Donald J. Trump and a Brave New World?

Though not all the U.S. presidents have left a deep imprint on world affairs, Donald J. Trump’s presidency promises to be consequential. The 47th President has a larger elbow room than the 45th had: Donald J. Trump does not need worry about the next presidential election personally – that is another question that a responsible politician seriously takes into consideration the prospects and the future of his/her party as history does not finish with his/her last day in office.

A different world
It is stating the obvious that the world at large is different from the one in 2020. COVID’s gone (at least for the time being); there is an ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine; as well as between Israel and the Iran-backed Palestinian radical organizations; the main ally of the U.S, Europe (the European Union) has been on its way to commit a collective suicide; a number of countries have recently joined the BRICS grouping – to mention only some of the most pertinent changes in international life.
There is quite a consensus among the foreign policy experts and observers that the liberal world order is in deep trouble; in fact, some have already written its obituary. This order, based on international institutions, free trade, the U.S. hegemony, and the rule of law in general, is under attack by various actors, foremost among them is the President of the U.S. Donald J. Trump made no secret even in the 1980s that he believed the world at large ripped off the U.S., and that it took advantage of American largesse, for instance, in the realm of security. He demanded during his first term in the White House that the allies and the others should assume a fair share of the burden of managing the world order. His transactionalist approach to international affairs was reflecting this idea – and this notion is very much likely be one of the guiding principles in his second term in office.

Sovereignty and unilaterality emphasized
Donald J. Trump did not waste his first days in office. He indicated the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris climate accord, as well as from the World Health Organization (WHO); the moves suggest his deep suspicion of the international organizations which, he claims, are mainly in the business of milking the U.S. In fact, he has a point: for example, the U.S. contributes some 30% of the budget of the WHO, while China pays only as little as some three percent of the organization’s expenses. As for the Paris climate accord, the largest polluters in the world have tendentiously disregarded the quotas they are supposed to be keeping. The EU and NATO are also at the receiving end of the American President’s ire: he expects the EU to take more responsibility in its neighborhood, specifically in Ukraine, while he demands that the NATO allies increase their defense budgets if they wish to protect themselves. In place of global free trade, in which the U.S. has accumulated steep trade deficits in almost all the major relations, President Trumps is intending to pursue a highly protective trade policy by threatening with a global 10% higher import duty, and even higher than that in case a country does not comply with various American demands (such as preventing illegal migrants from entering the U.S.). All in all, these steps emphasize sovereignty and unilaterality in matters related to U.S. interests; as a break from the Biden administration’s policies, President Trump has indicated that he is willing to recognize other countries’ similar tendencies, and is not wont in engaging exporting democracy and/or U.S. values peacefully or otherwise.

How to end the war in Ukraine?
Donald J. Trump’s campaign promises incorporated putting an end to the Russo-Ukrainian war. The (fine) details are unknown, but his and some of his foreign and security policy advisers’ comments indicate that, on one hand, he would like to cut support to Kiyv, postpone Ukraine’s NATO-membership for an indefinite period of time, put pressure on Ukraine to accept certain territorial losses for the time being, and give the Ukrainians strong security guarantees against a future Russian aggression. On the other one, he would expand the scope of sanctions against Moscow, drive down gas and oil prices in the world market, and take some undefined strong measures against Vladimir Putin if he is not willing to come to the negotiating table and make compromises. What can realistically be achieved in the short run is a ceasefire and, perhaps, another one and another one – in reality, a ceasefire á la Korea is among the possibilities to end the armed conflict.

Global rivalry with China
At another trouble spot, in the Middle East, Donald J. Trump is unquestionably on the side of Israel. He might build on the so-called Abraham accords, that is, to bring about a reconciliation between Jerusalem and other Arab capitals. The broader strategic implication is to isolate Iran, whose allies have been dramatically weakened recently and, at the same time, to shift the burden of containing Iran onto the shoulders of Israel and the Arab allies. However, it is highly unlikely that the U.S. will allow Israel to take a major military measure against Teheran; in reality, President Trump is likely to avoid any serious conflicts in the region so that he can concentrate on the main challenge to the U.S., that is, China.
The overall European and Mideast strategies aim at relieving U.S. commitments in these areas, for all intents and purposes, so that Washington would be able to deal with the Indo-Pacific region, and the ongoing global rivalry with China. A trade war of sorts cannot be excluded, though both countries may be hurt if it is getting escalated. Donald J. Trump proved to be a rather tough partner on the international stage in his first term: a similar behavior/approach on steroids is one of the likeliest scenarios in the next few years.