend democracy in Europe from the Soviet Union which had already extended control over the eastern part of the continent and was intent on destabilizing the rest of it.

Thus, this was the time that America, despite being traditionally isolationist and sheltered by two vast oceans, took on its role of the leader of the free world and projected its power around the globe, setting up the rules-based order that formed the basis of international exchanges.

Much later, in 1975, came the landmark Helsinki Accords which were primarily an effort to reduce tension between the Soviet and Western blocs by securing their formal acceptance of the post-WW2 status quo in Europe. This recognised the inviolability of these frontiers, and the thirty-five signatories - including the USSR - pledged to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to cooperate in economic and humanitarian areas.

After the gradual growth of dissent, eventually the peoples of communist Eastern Europe rose up against the dictatorships, the Berlin Wall fell and a divided Europe became whole once more, with individual countries reasserting their sovereignty. Meanwhile, in 1991, the empire of the Soviet Union finally fell apart. Then, there were other wars – for example, in the Balkans in the 1990s – but the relative complacency of the new world order ended when the Russians first attacked eastern Ukraine and occupied and annexed Crimea in 2014, and this was followed by their full-scale invasion of the whole country in 2022.

Preogressively, of course, the modern Russian nation state’s experiment with democracy and capitalism after the collapse of the USSR did not work and there was a retreat from this and a return to an assertive imperial stance towards neighbouring countries.

Some say that, perhaps without fully realising the extent and long-term significance of what he is doing, Trump seems now single-handedly to be trying to change the world back from the post-war rules-based international order of sovereign states that are free to choose their own destinies and alliances to a “spheres of interest“ system in which the major powers, unconstrained by internationally agreed systems and procedures, are free to impose their will on smaller and weaker nations.

Various commentators now believe he seems not to be in tune with European values. Others, like his previous National Security Advisor, John Bolton, who is quoted as saying that Trump is too extremist for many people, believe he is not driven by philosophical imperatives because, in Bolton’s words, “the man does not have a philosophy”. He seems to rely excessively on “pragmatism based on unpredictable prejudices”; and, it is said, his famous emphasis on doing deals is not anyway an appropriate way of approaching the demands of the US presidency.

Notwithstanding all this, it now seems to be agreed generally that Trump is right that European countries should take greater responsibility for their own defence and invest more in their armed forces. But the way he is going about achieving that and removing the US from its role as the principal guarantor of peace is leading to a rift in the Western alliance – and that will be music to Putin’s ears.

Trump’s extreme approach to a range of issues – Canada, the Panama Canal, Greenland, tariffs and trade protectionism, a crackdown on immigration, improving government efficiency and reducing federal government staff with breakneck speed – has created obstacles and opposition that might have been avoided or overcome if managed better and handled with greater sensitivity. On the basis that action and reaction are equal and opposite, is it not anyway wiser to slow down?

US disregard for diplomacy

When, during his first term, President Trump raised the possibility of “buying Greenland”, the idea was widely considered to be something of a joke and was even met with derision. Predictably, both the Danish government and the Greenlanders themselves said firmly that the island was not for sale.

Nothing more was heard from Trump about it at that time. But he returned to the issue on the campaign trail last year. I wrote about Greenland in this column in January and it has been in the news most recently because of last week’s very brief and controversial visit there by vice president JD Vance and his wife, Usha.

After Trump had vowed again recently to annex the semi-autonomous Danish territory, the Greenlanders and Denmark made clear once more their opposition to his plans. The Vance trip was originally billed as a short visit of several days by Usha to its capital, Nook, to attend cultural events. But this was changed after people had declined to meet her, and after Greenland’s leader had said that “the trip is not showing respect for an ally”.

Somewhat crassly, instead of postponing the visit and bringing in to play some healing diplomacy, before trying again when emotions had cooled, the White House tried to up the ante by announcing that the vice president himself would accompany his wife; and the National Security Adviser, Mike Waltz, would also come. The result was that they were in Greenland for only three hours and spent the time visiting the US military base in the far north of the country, the Greenlanders having made it plain that the visitors were not welcome and that no one locally would be available to meet them.

If that were not bad enough, during his brief time in the country Vance delivered unnecessarily aggressive remarks berating the Danish government for not doing a good enough job in providing adequate military spending and investment in Greenland’s “security architecture”. The US, he said, needed to step in for security reasons in the face of Russia and China “increasing their footprints” in the area. This was later countered by Denmark’s prime minister who, while conceding that there was always more that could be done, announced that in January $2m of new investment had been agreed, and that the country’s defence spending, now at 3.2 percent of GDP, was above the NATO requirement. She also said that the president’s and vice president’s words were not an appropriate way to talk to an ally.

In addition to all this, what struck me as significant was Vance’s so-called assurances about ruling out the use of US military force to achieve control of Greenland. This was unwise because, in the view of many, even to mention it suggests it had been considered – and, in the circumstances of Denmark’s position as a fellow NATO member, this was something that would be unthinkable.

There are, of course, many ways of saying things, and Greenlanders consider that Trump and his officials are not saying them in the right way. Reportedly, both they and the government in Copenhagen regard him as a threat and that he could even resort to force to get what he wants. Furthermore, they wonder whether his handling of Greenland may offer a clue as to how he deals ultimately with Canada, Panama and Gaza.

Perhaps there is something we are not being told about the need for the US to be in control in Greenland. People also wonder why the Americans do not take the easy route and simply expand their existing presence in the country. If they have a genuine security problem there, it would surely be more effective to deal with it in cooperation with Denmark and the Greenlanders in order to avoid conflict.

At the very least, they would do well to try to convince the islanders, who have made it clear that their ultimate goal is independence, through a “hearts and minds” campaign rather than issue threats which will only strengthen their resolve. It could not be clearer that the majority of Greenlanders do not want to be swallowed up by the US.

Meanwhile, people wonder how Trump has reacted to MAGA now meaning in Greenland “Make America Go Away” - that is, if anyone has dared tell him!

Press freedom under constant threat

Shortage of space today permits only a brief reference to the recent detention and subsequent deportation of a BBC correspondent in Turkey. Last week, Mark Lowen was arrested and held in Istanbul while covering the current massive protests there against the detention of the city’s mayor who is seen in Turkey as being President Erdogan’s main political rival. Reportedly, the mayor has been selected by his party as its candidate in the next election due in 2028.

Lowen was served with a deportation notice for “being a threat to public order”. I happen to have watched his regular reporting on BBC TV which has always seemed to me to be thoroughly professional and balanced. I have seen little about this case, but it is hard to imagine how he could really be a threat to public order. So, presumably something he has said has upset the sensitivities of political leaders in Ankara.

Interestingly, there was another report yesterday of the arrest of a foreign journalist – this time from Sweden.

Both incidents demonstrate once more how important a free press is in holding politicians to account, particularly in countries like Turkey with an authoritarian government. But freedom of expression and the press is surely equally significant in democracies like our own.