Is there a Foreign Policy plan?

If I were asked to describe President Trump’s foreign policy in a sketchy outline, I would say what we’ve seen so far, is a leader who is pursuing trade wars while actively trying to forge (transactional?) peace deals - whether it’s in the Middle East, Russia Ukraine or DRC and Rwanda. He’s threatened allies with annexation and often praises autocrats. And for this work, he’s made it plain he believes he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. 

Photo courtesy @charlieflintphotography

But that description doesn’t address the motion posed in a debate I chaired this week.

‘Trump 2.0 will make the world a safer place’.

It was a motion that was certain to provoke a strong reaction. And sure enough, there was a full house for the debate between former cabinet minister and Editor of the Spectator Michael Gove and journalist and founder of the  new media company Zeteo, Mehdi Hasan. It was part of the Parallax Debate series organised by the How to Academy at the Royal Geographical Society.

I won’t try to rehearse all the arguments but VERY briefly, Mehdi Hasan, who was opposing the motion, went first, at Michael Gove’s request. Mehdi Hasan’s key point was ‘making the world safer for whom?’ Not for the Iranians who have been bombed or the Ukrainians who may have felt abandoned as Washington pursued a Putin friendly peace deal. He questioned the effect of the US withdrawal from the fight against climate change and the global impact of the destruction of USAID. Mehdi described President Trump as an inconstant ally and he raised the question of whether China might now feel emboldened to act on its claim to Taiwan.

Michael Gove undoubtedly had the more difficult task - given the audience - overwhelmingly Mehdi H fans and diverse in age and ethnicity. He argued that Trump is a President who is less interventionist by instinct than his Democratic predecessors, with a sincere desire to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. And he pointed to the recent agreement hammered out by the White House between Rwanda and the DRC as evidence of the energy Donald Trump has expended on pursuing peace. On the point about President Trump being an inconstant or unreliable ally, Michael Gove questioned how this could be true if Mehdi was also arguing that the US President was in the pocket of Israel.

There was a big difference of opinion over Israel Palestine. Michael Gove stated clearly that he did not believe what was happening in Gaza was genocide. And he spoke of Israel’s right to self defence and safety. Mehdi Hasan responded forcefully (and so did much - but not all - of the audience) and asked how the deaths of children queuing for water could be justified within the parameters of war and he pointed to the recent criticism from the former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert.

I reiterate, this is not a full account and much more was said by both speakers across the hour, which I can’t reflect here. But listening to both Mehdi Hasan and Michael Gove has made me question if there is something which could be described as a ‘Trump foreign policy’ or does the President simply react to events and personalities?

For instance, this week, Trump’s pivot on Ukraine has made headlines. His administration began the month by halting shipments of missiles and ammunition to Kyiv. Until, that is, the President changed his mind and announced he’d agreed a deal with NATO to send arms to Ukraine. There was a 50 day deadline for Russian President Vladimir Putin to accept a peace deal - otherwise there would be an escalation in US tariffs and sanctions. This is unpredictable and erratic decision making but I still think there are patterns to be gleaned.

Within the administration, there are people who believe in particular ideas, it’s just that Donald Trump probably isn’t one of them. It’s said the decision to halt shipments of arms to Ukraine was taken by Elbridge Colby - who is the Pentagon’s policy chief. He is also a key figure in pushing US focus away from Europe and towards the Pacific. ‘No more wars’ was a popular campaign slogan and it’s likely that the President’s change of heart on Ukraine won’t please parts of the MAGA base but his willingness to follow his own instinct is worth noting. I would argue that the President takes ‘A vibes based approach’. Who has he spoken to, what does a situation feel like? An unorthodox way to make decisions but there’s little about this administration which fits neatly into any previous way of working.

If there is a single unifying idea it is ‘America First’ and while America’s allies might see some of the ways in which this policy is deployed as brutish and failing to acknowledge history or precedent, the Trump administration could argue that it is succeeding. Take the trade wars - according to the FT the US has already raised $50bn in duties and so far, most of the world (China and Canada are notable exceptions) has chosen not to retaliate.

Another recurring theme is personal relationships. Donald Trump can be rude and dismissive (who can forget that encounter with President Zelensky in the Oval Office?) but he definitely admires a particular kind of leader, often autocrats. Which at least partly explains why he has cut Vladimir Putin so much slack until now and in the process, has wildly underestimated the ideological and historical baggage that is driving the Russian President in the war with Ukraine.

Transactional - it’s a word that’s often used in relation to President Trump and foreign relations -  and for good reason. We know he loves a deal and he definitely thinks he can use this approach when it comes to other countries. The war between Rwanda and DRC has been raging for years, has cost millions of lives and receives little attention in the west. And yet, President Trump took great pride in mediating a peace deal between the two sides. Its resilience is questionable, given the region’s history and the exclusion of one of the key rebel groups - but it did also include giving the US rights to some of  Congo’s extremely valuable natural resources. Potentially a great deal.

Much of the above could be said to apply to Trump’s approach to Israel/Palestine. Israel has strong domestic support across political lines in the US.

The vibes are positive. On the personality front, Trump has clearly been irritated by Netanyahu at times (remember that trip to the Middle East when he didn’t meet the Israeli PM?) but he may also admire the Israeli PMs resilience and ability to shrug off criticism. And we know Donald Trump thinks there may be a real estate deal to be done in Gaza. None of which appears to bode well for the Palestinians. However, Kenneth Roth, who used to head up the NGO Human Rights Watch and isn’t a Trump fan, argued in the Guardian that the President’s desire for a Nobel Peace Prize and his susceptibility to flattery could make him an unlikely candidate to bring about a Middle East peace deal. Far Fetched? Maybe - but who would have predicted much of what has unfolded already?

What I’ve described doesn’t add up to a clearly thought through foreign policy strategy but there are recurring responses to disparate situations.

Michael Beckley, a political scientist at Tufts University has described the US as ‘A rogue superpower’ neither internationalist nor isolationist but aggressive, powerful and increasingly out for itself. It’s an arresting thought. If it seems too harsh, perhaps another way to see what is happening is that America is jettisoning much of the international architecture that it created after World War 2. It is reshaping international relations away from cooperative multilateralism towards a spikier individualism. The potential spoiler is China. Washington acknowledges Beijing’s rising status but as the US withdraws from international organisations, stops giving aid and antagonises allies, China is stepping into some of the newly vacant spaces. The effects of this rebalancing on the international stage could force a rethink in the US approach.

So will Trump 2.0 make the world a safer place? I haven’t mentioned nuclear proliferation - which was actually a big part of the Gove/Hasan debate - and could certainly be perceived as a growing risk. But I would argue that depending where you live in the world, it wasn’t actually that safe before. It’s now even more unpredictable.