Trump inexistent foreign policy, is it really dangerous?

There are a lot of common places in the foreign policy of a mainstream republican candidate, and the new president of the United States seems to have embraced most of those, from being pro-Israel to condemn Iran, even some he campaigned against, like a certain hawkishness on Syria. But behind this mask of the perfect Washington politics hides a frightening abyss of political void.

The recent contradictions between him and the secretary of state around the Qatar embargo, are only the latest symptoms of a lack of directions.



No one can say that Trump is a highly diplomatic person, from saying its opponent is weak or on drugs, to calling Mexicans rapists and saying they will pay for the wall, this highly brutal negotiating stance works when you have to bully to make your space in real estate against other predatory businesses, but is a setback to any progress in foreign policy.

The almost as crude way that Trump compliments others isn't helping either, everything gets interpreted when you talk about a foreign leader, so calling him tough, or better than the US president will raise quite a few eyebrows. That's the first lack of political line about Trump. Every leader before him condemned their enemy using restrain and praised their allies with moderation, the kind of blunt talk the new president use doesn't allow for any nuance. How to gradate between a Saudi leader you personally praise but know is partially responsible for some terrorist groups and has a poor human rights record, and the best US ally that is the UK prime minister, when you already called the former tremendous and amazing? You can't.

Furthermore, Trump has no permanently set of enemies and allies apart from perhaps the alt right, Israel and Iran. He praised and condemned Assad, China, Putin, Saudi Arabia, European leaders, and so on, even prominent members of its own party. As foreign policy is based heavily on words, this absence of a clear designation of US goals is confusing to say the least, and doesn't help any actor trying to get on the US side or deciphering whether it will help or hinder.

But it has a good side too, as we can't trust the words, we should trust the actions, well it doesn't totally help.



Trump isn't the only person to have actions that do not match words, but such a mismatch is impressive, from having one of its consistent theme being less intervention, to more acts of war against Assad than during 8 years of Obama and more troop to Afghanistan, being the most prominent example. He has currently done little, but it's enough to understand that though it seems the actions are less contradictory, they still differ enough to see the lack of political idea directing them. He bombed Syrian airfields as a rage response to the gas attack in Idblib, but then didn't build up on that, sent a commando to Yemen, but then rolled back operations, didn't appoint the ultra right wing ambassador in Jerusalem he said he would do but instead chose someone more reasonable and at the usual US embassy in Israel. He went in Saudi Arabia to sign loads of contracts, and though they thought it was enough to meddle with the Qatar without risking US opposition, it's unlikely he actually approves of that, as his secretary of state's statements suggest. The common theme is that he acts like a businessman and always do things halfway. The fact that he gave Pentagon power to set the troops' level in Afghanistan shows that he start to understand his limitation and that he is willing to give control to the persons he thinks are competent, when the opposing statements aren't enough anymore.

There is just a minor problem with that, it will be hard to find seasoned diplomats when 85% of the state department's places isn't staffed including the most senior positions and most ambassador positions. And Jared Kushner is unlikely to solve the middle east.

This lack of trusted advisors will mean more of the same actions in foreign policy with trials and errors, and an over reliance on Pentagon staff that might get hawkish (or not). There won't be much more of a line once Trump has a firm hand on foreign policy given the results he achieved with several months of practice, though we can anticipate a better coordination with the secretary of State and more decentralisation of the decisions, the State department will also likely remain unstaffed given the president views on government employees. This will give for a motionless state of department, only reacting to the most important events and struggling to juggle with all the diplomatic conflicts the US needs to steer Trump away from.



Is this fantomatic state department all that dangerous?

At first glance, it might seem terrifying, a floating united state's foreign policy in the middle of nowhere, moving poorly along surprising events and tending towards nothing, spinning around itself as to get to the opposite of where it was in a matter of seconds.

But given other works of the mainstream republicans, and the world in general, it might be a blessing in disguise. There is no agenda to enforce, no alliance to enforce, and therefore, there is not going to be a drift towards war, and U turns are costless, enabling to back away from war after small scale actions effectively.

A unknown US foreign policy will also help other voices emerging like possibly China, and a new multilateralism where everyone will test regionally the tendencies of the US. Right now, Saudi arabia thinks it has the US help no matter what, it might get surprised. North korea is sure the US will keep escalating, it might get a Chinese cold instead, in one word, all the former knowledge which was used to create aggressive foreign policy is now shaky or even obsolete, it won't stop wars but will likely lead to a breakdown of meaningful war acts, especially compared to what a mainstream republican would have done.

Nonetheless US foreign policy is in shambles, it inhibits actions because of its unpredictability, but it also means that any chance of an actual purposeful consistent foreign policy is null, and whilst inaction reduces risks of rogue nations doing new damage (ie war, diplomatic breakdown, threats, political subversion...), it is hopeless to repair or reverse current damage.

It is up to you to decide if the future without Trump would have been grimmer than what he inherited(inaction or contradictory actions freeze the problems by not solving them but are also toxic to new ones), if so, he is not worst than what you would have gotten otherwise.









We have a Facebook now: https://www.facebook.com/The-new-reality-in-foreign-policy-492287754467588/

Labels