The unknowns of Donald Trump foreign
policy
In the last two centuries serial novels caused a sensation in newspapers
and magazines throughout Europe and the United States. Great authors were published weekly, fortnightly or monthly
basis instead of the classical book format. Many of the Charles Dickens'
extraordinary novels were published each week for forty years. Ernest Hemingway
published "Farewell to Arms"; "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was posted in
single chapters for two years; Joseph Conrad novels were published every week.
"Ana Karenina", for four
years kept in suspense those expectant readers of the Russian Messenger.
In a novel (in traditional book format) the reader determines the
personal progress towards the outcome.
In the serial novel that personal
control laid in the hands of the publisher. The public should get used to wait
for the development and for the end of it.
The foreign affairs actions of Donald Trump’s administration seem to
recall the expectations and anguish of those serial novels.
Except perhaps for Richard Nixon, who had a set of ideas -well before
the campaign stage- to undertake in the international scene, (as the recognition
of Communist China) the Presidents of the United States seem to concentrate
more on domestic affairs ab initio, (somewhat
underestimating as candidates the huge and unavoidable demands of the external
sector).
Nevertheless, it has been ritual
for each candidate to present its foreign policy before Inauguration. Aims, objectives and instruments of
foreign policy for the following years. In practice, subordinating international
affairs to those of domestic nature was basically the traditional initial
presidential vision. A consequence of the departure was the countless (day and night
calls) emergencies due to "unexpected"
events like Pearl Harbour, Cuban Missile Crisis, Iran hostages, etc., causing
major alterations of the preconceived rational foreign policy.
Each Government, since its inception, has invariably had a spinal policy and another superimposed
by the circumstances that finally
change almost entirely the initial program. The latter abounds in history, for
example. F.D. Roosevelt/ WWII , George W. Bush/Sep. 11th, 2001.
But in any case, again we have to insist that the surge of an external circumstantial policy should not be
understood as an absence of
predetermined policy carefully crafted by each new
Government.
It can be said that foreign
policies presented by the incoming Administration, basically responded to the
objectives established as State policy, (initiated by Thomas Jefferson, as well
as Foreign Secretary and then as President). With the passing of time they were
accumulating new principles and positions. Republicans and Democrats have
maintained those principles as a platform, identified as the National Interest of the United States,
varying in each new Administration, the intensity, the mechanisms, the strategy
and tactics.
The result has been that each Presidency in the last hundred years, from
Wilson to Obama, had a foreign policy
determined a priori, conceived to be
implemented more beyond the natural resistances of other actors in the International System in rejecting the Pax Americana. (which does not exempt
such a policy of permanent errors, some of monumental character, among other
reason wrong perceptions for not picking as ambassadors the excellent experts
from the State Department, but anyone who has donated to the campaign v.g. an owner of a furniture store or an
interior designer)
The difference with the current unprecedented situation is that the
classic set of objectives and actions is not clear.
It seems to us that the new foreign policy will be mainly based on the perception of President Trump that
United States has lost the old
position of hegemonic power in the unipolar world of short duration (1945-1955)
or perhaps rather the unique position shared with the Soviet Union in the
existing system until 1989.
Loss of "top country rank" in the
international system is explained by the new President as a result of a series
of mistakes made by previous
Governments, both at the domestic and external level: negligence and tolerance
with the adversary, bad trade agreements, costly military alliances, reduction
of military power and capabilities, flexibility and costs of the United Nations.
Departing from that perception, seems
to us that President Trump lays out as a primordial objective of his Government
the restoration of a most appropriate
world order, the re-evaluation of relations with "guilty" countries (China
and Mexico), establishing a preferential partnership with Russia, (current
military competitor, slowly moving to reinstate bipolarity) ignoring -partially
or totally- traditional players ((with or without Great Britain) Europe), reviewing
actions and goals in the Middle East and Asia, (mainly the Nuclear agreement
with Iran), the elimination of radical Islam and reaffirming
ties with Israel, neutralizing the imminent danger that represents North Korea
(supporting Japan in developing nuclear weapons, and, surprisingly, calling on China for support in this case
).
Towards Latin America, apart from the Mexican phobia, president Trump
seems to have identified Venezuela as "...great people" sic. It is however open to the
imagination the new political approach towards the regime of Nicolas Maduro. Certainly.
Latin America can suffer serious consequences if the new approach
creates new and additional imbalances in the already uneven economic scheme
between the developed North and the emerging South.
The rest of the world does not appear in the World map of the West
Wing's Situation Room that promises
that (although it has 513 m2) as being insufficient space for the times to
come.
Donald Trump will concentrate on foreign economic policy, perhaps unlike as any predecessor. His vision
of foreign policy is economic-militarist,
i.e., the "greatness" of the United States is determined by its
economic power as well as by its military strength. These two elements are the
platform for the development of a new foreign policy to make "big America
again".
Now, there are complex contradictions that he will have to resolve. He
proposed the reformulation of commercial and military alliances of the past
seventy years. Warnings about NATO, i.e. the removal of financial support has created
enormous political, economic and security tensions in countries formerly
members of the defunct Warsaw Pact, as well as in western allies such, as Finland, Sweden, Denmark.
Focusing on those issues of greater global nature, everything seems to
indicate that the new Trumpian architecture will evokes the
days of isolationism that the U.S. pursued during an era in which it did not
desire to be an important actor in
world affairs. Isolationism will be combined with neo-protectionism.
There are two areas that are particularly disturbing because of their
enormous impact on international relations. Trade and Environment.
The partial or overall reform the North American Free Trade Association
with Mexico and Canada (NAFTA), the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
agreement (TPP) that was central in Obama's trade policy, creates great uncertainties
of political and economic dimensions which may affect capital markets, trade
flows and investment around the world.
Paradoxically it is the system of international trade was created
gradually from the League of Nations, the GATT and the World Trade
Organization, which not only allowed the development of international trade but
also created the platform for the USA since 1945 to become the first exporter
of goods and services in the world (recently moved to second place by China
ascension). The NAFTA will be reformulated, or fired, by President Trump if there are not new big advantages for the U.S.
What is surprising is that those rivals are key and essential trade partners.
Most of USA exports are to Canada, and Mexico. The third enemy: China.
It is obvious that if it disrupts the trade system with those three
countries, the global trading system will suffer implications of unprecedented
proportions. In the region, Mexico in particular will confront a structural
upheaval with large losses in employment and foreign investment.
In general, a revolution in the secular system of the United States
trade may cause a break in the last forty years gradual growth of international
trade, where emerging countries moved from the periphery to become essential
trade partners, being that today those countries represent almost half of the global
exchange of goods and services. Progress, although slow, have allowed that
global poverty in the last 30 years to be reduced probably more than 40%.
Likewise, the international
financial system has begun, since the Monterrey consensus of the UN, a gradual
reform of the financial institutions of Bretton Woods, such as the World Bank
and the IMF, in order to more efficiently pursue the benefits of globalization
and growth and development aspirations of developing countries.
The environmental dimension of development -which we painstakingly
negotiated at the UN- has irreversibly linked any economic and social
development with the environment in order not to emulate the
non-conservationist approach of industrialized countries. But it can come to an
end if U.S. withdraws from the recent Paris agreements on climate change as
well as other previous instruments endorsed by previous USA administrations.
While Venezuela and the oil-producing countries would have less international
pressure in the short term to progressively reduce emissions of gases of fossil
fuels, an uncontrolled use may accelerate the global deterioration and put into
question the survival of Nature and therefore the existence of mankind.
The crucial question: are the new Government of Donald Trump in
knowledge of the Leviathan that could
be created by a radical reformulation of foreign policy with such structural
implications in the world economic system?
It is frankly alarming that we cannot foresee the answer to it.
In the inauguration speech and subsequent initial days he has reaffirmed
the policies or, rather, actions enumerated during the campaign, even more
passionately.
Maybe we will spend the next years, as those patient and assiduous
readers of Ana Karenina, attentive to each delivery to be able to follow and
understand the plot and the probable outcome of the new USA foreign policy.
In Tolstoy’s masterpiece the end of the story is very tragic. But, after
all, his wonderful narrative belonged to the genre of realistic fiction. Mr.
Trump political drama, being slowly disclosed in the brevity of Twitter, will be of the most pure realism, unfortunately not precisely the
fiction of magic realism Latin
Americans and the rest of the world so much enjoy.
© Vicente Vallenilla. All rights reserved. 2017
