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