Trump and Foreign Policy
There is no area of Trump’s second term in office that worries me more than his impact on U.S. foreign policy. Trump’s tag line on this is “America First.” It is not clear at all that this tag line really helps explain his positions, since in my view many of them run starkly counter to long-term U.S. national interests. I will take them one at a time. The key areas include: Ukraine, NATO, Israel, and Taiwan.
Ukraine
Trump claims he will end the war in Ukraine even before he takes office. What I think he means is that Trump’s obvious antipathy to aiding Ukraine will force them to accept Putin’s terms for ending the conflict. Putin will, of course, demand control over all of the Ukrainian territory he currently occupies, and demand guarantees that Ukraine will not seek to be admitted to NATO and possibly even the European Union. If Putin gets that agreement, he will merely pause the conflict until he has time to rearm and then proceed to swallow the rest of Ukraine when he gets the chance. The only alternative for Ukraine to retain notional independence will be to become a vassal state like Belarus, doing Putin’s bidding and selecting leaders he approves of.
NATO
The only difference between the various Eastern European countries that were once part of the Soviet Union, or part of the Warsaw Pact, and Ukraine, is that many of these states now belong to NATO. Putin has indicated a desire to directly or indirectly regain control over these countries and enlarge the Russian Empire. Trump has indicated a willingness to withdraw from NATO and has invited Russia to attack those members who are not living up to there defense expenditure commitments. The best face that can be put on these comments from Trump is that they are transactional and meant to force these countries to increase their defense expenditures. The worst face is that he really wants to see the collapse of NATO and is indifferent to Putin’s ambitions in Eastern Europe. In some ways it does not matter what he really wants. His words weaken the alliance and tempt Putin toward further aggression. In the absence of a firm commitment on the part of the U.S. to the NATO alliance, we can expect some of those states to hedge their bets and accommodate Russian ambitions. This is a nice example of why the business skill of extracting financial concessions in negotiations with people you never have to do business with again is a poor training ground for foreign policy.
Israel
The current conflict in the Middle East between Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran gave Trump a wedge to weaken the Democratic Party. Putting aside the strategic and humanitarian issues, the conflict created domestic political problems for Harris and the Democrats. Voters of Palestinian descent were a key voting block in Michigan and Michigan was important, if not essential, for a Harris victory. Members of the Progressive Left also had outsized sympathy for the Palestinian cause. American Jews have traditionally been loyal supporters of the Democratic Party. It was difficult for Harris and the Democrats to give full throated support for Israel without offending Democrats sympathetic to Palestine. It was also difficult for Harris to empathize with the Palestinian cause without offending American Jews. In the end, she tried to thread the needle, which satisfied few. Trump, for his part, was able to embrace Netanyahu’s moves without reservation which made him appear more authentic, even to those who did not care about the issue.
I am not smart enough to know what the right strategy is for Israel. I do know that unquestioning defense of Israel’s actions regardless of the humanitarian consequences will adversely affect America’s position with other countries from Pakistan to Indonesia. It is not at all clear to me how Trump’s position on this issue squares with the “America First” tag line.
Taiwan
During the Nixon administration, the United States began the process of improving relations with the People’s Republic of China. As part of that process, the United States acknowledged the Chinese position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China, but it did not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. Formal diplomatic recognition of the People’s Republic of China came later, under President Carter, in 1979.
Since then, the United States has maintained a deliberately ambiguous policy. We recognize the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, maintain unofficial relations with Taiwan, and provide Taiwan with defensive arms under the Taiwan Relations Act. We do not formally commit ourselves to defend Taiwan in every circumstance, but we leave open the possibility that we might. This policy of strategic ambiguity has helped preserve peace by making a Chinese attack costly while avoiding an explicit U.S. guarantee that might encourage Taiwan to declare formal independence. Taiwan has prospered under that uneasy arrangement and has become crucial to the world’s supply of advanced computer chips.
Strategic ambiguity has sometimes helped preserve peace, but it also has a checkered history in diplomacy. Wars can begin when one side misreads ambiguity as weakness or restraint as lack of commitment.
The sad thing is that conflict here could have been avoided. China took control of Hong Kong in 1997, when Britain’s long-term lease of the territory expired. At that time, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) promised a “one-country, two systems” policy in which Hong Kong would retain a significant degree of autonomy over its economy and internal affairs. Xi Jinping found this unacceptable and Hong Kong has been stripped of all autonomy. If the CCP had been willing to honor the agreement, it is very likely that they could eventually have persuaded Taiwan to accept a peaceful re-unification, which would have benefited both countries economically. Sadly, this did not happen.
Trump, not surprisingly, views this situation as a transactional opportunity. He wants Taiwan to pay the United States for continued support. I am not sure what this means exactly. I am also not sure who Trump wants them to pay and for what. They already pay for the weaponry that the U.S. supplies them. Perhaps Trump wants a contract in which Taiwan pays for insurance, in the form of a Treaty, that requires the U.S. to protect them from a Chinese invasion in the future, in exchange for billions of dollars today. Given Trump’s record in business transactions, I don’t think I would enter into any agreement with him to do something in the distant future in return for something today. Also, given Trump’s willingness to undermine the longest and most successful military alliance in history, NATO, I think I might find the proposed transaction unattractive. But maybe that’s just me.
If you disagree with me about any of this or would like to add something, please post a comment at the bottom of this page.