Yes, it does sound a bit unlikely, but so does bringing order to an international order in crisis.

The news that Anthony Albanese is thinking about racing to the other end of the planet in the hope of meeting Donald Trump at the forthcoming meeting of NATO leaders doesn’t inspire confidence in our prime minister. After the humiliating snub at the G7, we might have hoped he had learned his lesson.

By his own admission Trump has no idea what he’s going to do next, whether it’s humdrum questions of international co-operation or reducing other countries to piles of smoking rubble. A willingness to bend the knee in the court of King Donald doesn’t look like a winning strategy, especially as he may not turn up. Even if he does, there are simply no limits to Trump’s appetite for flattery, fealty and ingratiation.

We have now had more than enough time to decide whether making a dodgy real estate guy from New York — and a convicted felon, of course — the most powerful man in the world was a good idea. The jury is definitely in. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has given Trump immunity for any future actions he may take, including the lucrative side hustles that being president allows, so the court of public opinion is all that’s left.

Depressing as all this is for anyone who cares about the future of American democracy, it’s not even the principal concern for the rest of the world. While the US may not be quite as hegemonic as it once was, whatever it does in response to Trump’s latest whim matters. Whether it’s facilitating the genocide in Gaza, giving comfort to Putin’s megalomaniac ambitions in Ukraine, or just giving the bond markets the heebie-jeebies, Trump’s actions are unsettling the entire world order.

In such circumstances, it’s worth asking what the rest of the world can do about this. Clearly, the US is still far too powerful strategically and economically to threaten with any sort of retaliation, despite the existential threat the Trump administration’s actions pose to everyone else. It could hardly be otherwise given that “America first” remains the guiding principle of all its actions.

In such circumstances, the rest of the world — apart from Israel, perhaps — has a collective interest in figuring out how to deal with what has unambiguously become a rogue nation with no concern about the consequences of its actions for friend and foe alike. Perhaps a little lateral thinking is required. In a parallel universe, this could be Albo’s big chance to discover some political ambition, imagination and backbone.

To be fair, it’s good that the Albanese Government seems to be serious about the possibility of developing closer ties with the European Union, which is still arguably the benchmark for creative middle-power diplomacy. But Australia could even suggest the relationship goes much further. If Albo needs a big idea to take to the NATO talks, what about suggesting like-minded states develop a “coalition of the cautious”?

One possible way of sending Trump, and the American people more generally a powerful message is by having nothing to do with them economically or strategically. Rather than waiting for the US to impose punitive, destructive tariffs on yet another country — like us — why not suggest that other affected countries agree to jointly move to curtail economic ties with the US wherever it’s feasible?

Just the attempt to form such a group of countries that included the likes of the EU and states from the global south — including China — might be enough to cause some consternation in the US and a rethink of some of its more egregious policies. Given the US will also be one of the victims of some of its more ill-advised policy experiments, the rest of the world might actually be doing it a favour in bringing it to its senses.

Of course, this will never happen. Such a proposal could never be considered by any Australian prime minster – or not while they’re in office, at least. But the reality is that if the “international community” fails to do something, we will all be stuck with King Donald, or his successor, as he trashes the international order and causes civil unrest, or even war, within his own country.

Perhaps a policy of collective disengagement might encourage Americans to recognise that their country is the problem and not the solution. They really ought to get their own house in order before handing out gratuitous advice, or worse, to everyone else. It might mean having a serious think about how they got themselves in such a mess and using the fabled checks and balances before they disappear for ever.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.