The Trump Doctrine
When we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our good will is recognized and respected. When a nation is singled out for attack in this organization, that nation is disrespected. What’s more, that nation is asked to pay for the “privilege” of being disrespected.
In the case of the United States, we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious privilege. Unlike in some UN member countries, the United States government is answerable to its people. As such, we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial capital is being poorly spent.
Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to UN, December 21, 2017
The first year of the Trump Administration has been turbulent to say the least. And while it may seem like a disorganized mess, there has been a consistent direction in one area. In the midst of the uproars from Charlottesville to Russiagate, the President has made a major alteration in the basic principles of American foreign policy. It could be called the “Trump Doctrine,” driven by Presidential Assistants Miller and Bannon, and it has altered the United States’ role in the world.
Presidents from Franklin Roosevelt (1941) to Barack Obama (2016) directed the United States to be a world organizer and leader. Whether in the United Nation, NATO, the Iran Negotiations or the Paris (or Kyoto) Climate Accords; the US has led the way towards cooperation and world improvement. At the core of most of those actions was the principal that the US had the influence and moral authority to create international groups to change the world, creating multi-national organizations with a common goal.
The “Trump Doctrine” does not believe in those principals. It sees the world as a series of one-on-one inter-actions. This bilateral principal believes that the United States is at a disadvantage in multi-national organizations, because the US is required to bargain away too many of its advantages. To put it simply: in a one-on-one negotiation the United States is almost always at the advantage, but in multilateral negotiations the total sum of nations reduces that. Even though the US is the strongest nation both economically and in military strength, multi-national groups dilute the advantages of that strength.
While President Trump himself is not the origin of this Doctrine, it dove-tails with his well known view of himself as a “deal maker.” Deals are negotiated from strength, so any way to put the US at greater advantage is a positive to the President.
One of the impacts of this Doctrine is in the Middle East. President Trump in early December announced that the United States was going to move its embassy from the Israeli city of Tel Aviv (the de facto capital) to Jerusalem (the Israeli claimed legal capital). This created a huge controversy as it recognized Israeli claims to sole control of Jerusalem, denying conflicting claims from the Palestinian state. Control of the city has been seen as the fundamental blockade to any final solution of the Israeli/Palestinian question.
Trump’s unprovoked action puts the world on notice. He has completely committed to the Israeli side of the argument, unlike earlier Presidents who took a more impartial role. He has also told the Palestinians that they will have to negotiate from a much weaker position in the future, one where the fate of Jerusalem is already decided.
The Palestinians, understandably, have denounced the action, and have refused to allow the United States to participate in further Middle East negotiations. Most of the rest of the world has seen the United States’ action as a provocation, with the United Nations’ General Assembly voting 128 to 9 (35 abstained) condemning the move. Besides the US and Israel, those siding with the US were: Guatemala, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo (the last five all small Pacific Island nations.) The traditional US allies of the late twentieth century: United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan; were all on the other side.
The US response to the highly foreseeable negative vote was the statement by Ambassador Haley (above) threatening to withdraw US funding from UN projects. As the US provides near twenty percent of the total funding, the threat is very real. But it also underscores the seriousness of the Trump change; that the US is really willing to cut the UN loose, and pursue its foreign policy objectives alone.
While the “Trump Doctrine” puts the US at the advantage in single negotiations, it makes it difficult to organize and solve world problems, notably North Korea. With all of the threat and bluster of the Trump administration about North Korean nuclear missile development, nothing really has changed. The North Koreans have (or are about to have) intercontinental nuclear missiles, and the Chinese and Russians have done little to restrain them. The US “going alone” and raising the anxiety in the Pacific hasn’t altered the problem.
And the “Trump Doctrine” has allowed the pursuit of other policies put forth by the Miller/Bannon philosophy, climate change denial and anti-Islamic views. The Paris accords were abandoned, and part of the Trump affection for Vladimir Putin and Russia is connected to Russia’s own problems with terrorists who profess Islamic faith. Trump sees the US and Russia sharing a common goal against terrorists.
In the 1960’s, foreign policy expert Henry Kissinger (later Secretary of State) theorized that the United States should practice “real politik,” the concept that we should deal with whoever could further US goals, regardless of their own form of government. This led to US support for national dictators around the world. But Kissinger also believed in the strength of world organizations to try to balance the competing influences and preserve a greater world peace.
The Trump Doctrine goes the next step, seeing the US as acting only in its own self interest, without a “world role” to play. It is “real politik,” using its power to get what it wants, but without the over-arching role as world leader. The US of the Trump Doctrine is one of singular purpose: to get what the US wants. Regardless of the outcome of the domestic crisis here in the United States, this will have a long term impact on the future of the world.
