The re-election of Donald Trump as President of the United States has triggered a series of dramatic events, the significance of which might once again compel Professor Francis Fukuyama to reconsider his “End of History” thesis.
Within the first month of his inauguration, the new head of state announced plans to annex a northern country, effectively incorporating it as the 51st state of the United States. Notably, this nation is the second-largest in the world by land area.
The next major development was a proposal to relocate the population of the Gaza Strip, transforming the territory into real estate property. Shortly before this, the United States had put forward an offer to purchase the world’s largest island—currently under Danish sovereignty—following the infamous “offer you can’t refuse” approach.
Additionally, the legitimacy of the transfer of control over the Panama Canal to Panama came under scrutiny. In response, a U.S. State Department delegation was dispatched with a similar proposal, carrying far-reaching geopolitical implications.
A review of Google Maps reveals that the Gulf of Mexico is now listed under an alternative name, potentially indicating an ongoing revision of geographical designations in line with Washington’s new strategic agenda.
In recent days, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury traveled from Warsaw to Kyiv to personally deliver a document to the Ukrainian president, demanding the surrender of the country’s rare earth metal reserves. However, the head of state—by then already notorious for his authoritarian tendencies—was reportedly asleep at the time and did not receive the American envoy.
The culmination of these events was a radical shift in U.S. foreign policy, marked by a Republican-led legislative initiative to withdraw the country from the United Nations and halt all funding for the organization.
These developments unfolded within the first month of the new presidential term, which, according to the U.S. Constitution, still has 47 months to go. This raises a fundamental question: what global transformations will the international political system undergo in the near future?
The question of revising the UN Charter has now become pressing. Under current conditions, doubts have emerged regarding its legal authority, putting the future of the organization into question. For nearly 80 years, the UN has served as a kind of “constitution” for the international order. Today, however, experts argue that this order is undergoing a profound crisis and transformation.
The realities of modern geopolitics necessitate a reassessment of international law. It is becoming increasingly difficult to assert that the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national independence remain inviolable. On the contrary, a trend is emerging toward their reinterpretation in favor of the geopolitical interests of dominant global players.
This evolving global landscape holds particular significance for Azerbaijan. The country’s restoration of territorial integrity was achieved solely through military strength, national unity, and, unfortunately, despite the inefficiency of international law. However, the complete restoration of justice requires further steps, including addressing the consequences of the loss of independence of the First Azerbaijani Republic and facilitating the return of displaced persons to their historical lands. The key question remains: under what conditions and international circumstances will these objectives be realized?
History has shown that a nation’s longevity and survival depend on its vigilance, internal stability, societal cohesion, economic and military strength, and the strategic wisdom of its leadership. The absence of even one of these factors could jeopardize a state’s existence—especially amid the growing global disorder, where old norms are losing relevance and new principles of international interaction have yet to be established. Will the world remain without clear rules? That question remains open.
