President Trump’s Foreign Policy

People have asked me what I think about President Trump’s foreign policy.

Fundamentally, President Trump does well in identifying issues that deserve to be addressed but frequently uses extremely ill-advised tactics.

The world needs the USA to be an active leader.  Trump’s activism is good in that sense. 

I was surprised that people thought he would be an isolationist.  I did not expect isolationism because Trump craves power, has boundless self-confidence, is easily offended, and seeks revenge when offended.  Nonetheless, I’ll admit that President Trump has been more broadly active than I anticipated.

While USA leadership is good, the “rules-based” international cooperation of the latter half of the 20^th century should not be disbanded in favor of “might makes right” and an Orwellian world (e.g. George Orwell’s book “1984” as noted in my blog President Trump's second term).

We need democracies to band together and support each other, which runs contrary to President Trump’s strategy.

As much as possible, our actions should be done with allies rather than singly.  Doing them singly has the following disadvantages:

1.       It encourages adversaries such as Russia and China.  If the USA can throw its might around, why can’t they?
2.       It fractures international support.
3.       There is less confidence in a rational, reliable values-based approach.
4.       The USA is vulnerable to the degree that things go wrong.
5.       Even if the effort is successful, it breeds ill-will toward the USA among some people.  It would be better to have broader support.
6.       The USA bears all the cost and risk.
7.       If one country dominates the world, people in other countries think that is unfair and make efforts to erode that country’s domination.

The United Nations has been disappointingly ineffective.  It would have been good if President Trump had pressured the United Nations to be a more positive and active participant for peace in the world.  To the degree that the UN failed to step forth, he could act in concert with other allies.  The more the USA accomplished efforts with allies, the more countries would decide to participate in his efforts.  The result would be that the UN would be more likely to step up because it would not want to be outside the power-wielding group and because more of its members would be involved with the USA, hence supportive of such UN action.

Domestically, I’m a strong believer in separation of powers and of bringing people together.  President Trump is concentrating power in the Presidency (which might be OK or good on some issues but generally is detrimental to our long-term success).  There is no reason why he could not be consulting with the Senate more.  President Trump is not alone in creating law through the use of Executive Orders, but he has gone further than other Presidents in taking advantage of laws in ways that were not intended, including declaring a series of false emergencies.

The Supreme Court has helped restore separation of powers by overturning the “Chevron deference”.  Now, Congress and the Supreme Court must restore separation of powers by resisting Presidential power grabs.

Both internationally and domestically, President Trump foolishly goes out of his way to alienate people, rather than trying to bring people and countries together.

My past impression was that President Trump’s negotiating tactics were limited to brute force, but he has been creative in using economics/trade to try to resolve conflicts.  I admit that is not a strategy I envisioned and that it has some merit.  However, Trump relies on it too broadly, and it is not clear that his deals will bring long-term peace.

Venezuela: An effort such as the extraction of Nicolas Maduro requires secrecy, so broad involvement of Congress is not possible.  However, it should be possible to discuss intentions with key Congressional members and get their support.  More broadly, there is no reason not to discuss the problems regarding Venezuela broadly in Congress and to get authority, in advance, to take action as needed within limits.

We should not have fired on boats in the Caribbean without Congressional approval (and preferably with international support).  Killing the survivors of the strikes was a clear violation of international law and exposes our solders to such actions in the future.  It should not have been done.

The President should, after speaking with Congress, come on TV with their support (and hopefully international support) explaining the situation and goals to the USA public.

Generally, as noted above, I favor predictable behavior.  President Trump has favored being unpredictable.  There are advantages to being unpredictable, at least in some circumstances.  However, in the long run, I still believe in predictability.

Ironically, now President Trump is trying to shift toward predictability.  He and Secretary of State Rubio are saying that people should believe Trump when he says something is unacceptable.  Sadly, relying on Trump’s word is inconsistent with his track record.  As an example, regarding Venezuela, the cause/intent of his action (as with other actions) is unclear.  It vacillates from oil, to narcotics, to suppression of the Venezuelan population, …  It may well be a combination of those reasons, but that is not what President Trump communicates.  He conveys shifting reasons, making it easier for people to interpret them as excuses rather than reasons.

We should support the democratic process.  Maria Corina Machado has been the main Venezuelan opposition leader for a long time.  Maduro banned her from running in the 2024 election.  Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia ran in her place and got more than 2/3 of the vote.  Clearly, they have support and Maria Corina Machado was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this year.

Inexplicably, President Trump said today (January 3, the day Maduro was abducted) that Machado lacks respect and support in Venezuela.  He seemed to suggest she is incapable (“she’s a nice lady, but…”).  Instead, he said the USA would run Venezuela.  This was an unforced error on his part.  President Trump may be jealous of their support and not want them to eat into “his credit”.

Instead, President Trump indicated that the Venezuelan Vice President, Delcy Rodriguez has been “sworn in”, that she agreed to “do whatever” the U. S. needed, noting that "she really doesn't have a choice".  However, Ms. Rodriguez responded "If there's something that the Venezuelan people and the country know very clearly, we will never return to being slaves."

Nigeria: Boko Haram abducted the Chibok schoolgirls in 2014.  Since then (as documented in my  2015-09-11 blog, Boko Haram), I’ve maintained that an international force should support the Nigerian government by encircling the area where Boko Haram operates and strangling them.

Clearly, that should be done by international forces with the support of the Nigerian government.

Boko Haram are criminals.  Most of their crimes have been committed against Muslims.  Likewise, the ISIS operatives President Trump attacked do not focus on Christians.

But President Trump decided to characterize their activity as “anti-Christian”.  Turning criminal activity into war against Christians risks triggering actions against Christians and reprisals against Muslims.  This was a huge and horrible mistake.

Israel, Iran, and Gaza:  President Trump has done very well in this area.  In his first term, he supported Israel, moved our embassy to Jerusalem, and had a tremendous breakthrough with the Abraham Accords.  During his second term, he has continued to be supportive of Israel and cooperated with Israel in the destruction of Iran’s nuclear capability.   I support all of that.

I thought President Obama’s deal with Iran was flawed but concluded that I would have reluctantly voted for it had I been a Senator asked to vote yea or nay.  It might be more fair to say I tolerated President Trump’s withdrawal from the treaty with Iran than to suggest that I was strongly supportive. 

Ukraine: I agree with President Trump regarding two aspects of the Russia vs. Ukraine war:

1)        I believe the war  would not have occurred had be beaten Biden in the 2020 election (see 10 (Obvious?) Lessons to Learn from Russia’s attack on Ukraine).

2)        I believe that he could have ended the war quickly upon coming into office (Messages to Politicians).

President Biden, despite his incompetence, set President Trump up well relative to Ukraine.  Between President Trump’s re-election and his taking the oath, President Biden increased support for Ukraine.

President Trump could have approached Vladimir Putin privately during this time period or upon taking office with the following message:

·        “President Biden increased support for Ukraine.  You now have two choices:

o   You can end the war in a way that won’t be embarrassing to you, or

o   We’re going to increase support for Ukraine to force you to surrender.”

Obviously, I can’t be sure that Putin would have folded under Trump pressure, but that was clearly the way to go, in my opinion.

Instead, President Trump has been very critical of President Zelenskyy and has continually repeated Putin propaganda.  He has threatened Putin occasionally, always backing down (hugely undermining his and Secretary of State Rubio’s comments that his threats should be believed; maybe he means his threats against weak countries should be believed). 

Russia is the aggressor in this war (clearly in the wrong).  Ukraine has been defending the principles of peace and the USA’s interests, protecting its democracy and position as a trading partner and protecting Europe.  Ukraine has weakened Russia.  From Ukraine’s efforts, we have learned a lot about Russia’s vulnerabilities and a lot about how to fight a war with drones, etc.  Our economy has benefitted from selling weapons to Ukraine.  Yet, President Trump has been continually negative toward Ukraine, encouraging Putin to think that he can do whatever he wants.

Ironically, President Trump is now in the same position relative to Putin as President Biden was.  He needs to “double-cross” Putin.  As I mentioned in 10 (Obvious?) Lessons to Learn from Russia’s attack on Ukraine), President Biden gave Putin a myriad of clues that Putin could attack Ukraine without triggering a response from the USA.  President Biden fortunately rallied somewhat (albeit much too weakly) to the support of Ukraine, thereby “double-crossing” Putin.  Now, President Trump, after repeatedly indicating that he supports Putin, needs to “double-cross” Putin.

President Trump looks at everything as “economic deals”.  He negotiated with Ukraine to get rights to Ukraine’s minerals.  I would not have been likely to have done so.  As noted above, Ukraine has been defending our interests and has been taking terrible losses in doing so.  It will need to invest incredibly huge amounts in reconstruction.

One disadvantage of negotiating such a deal with Ukraine is that it encouraged Putin to think that President Trump isn’t supportive of Ukraine and would respond even more positively to doing economic deals with Russia.

Deals for peace elsewhere:

President Trump takes a lot of credit for creating peace elsewhere.  (He takes a lot of credit for everything.)  As indicated below, he deserves some credit, but only a small fraction of what he claims. 

Armenia/Azerbaijan: It is not clear that the peace deal will be successful, but, at a minimum, President Trump deserves credit for a good try.

Thailand/Cambodia: President Trump threatened each country that he will withhold trade if they don’t abide by a peace deal.   Skirmishes continue, but I think President Trump deserves credit for at least reducing the hostilities temporarily.

Rwanda/Congo; President Trump managed to get a peace deal signed, but it is not clear that it will hold.  The M23 rebels in eastern Congo were not party to the agreement, apparently on the belief that they were controlled by Rwanda.  My somewhat cursory impression is that the deal essentially gives the USA access to the Congo’s minerals in Kivu and Katanga provinces in return for the USA pressuring Rwanda to desist.  The deal is clearly in the USA’s interests.  I’d say President Trump did well, but it is too soon for a victory lap.

India/Pakistan:  Pakistan thanked President Trump for his effort, but India said that Trump did not influence the ceasefire.  It is clear that the USA made some effort, but it looks to me that Pakistan curried favor with Trump by giving him credit.  My impression is that President Trump does not deserve credit for peace between India and Pakistan.

Egypt/Ethiopia: No war has occurred.  Basically, Sudan and Egypt have relied on water originating in Ethiopia.  But Ethiopia built a huge dam which would utilize Ethiopia’s water, reducing how much would flow to Sudan and Egypt.  President Trump has not seemed to contribute to solving this problem.  He damaged his chances by cutting aid to Ethiopia (although that gives him leverage prospectively) and by suggesting that Egypt might bomb the dam if Ethiopia did not agree to a deal.  President Trump appears to favor Egypt and Sudan because he wants their cooperation on Gaza.  Sudan has softened its position on Israel.  Perhaps President Trump deserves credit for using this situation to improve the security of Israel, but he definitely does not deserve credit for solving the problem.  (President Biden may have done better on this one.)

Serbia/Kosovo: Actually, this war ended in 1999.  But Serbia has never recognized Kosovo as an independent nation.  In 2020, the first Trump administration got Serbia to agree to a one-year moratorium on its campaign to dissuade other countries from recognizing Kosovo and Kosovo to agree to stop seeking membership in international organizations for one year.  Clearly, President Trump did not end a war here.  He did a little short-term good, however.

Taiwan: President Trump seems to have weakened Taiwan’s position by his actions relative to Ukraine and because he seems to value trade with China.

NATO and the EU: It has been appropriate to pressure NATO to increase its military budgets.  If President Trump wants to express his views to them privately about their internal politics and immigration policy, that’s his prerogative.   But we should strengthen, not weaken the alliance.

Greenland: The idea of purchasing Greenland is an excellent idea.  But Denmark should have been approached privately about the idea and President Trump should not have tried to undermine the relationship between the Greenlanders and the Danes.

Canada: The idea of making Canada the 51^st state of the USA was solely an effort to insult Canada.  President Trump succeeded in damaging our relationship with Canada.

Tariffs: Generally, I’m a “free trade” guy, but I’ve been moderate relative to Trump’s tariffs, waiting to see what happens.  I envisioned a somewhat-delayed negative impact from the tariffs and the possibility that President Trump might be able to use the tariffs as a short-term bargaining ploy.

I would have been very supportive of aligning our allies to use economic pressure, including tariffs, to pressure China relative to issues such as intellectual property and dumping.  But President Trump decided not to do that.

The tariffs have been chaotic and disrupted business planning.   Some were clearly ill-advised.  President Trump has backed off several, seemingly having accomplished nothing and has taken steps to protect some industries which have been hurt by his trade wars.

A big disadvantage of the Trump trade wars is that they are one of many pieces of evidence that suggest that a company’s business success is dependent on staying in President Trump’s good graces.  In my opinion, the Trump Administration is corrupt.

Why does President Trump act in such fashion?

This is my opinion based on watching President Trump from afar for decades.  But I don’t know President Trump personally.  So, you can label this “speculation”, if you’d like.

1.        President Trump’s primary motivation is that he wants power.

2.        Secondarily, he has a tremendous ego and wants to see that other people recognize his power.

3.        He cares about the power and credit optics more than about solving these problems.

4.        He is susceptible to people playing to his vanity (such as Putin, Pakistan, North Korea, etc.).

5.        He narrowly sees issues as economic and places finances, as well as power and ego, ahead of principle.

6.        He actually likes to upset people, even when it is counterproductive to his policy goals, because if he can get people upset, that is evidence of his power.  As noted, power is more important than policy to him.

7.        Obviously, he has an egotistical desire to get the Nobel Peace Prize.