We live in a turbulent and uncertain world in which fierce political, social, cultural, and other battles are being waged. U.S. President Donald Trump is an unconventional politician who, through his appearances and actions, fiercely challenges established norms of political behavior, both on the domestic American scene and internationally. Is Trump an isolated phenomenon or a product of existing socio-political circumstances? How serious are the divisions in America, and which forces will lead in the future? We asked these questions to the esteemed Croatian diplomat, writer, translator, and professor Dr. Tomislav Sunić.
– How do you comment on Trump’s first 100 days in the White House? Are you more disappointed or satisfied with his actions so far?
I’m glad that Donald Trump won the election, and I believe he is on the right path. In any case, I support his policies in my own way. Of course, there are certain issues concerning foreign policy, especially regarding the Middle East, where we are not on the same wavelength—particularly in relation to his stance on Israel and the Palestinian issue. However, overall, he has a sound policy, and I assume he will be successful in the coming period. That said, crises and even the worst-case scenarios may still arise.
– What is your view on Trump’s domestic policy, which is not politically correct?
We need to highlight a few things here. Historians—especially those who focus on the philosophy of history—generally take two approaches when analyzing and evaluating historical events, whether they be daily or tectonic shifts like the fall of civilizations. Some historians prioritize the individual politician or statesman—in this case, Trump. Others focus on dominant ideas or what is referred to as the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, and assess political events through that lens. Specifically, in the case of President Trump, we can see his foreign and domestic policies as revolutionary and exceptional—someone who is changing not only the political landscape of America but the entire Western world. Interestingly, one can also see Trump as a product of a zeitgeist that began long ago.
I dare say that regardless of how much attention Trump receives today and despite the radical changes being enacted by his administration—especially regarding the repeal of various laws related to the status of migrants, minorities, etc.—we must take into account that Trump did not truly come to power. We must not forget what is omitted in mainstream media. Over the past 50 to 80 years, America has been undergoing profound transformations. And it’s not just America—Europe too. We must always begin with the fact that Europe, especially Western Europe, and now Eastern Europe as well, finds itself in a “vassal position,” simply because America won World War II. In 1945, the U.S. physically, legally, and institutionally took over Western Europe and imposed its legal system and cultural policy—for better or worse. And this, logically, now applies to us as well.
– Let’s return to Donald Trump and the dimensions through which we can observe him.
With Trump, we see two factors: (1) the factor of the statesman, and (2) the factor of the zeitgeist—the lies and dominant ideas that specifically brought Trump to power. Again, even if he had not won the election or entered the White House, America would still be heading toward a breakdown. We won’t call it Balkanization just yet, but that term is increasingly being used. America is in a very difficult situation, along with the whole of Western Europe. This is not merely my cultural pessimism—we must acknowledge something that anyone on the street would accept as fact. A historical cycle that began in 1945, after the victory of communists and liberals—i.e., the Soviet Union and the U.S.—over National Socialism, has ended legally and culturally. Of course, this doesn’t become visible overnight. It’s just a matter of months, a few years, or decades before that system is completely changed. And we can already see that now.
It’s a historical paradox. In political sociology, this is called the paradox of unintended consequences. You aim for one thing and end up with something quite different. We can draw a parallel with 1991. When Yugoslavia collapsed and we wanted a free and normal Croatia with a national identity, we saw ten years later that the desired scenario had not been realized. In the same way, politicians—including Trump—are confronted with how to dull the edge of the radical shift Trump began, at least rhetorically, in the past few months—something I welcome.
Regardless of Trump, the situation in the U.S. is quite critical. One factor is rarely discussed. When we talk about America, we must remember that we are not only talking about the U.S. and Americanism but also about (Western) Europe. Since 1945—and over the past 30 years, Eastern Europe too, from Poland and Romania to Croatia—these countries have also adopted a “vassal” stance toward America and Americanism.
One factor we must emphasize if we want to talk about changes in the U.S. that could have negative consequences for America’s and the European Union’s very survival is the foreign, non-European ethnic factor. We cannot begin any analysis of America, as politically correct media do, without acknowledging that American society has drastically changed in the past 30 to 50 years. The term “race” has become somewhat politically incorrect in America, although it was used in U.S. education until the 1960s and 1970s. About 50% of the American population is no longer of European origin. They are of Latino, African, Asian, or mixed descent.
– What is the specific impact of demographic structure on American state policy during the Trump administration?
Due to changes in the demographic structure, we can conclude that the American policy President Trump will pursue in the coming years will not be the one he would want or wish to pursue. One must not forget the ethnic factor, which is very important. A parallel can be drawn with the former Yugoslavia, which, despite two attempts (experiments), failed to preserve its unity and functionality because the ethnic question was not resolved. We are now facing a serious problem in the Croatian context due to the mass arrival of foreign non-European migrants. Therefore, it is not excluded that in a year or two, we may face very serious ethnic, or rather racial conflicts in Croatia, and perhaps a new “Yugoslavization” or Balkanization of Croatia.
The ethnic composition in the U.S. also spills over into the legal and political landscape of America. Trump’s MAGA policy (Make America Great Again) can even prompt a layperson to ask: which America does Trump want to bring back? Is it the America of Presidents L.B. Johnson and Nixon in the 1960s and 1970s? Or is it the America of Gary Cooper movies, or John Wayne’s USA? Is it the America immediately after the end of the Civil War in 1865? That is the fundamental question Trump must define. It is a romanticized America that he may want to restore. In it, the majority of Americans would be of European descent, as was once the case. That is very difficult to achieve unless extraordinary scenarios occur—such as a state of war or the mass deportation of tens of millions of people. Under current circumstances, that is practically impossible.
Do not forget the year 1980. At that time, 85% of Americans were of European descent—people who came from Sweden, Greece, Croatia, Poland, England, Scotland, etc. That is no longer the case today. Based on empirical data, that will not be the case in the future either, despite Trump’s well-meaning ideas about restoring that America. It is hard to talk about it. In my understanding, the economic factor is not as important. We must keep in mind that the ethnic, i.e., racial factor has changed significantly in America over the last 40 years.
– Although you mention races, a specificity of the U.S., unlike ex-Yugoslavia, is that minority communities like African Americans do not seek secession. They do not desire autonomy, special states, or separation from Washington. It is more of a cultural conflict.
This is a very sensitive issue. We’re drawing a parallel with the former Yugoslavia. Let’s not get into genealogical details. But the fact remains. In the former Yugoslav space, regardless of culture and language, Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats belonged to a common genome. The tragic war we experienced had a more political and ideological significance that expressed itself in secessionism—more so among Croats, less among Bosnians (Muslims). In America, it is difficult to imagine that 15 million African Americans (most of whom live in Georgia, the southwestern U.S., the Carolinas, the Bible Belt, and quite a few in the northern U.S., etc.) would move toward secession. If there were separatism or secessionism, we must be extremely cautious, and I do not want to use the term civil war lightly.
It is hard to imagine African Americans (Blacks) establishing their own homogeneous state—whether that be in Louisiana, Mississippi, or perhaps even parts of New Jersey or New York. There have been many attempts, and much has been said about it. To this day, the idea of motivating African Americans to return to their ancestral lands is still discussed—sending them money and paying reparations for the difficult days when they were enslaved, etc. There was even the idea of sending them back to Nigeria to establish their own country there. That’s where many came from in large numbers in the 17th and 18th centuries. It is hard to accept because, let’s be frank—regardless of what we may think of them—it’s difficult to imagine that African Americans would be able to establish their own separate state. The concept of statehood and ethnogenesis leads to the concept of nation-state building, and that is not traditionally part of the African American experience. Regardless of the praise, Africa, despite freeing itself from colonialism, is today the poorest continent—though by minerals and other measures it is the richest in the world. We see this from north to south Africa. Despite the success of the romantic movement to break apartheid in South Africa, 35 years later, the country is in catastrophic condition, with the highest crime rates—even though there are no more “bad white people.”
– Let’s return to the U.S. and the potential for African American secessionism.
It’s hard to imagine that a leader could emerge among African Americans. There are, admittedly, some radicals, like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King once were—both of whom were assassinated. There are some influential figures advocating for greater homogeneity among African Americans. However, this is very difficult. It’s hard to imagine that they could establish their own independent state. Still, that might actually be a positive development if they did. It’s not entirely out of the question that it could happen. But I doubt it would lead to conflict with the still-majority white population, especially with the Latino population, which is traditionally very unfriendly toward African Americans.
So let’s dispel the myth right away that racism is limited to white people. The majority of racial conflicts aren’t between whites and blacks, but between Latinos (Cholos) and African Americans. There are about 60 to 70 million Latinos, and their numbers are growing rapidly. We’ve seen this from the massive waves of migration across the border over the past 20 years. Just during Biden’s administration, several million Latinos (mostly mestizos, mixed-race people, and Indigenous people) have poured into the U.S.
Here we have another paradox of linguistic and conceptual nature. Trump and the U.S. are called racist, the EU is called racist, and yet we see countless people from Africa and Asia who want to come to the “racist” America—not to China or Israel. They know they’ll receive social benefits and a level of security there they won’t get in Colombia or Ecuador. If you’re familiar with the situation in Colombia or Ecuador, you’ll immediately understand that “black” people are seen as racially inferior there. In those countries, racism is much more intense than in North America or the EU.
– Yes, I’m aware of racism in Latin America and that this issue is somehow neglected compared to other parts of the world. I’m sure you know quite a lot about it.
As a diplomat, I can say that in South American diplomacy, the people involved are predominantly of Spanish descent. Argentina is relatively homogeneously white—about 80% white; Chile is a bit less—about 60%. In Brazil, 55–60% of the population is of non-European descent, but in key positions in the economy and diplomacy, you’ll find people of European origin. Although they won’t say it publicly, they are very aware of their “blue blood” and will privately reveal that they are proud of their European heritage.
You don’t have to look far. We can see the same thing in Turkey. Turkey is a relatively more European country, but if someone is of Asian descent, they have fewer chances in hospitality, politics, or diplomacy than someone of Albanian, Bosnian, Romanian, or Ukrainian background. You see this clearly in Turkish soap operas—how Turks of European origin are treated compared to those who came from outside.
America’s big problem is the complete change in its ethnic and racial composition. There are about six million Americans of Chinese descent, more than a million of Japanese descent—a significant number of people who are very aware of their background. Chinese Americans are extremely nationally conscious and highly value their racial homogeneity.
– There’s also the element of interracial marriages.
True, but it’s not all black and white. For an American woman of Chinese or Japanese descent (and there are a lot of them in San Francisco—about 20%), marrying an African American man is sacrilege and a disaster. But marrying a white man is seen as an ethnic and racial step up. It’s already considered a boost for one’s career. Some of my good colleagues from San Diego and the West Coast are married to Chinese women, and they get along well. The Chinese have high IQs and are very successful. It’s no surprise that the Chinese are highly successful economically today. But Americans of Northeast Asian descent (mainly Chinese and Japanese—not southern islanders from the Pacific) are very conscious of their ethnic and racial identity. They take care of their genes. They don’t like Latinos or African Americans, but they have a certain respect for whites or Anglo-Saxons.
I may be placing too much emphasis on racial and ethnic divisions, but these are deliberately forgotten, and little is said about them here because we always start from the assumption that race is just a social construct. Well, it’s not—not in visual, behavioral, or other forms. I’ve written a lot about that.
– Tell us a bit more about that.
Until the 1960s and 1970s, anthropology was studied in America. Even today, there is a study of behavioral genetics. I know professors who speak in a hieroglyphic-like language to avoid being accused of racism, because nowadays being labeled a racist is a career death sentence. Talking about differences among races or sub-races (Scandinavians, Mediterraneans) does not mean I look down on races or people from the Maghreb, of whom there are many in Marseille or Paris, or Asians. On the contrary, all of them have their own qualities. The worst people I’ve ever met were white, and the most despicable individuals were from my own Croatian tribe.
We must be aware of the fact that we are different. One should not pretend to uphold multiculturalism because that always ends badly. Former Yugoslavia is a good example. Croats are making the same mistake again with some kind of “diversity,” instead of being a model to the world as Croats. We should say: “Don’t create artificial constructs like the EU or some transgender or multiethnic America because it will lead to conflict.”
Every nation and group has its own tragedy, its own narrative. You cannot impose just one narrative because another group will feel offended. You can’t talk only about Ustaša crimes without also mentioning the communist ones afterward. The same applies to the U.S. There are more and more African and Asian Americans increasingly protesting why there’s constant focus on the Holocaust and Jews, but little to no discussion about what happened during colonialism or in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War of 1898, when hundreds of thousands of Filipinos were killed. The same will be said by Latin Americans mentioning the Incas and Aztecs. Why is the Jewish identity and their story of suffering constantly highlighted, but not ours?
This is due to the heterogeneity of modern societies.
– Do you think the West (EU, USA) is on the brink of a major civilizational collapse because of all these issues, and that in the future countries like China, Russia, and India will take the lead?
Those are strong words. We can say that big changes await us in the future. Perhaps in a year or even two months, the situation will look completely different. Undoubtedly, China is one of the most important factors in the world. The Chinese are a people with a very high level of culture and civilization. They have managed to endure for 3,000 years.
They are a very homogeneous nation. They don’t have a sense of extreme individualism like Americans or Europeans do, which has its good and bad sides. We have this Promethean spirit, which the Chinese lack. But they have strong discipline and homogeneity, and it’s not impossible that China will become an extremely important factor in today’s multipolar world—which is already a reality.
As for Russia, I don’t know. Three North Americas could fit into Russia. It’s a huge territory, one of the richest in minerals alongside Africa, although their birth rate is low. 120 million people is not a lot, and they’ve lost a lot of people in the war in Ukraine, as have the Ukrainians. In any case, we must count on Russia and the famous BRICS alliance. What will come out of that is still a matter of theoretical speculation.
The fact is that America is still the main hegemon. The U.S. still has hundreds of bases and intelligence centers across the world. It’s also a fact that Americans are still capable of waging war on three different military fronts, which gives them a logical advantage. But because of major internal racial and ethnic changes, it’s hard to imagine how they’ll manage to maintain such a vast logistical system.
African Americans are good in certain professions, but there are only about 2% of them in the Air Force, not to mention special forces (like snipers), where they are virtually absent. The same goes not only for the military but also for culture.
China is an important factor, though we shouldn’t put it on a pedestal. They have their own major problems. The Chinese have an ethnic advantage. There are about 1.5 billion of them—roughly four times more than Americans—even though China is about the same size as the U.S.
China is still a totalitarian state with an increasing population. That’s not a solution I support, but maybe it is a solution. The Chinese system combines totalitarian governance with a kind of multi-capitalism. I see China as a capable state. I can’t say whether a military conflict with America will happen.
Trump deserves credit for trying to stop the unnecessary war in Ukraine, whether I like him or not. He’s trying to do something positive.
Interview conducted by Matija Šerić.
The website of Dr. Tomislav Sunić: https://www.tomsunic.com/
Featured image: Amazon
