The Folly of 'America First': How Western Zero-Sum Politics Threatens Planetary Survival

Introduction: The Dangerous Mantra of ‘Everyone for Himself’

The philosophy underpinning ‘America First’ represents one of the most dangerous and intellectually bankrupt approaches to international relations in modern history. Drawing upon French philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s profound insight that the egocentric ideal of ‘everyone for himself’ is ‘false and against nature,’ this article explores how this toxic mindset threatens not merely specific nations but the very survival of humanity. The increasingly belligerent nationalism promoted by US foreign policy under President Donald Trump, and continued in various forms by subsequent administrations, portends catastrophe on multiple levels—economic, environmental, and ultimately existential in our age of nuclear weapons.

Historical Context and Current Realities

The current geopolitical landscape must be understood within its proper historical context. Since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 established the modern state system, international relations have been characterized by adversarial competition rather than cooperative coexistence. This Western-constructed framework has consistently failed to deliver either lasting peace or meaningful justice. The article correctly identifies that nothing on the intellectual horizon suggests any promising transformation of this fundamentally flawed system.

What makes the current moment particularly perilous is the convergence of multiple geopolitical flashpoints. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, tensions between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, nuclear ambitions in the Middle East involving Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey, and the steady advancement of a multipolar world order led by Russia, China, India, and North Korea—all these factors create a tinderbox that could ignite at any moment. In this context, President Trump’s de facto support for Putin’s crimes, as noted by Portuguese President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa’s observation that the American president was ‘objectively a Soviet or Russian asset,’ reveals the profound moral and strategic confusion at the heart of US foreign policy.

The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Realpolitik

The fundamental problem with ‘America First’ and similar zero-sum approaches to international relations is their intellectual and moral bankruptcy. These policies rest on the perpetually false premise that national security can be achieved through adversarial competition rather than cooperative engagement. As the article astutely observes, in our nuclear age—unique in human history—such zero-sum orientations to national security can never be gainful. They are, in Teilhard de Chardin’s words, ‘false and against nature.‘

This assessment resonates deeply with those of us who have long criticized Western imperialist and neo-colonial policies. The West, particularly the United States, has constructed an international system that systematically favors its own interests while undermining the development and sovereignty of Global South nations. The selective application of international law, the imposition of unfair economic conditions through institutions like the IMF and World Bank, and the persistent military interventions in sovereign nations all demonstrate how the West has institutionalized its advantage at the expense of global justice.

Civilizational States Versus Westphalian Nation-States

What the Western foreign policy establishment consistently fails to understand is that civilizational states like China and India operate from fundamentally different philosophical premises than Westphalian nation-states. These ancient civilizations view international relations through the lens of harmony, cooperation, and long-term civilizational continuity rather than short-term national advantage. Their approaches to development, exemplified by China’s Belt and Road Initiative and India’s emphasis on South-South cooperation, demonstrate a more enlightened understanding of international relations that recognizes our fundamental interconnectedness.

The tragedy of ‘America First’ is that it represents the antithesis of this cooperative vision. Rather than recognizing that the security and prosperity of any nation depends on the security and prosperity of all, it peddles the dangerous illusion that nations can thrive at each other’s expense. This is not merely morally reprehensible; it is empirically false. As the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated, viruses recognize no borders. Climate change, nuclear proliferation, economic instability—these challenges demand global solutions, not nationalist posturing.

The Legal and Moral Imperative of Global Solidarity

International law, properly understood, does not support the narrow nationalism of ‘America First.’ As William Blackstone noted in his Commentaries on the Law of England—foundational to US jurisprudence—each state is expected ‘perpetually to aid and enforce the law of nations, as part of the common law.’ The US Constitution’s Supremacy Clause explicitly incorporates treaty obligations into domestic law. President Trump’s neglect of human rights across the world therefore represents not merely a policy preference but a violation of both domestic and international legal obligations.

This legal framework reflects a deeper moral truth: that our obligations extend beyond national borders. The founding fathers of the United States, drawing upon natural law traditions, understood that the human rights articulated in the Declaration of Independence applied to all peoples, not merely Americans. This universalistic vision has been betrayed by the narrow nationalism of ‘America First,’ which represents a retreat from America’s highest ideals in favor of its basest instincts.

Toward a Planetary Consciousness

The solution to our current predicament lies in what Teilhard de Chardin called ‘planetization’—the development of a global consciousness that recognizes our fundamental interdependence. This does not mean abolishing national identities or cultural particularities. Rather, it means recognizing that these identities exist within a broader context of planetary solidarity. As civilizational states like China and India have demonstrated, one can be deeply rooted in one’s cultural traditions while simultaneously embracing a global perspective.

This transformation must begin with a rejection of the adversarial state system that has dominated international relations since Westphalia. We need new institutions and frameworks that reflect the reality of our interconnected world. The BRICS nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and other emerging multilateral frameworks represent promising alternatives to Western-dominated institutions that have consistently served imperial interests.

Conclusion: Choosing Survival Over Suicide

The choice before us is stark: planetary solidarity or planetary suicide. ‘America First’ and similar nationalist policies represent a collective suicide pact that threatens not merely specific nations but humanity itself. In our nuclear age, there can be no winners in a zero-sum game of international relations—only losers on a catastrophic scale.

As nations of the Global South continue to rise and assert their rightful place in the international order, they offer an alternative vision based on cooperation, mutual respect, and shared prosperity. China’s concept of a community with a shared future for mankind, India’s tradition of vasudhaiva kutumbakam (the world is one family), and similar philosophies from other civilizational states provide the intellectual and moral resources we need to build a better world.

The time has come to reject the bankrupt philosophy of ‘everyone for himself’ and embrace our fundamental interconnectedness. Our survival depends on it.