# TITLE PRINT COPY Trump could still drag us all into war # TITLE WEB LIVE He might have bogus intentions, but Trump could still drag us into a devastating war Saturday February 22, 2025 THE CANBERRA TIMES 51 OPINION FORUM title: DIPLOMACY Dependence on a dysfunctional president is unwanted - Trump could still drag us all into war byline: A US military campaign to seize Gaza would be Mr Trump's first international crime of aggression. MALCOLM HUGH PATTERSON PRESIDENT Donald Trump’s recent Gaza proposal appeared to confound those who sought or pretended to seek some consistency from the American leader. Regardless, several serious questions require equally serious answers. Will the American military promptly enter Gaza at Mr. Trump’s direction? Will the US become a new occupying power with Israeli consent and collaboration? If so, will the principal purpose of occupation be the deportation of nearly 2 million human beings to as-yet unresolved destinations? And does the President genuinely envisage a real estate bonanza for Trump-preferred developers once his demographic nuisance is resolved? The mercurial son-in-law Jared Kushner approves. Ultra-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich is keenly enthusiastic. And when not pondering evasion of the International Criminal Court warrant for his arrest, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is certainly sympathetic. Mr. Trump’s stated intention to “own” Gaza implies annexation. Was this bluster and another example of his tactic of distraction by threat? It would not be the first time he has contrived a fiction to sow chaos and distract an audience. Recall his ersatz willingness to seize Greenland and the Panama Canal. He does not appear to grasp that prudent statesmanship has nothing in common with the effrontery and showmanship he prefers when dealing in New York property. Like other powerful tormentors who seek to intimidate, Mr. Trump knows that the more often he repeats inflammatory but bogus intentions, the greater the likelihood of exhausting outraged observers. What remains is often a mix of resignation and passivity. This is a tactic which has arguably proved quite effective in wearying some of his critics. Even so, one should not reject his words entirely as exaggeration or hyperbole. Even a powerful charlatan risks rejection by his constituency if he does not follow through from time to time. However, if Mr. Trump really does have a plan, it will encounter difficulties. One of them is international law. A US military campaign to seize Gaza would be Mr. Trump’s first international crime of aggression. And should the US become the occupying power in Gaza, the Americans will attract certain obligations alongside recognition of particular rights held by the surviving population. There being no plausible case of majority acceptance of a collective transfer elsewhere, one of the Palestinian rights is to be spared a second wrongdoing: the crime of deportation. In other words, Mr. Trump’s stated intentions will carry explicit responsibility for breaches of customary international humanitarian law, Geneva Convention treaty law, and international criminal law in treaty and custom. In that light, a US military government in Gaza, a colossal real estate development, and its dubious land title seem to be three components of an alarming fantasy. Further, the President’s curiously unctuous tone and unambiguous language at the Trump/Netanyahu press conference made it obvious that he is indifferent to international legal constraints. Some political realists in Australia will support Mr. Albanese’s recent diffidence towards the President over his unfortunate remarks on Gaza. Our PM is aware that Mr. Trump is notoriously suspicious of alliances and holds no particular fondness for our corner of the world. Realpolitik probably dictated that it was best to keep one’s head down—lest trade, AUKUS, and much more be put at risk. Mr. Dutton preferred undignified flattery, lauding Mr. Trump as a big thinker on Gaza who brought gravitas to international affairs. The relatives of tens of thousands of dead and maimed Gazan civilians may hold a different view. And if Mr. Dutton does become the next PM, whether his compliant posture will draw tangible public benefit is a matter of speculation. The most unsettling implication of US political disorder lies in the rising risk of an Indo-Pacific war in the second half of this decade. It seems quite possible for an erratic Mr. Trump to draw Australia into a devastating war with China around 2027-28, then cut a deal with the Chinese Communists and leave Australia adrift. How might our leaders prepare? All Canberra’s choices are electorally unpalatable. But there are always choices: a much higher defence budget, civil and military conscription of both sexes, building next-generation weapons more quickly and in larger numbers, and so on. Heavy reliance on the US for Australian security is inescapable. Dependence on a dangerously dysfunctional President is an unwanted corollary. ■ Dr Malcolm Hugh Patterson is an independent international law and international relations researcher malcolm. [email protected]