The lasting damage of Trump’s foreign policy approach

With the election of president-elect Joe Biden and a country that is just as divided on the ‘outside’ as it is on the ‘inside’, it is worth reflecting on the last four years of Trump’s colourful foreign policy campaign to understand the daunting task of international reconciliation that Biden has laid out before him. It would be an understatement to suggest that Trump’s policy has not been both unbelievably distinct and unpredictable. Trump’s foreign policy approach was certainly more of a reflection of his own character rather than any particular theory or philosophical position.

At the heart of Trump’s approach to international politics was his provocative mantra of “America First” - a position seeking to put American national interests at the heart of American foreign policy. Whilst this appeared to many an effective way to prioritise American interests and influence, it was actually doing the opposite. Far from maintaining America’s dominant position within the international system, the “America First” approach actually led to a more isolated and overall less powerful American state. This was primarily due to the fact that the “America First” approach was strongly unilateral in nature meaning that Trump’s foreign policy decisions were made in a way that didn’t take into account the interests of other countries but rather focused on American interests primarily. This was the opposite to a mulitareal approach which seeks to accommodate for the interests of other countries and promote international cooperation. Whilst Trump’s unilateralism may have seemed like a inconsequential choice in practice (particularly since the US was, and still is, the world leader in both economic and military spheres), nothing could be have been farther from the truth. This is due to the fact that the primary reason for why the US enjoys it's position of power and influence is because of the multilateral liberal international order itself. This order allows the US to maintain global influence by promoting American values through its relationships with many different countries and making sure that it has a significant presence across the globe. However, Trump’s promotion of a unilateral agenda directly challenges this order and has fundamentally undermined American interests. This is clearly evidenced by three main examples.

Firstly, Trump threatened the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) by proposing to cut its budget and by aggravating key NATO members and allies because of a desire to put “America First”. During the Trump administration, the US contributed to around 73% of the NATO budget which was considerably more than any other members. Moreover, a strong case could be made that after the end of the Cold War, NATO has primarily been concerned with maintaining peace in Europe and has distanced itself from the US. Thus, Trump did not see such heavy investment in NATO as being directly in alignment with the interests of the US and so threatened to cut funding, putting pressure on key NATO allies. For example, Trump said that Berlin must increase it's NATO spending and contribute at least 2% of its GDP to the NATO budget to take the economic burden off the US. However, threatening NATO only strained relations between Trump’s closest allies, undermining America’s international influence.

Secondly, on the 23rd of January 2017, Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Trump held that the TPP undermines the rights of American workers and argued that the agreement was advocated by those who want to “rape” the United States. However, this was simply not the case. Far from undermining the interests of the US, the TPP was a primary means for American interests to be promoted throughout Asia, helping to contain the rising power of China, the country that Trump identified as American’s biggest rival. Indeed, Trump’s abrupt withdrawal from the TPP left a significant power gap which China is intent on filling. The US is now no longer seen as reliable or trustworthy by TPP members, giving China the perfect opportunity to present itself as a more attractive trading partner and ally.

Thirdly, Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Change agreement on the 1st of June 2017, completely inhibiting collective climate change goals. This move was very unpopular amongst US allies who were heavily invested in the agreement such as Britain and France. Trump didn’t see environmental issues as being of primary concern for the American people and so withdrew from the agreement and in turn, important contributions to the Green Climate Fund. However, Trump’s decision will not lead to economic success for the US but rather total failure. As Climate Change is recognized as a more pressing international issue for a number of world leading countries, more and more  businesses across the globe are choosing to embrace a zero-carbon economy and discover new ways of making money via decarbonized means. US business is not on such a trajectory because it faces a number of obstacles as a result of Trump’s decision to withdraw. The decision to terminate involvement with the Paris agreement has put American business on the backfoot.

Overall, as we move into a period of social, political and economic uncertainty within the United States it is important for us to ask questions about the effectiveness of Trump’s “America First '' doctrine. It was not a doctrine that was in the interests of the United States. It did not enhance international cooperation and thus international influence. It did not promote economic integration and thus economic prosperity. And it did not enhance diplomatic relations and thus fruitful trading relationships between key US allies. Biden has a tremendous task in front of him if he wishes to reverse Trump’s irresponsible “America First” approach so that he is not left, once again, with “America Alone”.

Image courtesy of Gage Skidmore, ©2016, some rights reserved.