.
For more than 12 hours after the initial salvos that announced the coup against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump was silent. News of the coup began to break in the United States in the late afternoon, and President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton all expressed their support for President Erdogan and emphasized the need to respect Turkey’s democratic institutions by nighttime. Trump, on the other hand, was uncharacteristically quiet, making no mention of the issue until he briefly addressed it as part of his speech announcing Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate late Saturday morning. Trump’s comments about Turkey lasted for approximately 20 seconds of his speech. He said, “As far as Turkey is concerned, so many friends in Turkey, great people, amazing people, we wish them well. It looks like they’re resolving the difficulty, but we wish them well. A lot of anguish last night, but hopefully it will all work out.” His comments ended there until he was asked about it during an interview with the New York Times a week later, where he shared vague opinions about the coup but failed to outline any concrete actions he would take as president. His response to the Bastille Day terror attack in France that occurred the same week was stronger – he said he would seek a formal declaration of war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) – but provided no further details. This repeated lack of specificity implies that Trump lacks both a concrete foreign policy strategy and the desire to study the subject and craft one. His ignorance of major world events, such as his assertion that Russian President Vladimir Putin would not invade Ukraine even though Russia seized Crimea in 2014, and countless other foreign policy gaffes, make it clear that he has not made such an effort.  Moreover, his responses to the attempted coup and recent terror attacks provide little hope that he will in the future. Trump’s delayed comments about the attempted coup reinforce his unpreparedness to decide American foreign policy. In the aforementioned Times interview, he lauded Erdoğan for stopping the coup, argued that the United States has too many of its own issues to criticize Erdoğan for his post-coup crackdowns on civil liberties, praised the Turkish people for defending the government, and said he would convince Erdoğan to contribute more to the fight against ISIL and to work with the Kurds despite his animosity toward them. Unsurprisingly, Trump did not share realistic plans for accomplishing either objective, nor did he explicate whether he supported the coup attempt or the Erdoğan government. Trump also provided no details to the Times about how he would fight ISIL other than implying that it might involve working with Russia in Syria. Likewise, after the June terror attack in Istanbul, Trump promised to do “everything possible” to prevent terrorism in the United States, without elaborating on what those measures might be.  The superficiality of Trump’s comments leaves room to speculate that he doesn’t understand the broader context or possible consequences of declaring war against ISIL, whether alone or in partnership with other countries. Such consequences might include retaliatory attacks against the United States if it escalates military action and high numbers of civilian casualties. These are crucial factors for the president to consider when planning America’s foreign engagements, yet Trump makes no mention of them. These responses also reflect his view that the United States should abstain from global affairs unless there is a direct risk to or impact on the United States, while failing to properly analyze what those risks or impacts might be. For example, Trump’s near-dismissal of the coup implies his belief that it did not impact Americans, possibly because it didn’t pose a physical threat to the United States. In reality, Turkey is an important, if complex, ally in fighting ISIL, including allowing the United States to launch airstrikes from Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey. This base is crucial in the current U.S. strategy to defeat ISIL, and is just one of many reasons that (in)stability in Turkey can have a great impact on the United States. While the next president may change strategies in fighting ISIL, an understanding of how events in a country impact U.S. interests there is vital, and Trump’s clear lack of understanding is distressing. Likewise, although terrorism is a serious concern, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us that fighting terrorism is not as simple as dropping bombs and coming home, yet the extent of Trump’s ISIL strategy seems to be bombing the group. Aside from lacking specificity, this strategy also ignores the reality that violent extremism and radicalization feed off of a multitude of economic, social, political, and religious tensions. War will not fix those issues, and indeed, would likely worsen them without a long-term commitment from the United States. Such extended involvement clashes with Trump’s isolationist philosophy, but a failure to commit to reconstruction efforts after a major military campaign would wreak further havoc on the region and America’s image abroad. Again, Trump’s apparent failure to recognize the complexities of fighting ISIL does not augur well for how he would manage U.S. diplomatic relations as president. Whether a candidate is an isolationist, an interventionist, or something in-between, the presidency requires statesmanship and a commitment to governing through responsible, informed policies. The attempted coup and recent terror attacks were opportunities for the presidential candidates to demonstrate their abilities to respond appropriately to crises. As in the past, the inconsistencies, logical flaws, and outright errors in Trump’s responses to these events and other foreign policy matters demonstrate that he is unwilling or unable to meet the responsibilities of the presidency. He has again failed to project a coherent, educated vision for what American foreign policy would look like under his leadership, one of the most crucial qualities in any presidential candidate.   About the Author: Tania F. Cohen is employed by the American Society of International Law and is a Campaigns Fellow at Young Professionals in Foreign Policy, a Thought Partner for the World in 2050 Series. Her interests include domestic civic engagement, refugee and migration policy, and the influence of history on contemporary policy development and foreign relations. Any views expressed are those of the author and not those of the American Society of International Law.   Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.

a global affairs media network

www.diplomaticourier.com

What Donald Trump’s Response to Turkey’s Attempted Coup Tells Us About How He Would Govern

August 15, 2016

For more than 12 hours after the initial salvos that announced the coup against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump was silent. News of the coup began to break in the United States in the late afternoon, and President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton all expressed their support for President Erdogan and emphasized the need to respect Turkey’s democratic institutions by nighttime. Trump, on the other hand, was uncharacteristically quiet, making no mention of the issue until he briefly addressed it as part of his speech announcing Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate late Saturday morning. Trump’s comments about Turkey lasted for approximately 20 seconds of his speech. He said, “As far as Turkey is concerned, so many friends in Turkey, great people, amazing people, we wish them well. It looks like they’re resolving the difficulty, but we wish them well. A lot of anguish last night, but hopefully it will all work out.” His comments ended there until he was asked about it during an interview with the New York Times a week later, where he shared vague opinions about the coup but failed to outline any concrete actions he would take as president. His response to the Bastille Day terror attack in France that occurred the same week was stronger – he said he would seek a formal declaration of war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) – but provided no further details. This repeated lack of specificity implies that Trump lacks both a concrete foreign policy strategy and the desire to study the subject and craft one. His ignorance of major world events, such as his assertion that Russian President Vladimir Putin would not invade Ukraine even though Russia seized Crimea in 2014, and countless other foreign policy gaffes, make it clear that he has not made such an effort.  Moreover, his responses to the attempted coup and recent terror attacks provide little hope that he will in the future. Trump’s delayed comments about the attempted coup reinforce his unpreparedness to decide American foreign policy. In the aforementioned Times interview, he lauded Erdoğan for stopping the coup, argued that the United States has too many of its own issues to criticize Erdoğan for his post-coup crackdowns on civil liberties, praised the Turkish people for defending the government, and said he would convince Erdoğan to contribute more to the fight against ISIL and to work with the Kurds despite his animosity toward them. Unsurprisingly, Trump did not share realistic plans for accomplishing either objective, nor did he explicate whether he supported the coup attempt or the Erdoğan government. Trump also provided no details to the Times about how he would fight ISIL other than implying that it might involve working with Russia in Syria. Likewise, after the June terror attack in Istanbul, Trump promised to do “everything possible” to prevent terrorism in the United States, without elaborating on what those measures might be.  The superficiality of Trump’s comments leaves room to speculate that he doesn’t understand the broader context or possible consequences of declaring war against ISIL, whether alone or in partnership with other countries. Such consequences might include retaliatory attacks against the United States if it escalates military action and high numbers of civilian casualties. These are crucial factors for the president to consider when planning America’s foreign engagements, yet Trump makes no mention of them. These responses also reflect his view that the United States should abstain from global affairs unless there is a direct risk to or impact on the United States, while failing to properly analyze what those risks or impacts might be. For example, Trump’s near-dismissal of the coup implies his belief that it did not impact Americans, possibly because it didn’t pose a physical threat to the United States. In reality, Turkey is an important, if complex, ally in fighting ISIL, including allowing the United States to launch airstrikes from Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey. This base is crucial in the current U.S. strategy to defeat ISIL, and is just one of many reasons that (in)stability in Turkey can have a great impact on the United States. While the next president may change strategies in fighting ISIL, an understanding of how events in a country impact U.S. interests there is vital, and Trump’s clear lack of understanding is distressing. Likewise, although terrorism is a serious concern, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us that fighting terrorism is not as simple as dropping bombs and coming home, yet the extent of Trump’s ISIL strategy seems to be bombing the group. Aside from lacking specificity, this strategy also ignores the reality that violent extremism and radicalization feed off of a multitude of economic, social, political, and religious tensions. War will not fix those issues, and indeed, would likely worsen them without a long-term commitment from the United States. Such extended involvement clashes with Trump’s isolationist philosophy, but a failure to commit to reconstruction efforts after a major military campaign would wreak further havoc on the region and America’s image abroad. Again, Trump’s apparent failure to recognize the complexities of fighting ISIL does not augur well for how he would manage U.S. diplomatic relations as president. Whether a candidate is an isolationist, an interventionist, or something in-between, the presidency requires statesmanship and a commitment to governing through responsible, informed policies. The attempted coup and recent terror attacks were opportunities for the presidential candidates to demonstrate their abilities to respond appropriately to crises. As in the past, the inconsistencies, logical flaws, and outright errors in Trump’s responses to these events and other foreign policy matters demonstrate that he is unwilling or unable to meet the responsibilities of the presidency. He has again failed to project a coherent, educated vision for what American foreign policy would look like under his leadership, one of the most crucial qualities in any presidential candidate.   About the Author: Tania F. Cohen is employed by the American Society of International Law and is a Campaigns Fellow at Young Professionals in Foreign Policy, a Thought Partner for the World in 2050 Series. Her interests include domestic civic engagement, refugee and migration policy, and the influence of history on contemporary policy development and foreign relations. Any views expressed are those of the author and not those of the American Society of International Law.   Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.