Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Trump’s foreign policy spins on an axis of upheaval

When Mr Donald Trump reasserted his “America first” mantra on Inauguration Day, the world was put on notice that the new US president would pursue a very different foreign policy than his recent predecessors in the Oval Office.

President Donald Trump at his desk after a meeting with Intel CEO Brian Krzanich (left) and members of his staff in the White House in Washington on Wednesday. The new administration could find it hard to manage a crisis, given its chaotic start. Photo: AP

President Donald Trump at his desk after a meeting with Intel CEO Brian Krzanich (left) and members of his staff in the White House in Washington on Wednesday. The new administration could find it hard to manage a crisis, given its chaotic start. Photo: AP

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

When Mr Donald Trump reasserted his “America first” mantra on Inauguration Day, the world was put on notice that the new US president would pursue a very different foreign policy than his recent predecessors in the Oval Office.

Yet while some turbulence was expected, the way Mr Trump has treated some of his counterparts since Jan 20 has left capitals from Tokyo to Berlin perplexed about how to handle a thin-skinned leader who is as willing to antagonise allies as he is to praise Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Mr Trump has driven Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto to cancel a visit to the White House, and sparked the ire of world leaders with his attempt to ban citizens of seven Muslim countries from entering the US. He also lashed out in a phone call with Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in a move that prompted a host of Democrats and Republicans, including Mr Bob Corker, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, to assure the Australian ambassador that they were fully supportive of the critical US ally.

“Diplomats are more alarmed than ever,” said Mr Thomas Wright, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution. “For the first time since the Second World War, the fundamental principles of US foreign policy — alliances, the open global economy and America’s leadership — are endangered.”

Mr Trump has also described Nato as “obsolete” and cast aspersions on German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is arguably the most powerful politician in Europe.

Diplomats dealing with the new administration face two big challenges: Distinguishing rhetoric from policy and working out who wields power. After assuming that his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton would win, they have since scrambled to set up meetings with everyone from Mr Mike Pence, the Vice-President, to Mr Jared Kushner, Mr Trump’s influential son-in-law and one of his senior advisers.

Some are nervous about the role Mr Stephen Bannon, the powerful White House aide whose ideology is closely aligned with the president, will play after his unusual elevation to a seat on the key National Security Council.

While pessimists abound, optimists see the choice of Mr James Mattis for Defence Secretary and Mr Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State as evidence that Mr Trump is entrusting foreign relations to pragmatic hands with a less insular view of the world. Those hoping for signs that he will revert to a more traditional Republican foreign policy have welcomed critical statements on Russia from some of his Cabinet members.

US presidents must always brace themselves for unanticipated crises — from Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the Sept 11, 2001, terror attacks to the Arab uprisings from 2011 — that have major foreign policy implications. These could prove hard to manage for a White House that has started in a chaotic manner.

Aside from Russia, the areas where Mr Trump will be forced to confront serious challenges are on China, North Korea and Iran. “There are really worrying signs, but every now and again there is sort of a burst of normality,” said Mr Wright.

“That counter-balances some of the more radical elements of the administration. But which of those two forces is going to dominate — the mainstream force or the radical force?”

Russia: Republicans keen to pause the new mood music

Mr Trump has been so reluctant to criticise Mr Putin that their relationship has been dubbed a “bromance”. But even Republicans were stunned this week when a Fox News host alleged that “Putin is a killer” and the US President responded: “We have a lot of killers.”

Mr John McCain, the Arizona Republican Senator, slammed Mr Trump for putting Mr Putin “on the same moral plane” as the US, calling it a “betrayal of everything that we stand for”. Even Mr Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate majority leader who rarely censures Mr Trump, rebuked the President.

Democrats and many Republicans struggle to explain why he has taken such a soft line on Mr Putin. Mr Trump says he wants to improve ties with Moscow. But critics worry that he is jeopardising alliances that have been instrumental in maintaining stability since World War II, while emboldening Russian aggression.

“Trump said in his inaugural speech that we will not get involved in other countries’ domestic affairs, suggesting that we are backing off from regime change and democracy promotion. That is music to Putin’s ears,” said Ms Angela Stent, a Russia expert at Georgetown University in Washington. “The hints ... suggest that Trump acknowledges Russia’s ‘sphere of privileged interests’ in the post-Soviet space, as Putin likes to call it, and that the US won’t interfere there.”

After the White House signalled that Mr Trump may ease sanctions imposed on Russia over the conflict in Ukraine, the President appeared to back away from that course. But Republican hawks are watching for any hints that he might again move in that direction.

Since his election, the Kremlin has struck a cautiously optimistic tone in the hope of ending its impasse with Washington over Syria and Ukraine. Mr Putin has implied he would like the US to join forces in a global alliance against terror, while pro-Kremlin figures have welcomed Mr Trump’s disdain for the traditional US priorities such as regime change and strengthening Nato.

Critics of Mr Trump’s stance on Russia have taken solace in the fact that some Cabinet members, including Nikki Haley, the US Ambassador to the UN, have been more critical of Russia. Mr Pence also took a tougher line on Russia during the campaign but — like other Cabinet members — he has on occasion found himself defending statements by Mr Trump to which he probably does not subscribe.

While Mr Trump is expected to attend a G7 Summit in Italy in May, one of the key things to watch for is how Mr Pence describes the US-Russia relationship when he attends the Munich Security Conference next week.

“Will he simply echo the president? That is very important to watch. Are we going to treat our allies roughly or are they important to us? And how are the Cabinet secretaries going to square this difference?,” asked Ms Heather Conley, a Russia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think-tank in Washington.

China: First moves interfere with Beijing’s red lines

During the election campaign, Mr Trump argued that he would take the toughest stance on China, which he accused of engaging in unfair trade practices. Since his victory, however, his actions have paved the way for turbulence well beyond the realm of trade and economics.

In December, Mr Trump infuriated China by speaking to Ms Tsai Ing-wen, the President of Taiwan, which Beijing considers a renegade province. The conversation — the first between a US president or president-elect since Washington and Beijing established diplomatic ties in 1979 — suggested Mr Trump might not respect the “One China” diplomatic formula that has guided cross-strait relations since 1992.

Mr Trump later fuelled more criticism by querying “why we have to be bound by a One China policy” unless China was willing to deal on trade. Critics of the US withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a move Mr Trump made in his first week — say it will benefit China by reducing US leverage in the Asia-Pacific region.

Mr Steve Yates, a security adviser to former vice-president Dick Cheney and an associate of Mr Reince Priebus, the White House Chief of Staff, said Mr Trump is a “realist foreign policy practitioner” in the tradition of former US president Richard Nixon but “without the romance (towards) China”.

However, other experts say he lacks a clear policy and is interfering with what China sees as a red line — an attempt to change the status quo in Taiwan.

“Up at 30,000 feet, he does seem to value keeping China off balance ... but that is not policy,” said Ms Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at CSIS. “China has gone from a phase of thinking ‘we will have a tough first year on trade and economic issues’ to ‘this will be like the old pattern and will set things right in the second year’ ... but they have very quickly abandoned that set of assumptions after the phone call with Tsai.”

In his confirmation hearing, Mr Tillerson angered Beijing by saying the US would consider blocking access to disputed islands in the South China Sea.

While some welcomed the new Secretary of State’s comments as evidence that the Trump administration would take a more assertive stance, Mr Mattis last week hinted that the Pentagon would be more moderate. Speaking in Tokyo, the Defence Secretary said he did “not see any need for dramatic military moves” to solve an issue best tackled by diplomats.

But Mr Mattis also signalled to China that the US would oppose any action that threatened Japanese administration of the Senkaku Islands — a disputed East China Sea chain called the Diaoyu in Chinese.

North Korea: A robust stance in need of greater regional input

The US needs China to put pressure on Mr Kim Jong-un and North Korea as the state continues to test weapons.

One of the most critical challenges facing Washington is how to deal with the threat posed by North Korea. The US has tried various approaches — from the six-party talks convened in the time of Mr George W Bush, to the policy of “strategic patience” pursued by the Obama administration — but Pyongyang has still made steady progress with its nuclear weapons and missile programmes.

Mr Obama warned Mr Trump that North Korea would be his most pressing national security issue. Most experts agree that Pyongyang is dangerously close to being able to mount a nuclear weapon on a long-range missile capable of reaching America. The National Security Council recently began a review of its North Korea policy, which Mr Dennis Wilder, a former White House adviser on Asia, said would “look at all options, from engagement to pre-emption”. During his election campaign, Mr Trump said he would “have no problem” speaking to Mr Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader, but there is also more discussion in Washington about the eventual need for a possible pre-emptive strike on North Korea.

Barring such a strike, the US needs China to apply pressure on Pyongyang, but co-operation may be hampered by Mr Trump’s tense relationship with Beijing. During his campaign, he said he might pull US troops out of Japan and South Korea and suggested that Tokyo and Seoul consider developing nuclear weapons to deter North Korea.

China is also angered by Seoul’s intention to deploy a US missile defence shield and has pressed South Korean companies not to co-operate with the project.

But Defence Secretary James Mattis last week talked up the alliances during his visit to Seoul and Tokyo and warned Pyongyang that any use of nuclear weapons would be met with “overwhelming” force.

“Japan was concerned that North Korea might think the nuclear umbrella was less robust under the Trump administration. This might embolden the North Korean leader to thinking the North Korean nuclear arsenal can deter the Americans,” said Ms Chikako Ueki, a security expert at Japan’s Waseda University. “The Japanese government is relieved that Secretary Mattis reassured Japan and South Korea of a strong US commitment, including extending the nuclear umbrella.”

Iran: Accommodation swiftly turns to brinkmanship

When the Trump administration last week imposed fresh sanctions on Iran after it tested a ballistic missile, the move signalled that the President planned to fulfil his vow to take a tougher stance on Tehran.

Ms Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution, said Mr Trump’s team had acted faster than many had anticipated. “The game plan is to turn up the pressure. There is this perception that the Obama administration focussed on accommodating Iran,” she said. “In this administration, there is a clear thread through the national security team that clearly holds the opposing view.”

Mr Michael Flynn, the National Security Adviser, last week said the US had put the Islamic republic “on notice”. Mr Trump later tweeted that Iran was “playing with fire” with the missile test.

Underscoring the rising tension, Mr Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, on Tuesday criticised Mr Trump, saying the US President had shown the “real face of America” and stressing that “no enemy can paralyse Iran”.

The new sanctions also reflect the fact that Mr Trump faces a conundrum over the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, which he routinely describes as the “worst deal ever negotiated”. Mr Tillerson said the state department will review the deal.

The most dramatic option would have been to rip up the agreement. Yet even many Republican opponents of the deal believe this would be self-defeating because Washington would be blamed for the collapse of international diplomatic efforts and the probable resumption of Tehran’s nuclear programme.

So, some Republicans are looking for other ways to squeeze Iran. The US maintains sanctions on Tehran over its ballistic missile programme, its human rights record and support of terrorist groups. Republicans are expected to unveil a new package of sanctions that should receive some bipartisan support.

Ms Maloney said that, in addition to working with Congress on sanctions, the Trump administration would be more stringent in enforcing the nuclear deal, push back harder against Iranian influence and use more assertive rhetoric that could be misinterpreted in Iran as attempts to engineer regime change.

Supporters of new sanctions say the moves may force concessions from Iran but some experts caution that Tehran would see broader economic sanctions as a restoration of the penalties that were supposed to have been lifted under the nuclear agreement. THE FINANCIAL TIMES

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Demetri Sevastopulo is The Financial Times’ Washington bureau chief.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.