.
As a candidate, Donald Trump did not hide his disdain for traditional American foreign policy. From free-riding allies and job-killing trade deals to terrorist threats spawned from the Middle East, Trump fed on the public’s fears of an increasingly uncertain world. Yet, for a candidate who capitalized on concerns of instability, he is quite willing to court it in office. While criticisms of allies and the global economic system were cornerstones of Trump’s campaign, as president his continued questioning of the United States’ postwar security and economic role in Europe and Asia could lead to even greater instability than that witnessed in the Middle East in recent decades.
Throughout the 2016 campaign, Trump held up the Middle East as a symbol of the widespread failure of US foreign policy. In Trump’s view, his predecessors committed a cardinal sin by “racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about.” US strategy failed, Trump argued as he hyped fears of the next San Bernardino or Orlando, because it fueled instability that exposed Americans to threats from groups like ISIS. The then-candidate argued for pulling back in order to reduce risk and avoid contributing to global volatility.
Trump’s “America First” foreign policy, however, is more likely to expand instability beyond the Middle East by sowing doubts in the United States’ over seventy-year role as a security guarantor in Europe and Asia. Americans have largely taken stability in these regions for granted since the Cold War, however these areas are far less secure today as they confront resurgent geopolitical challenges from Russia and China.
Following a campaign of criticism that unnerved steadfast friends, President Trump has made only checkered progress on repairing relations with allies. He has warmed ties with Japan and South Korea following North Korean provocations; nonetheless, ambiguity continues to permeate the security environment. On China, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statements have oscillated between presaging conflict with China in the South China Sea and mimicking Beijing’s language. Despite a recent show of force around North Korea, Trump’s response to potential Chinese belligerence in the region remains unclear.
A similar situation prevails in Europe. At a recent NATO meeting, Tillerson named terrorism the “top national security priority” but skirted the issue of Russia. Even after the April 6 strikes on Syria brought Russo-American relations to a “low point,” Trump’s view of Russia within Europe remains uncertain. His recent declaration that NATO is “no longer obsolete” was in reference to counterterror efforts rather than Russian aggression. When combined with his insistence on payment of “vast sums of money” in overdue defense spending from alliance members – as if these obligations were a protection racket – Washington’s reliability remains an open question.
Trump’s economic rhetoric has compounded these concerns; skepticism of free trade has created a leadership vacuum. The Trump administration offered no alternative when it walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Asia, ceding the initiative to Beijing to propose a path forward. In Europe, the White House continues to alienate Germany with accusations of “currency exploitation” and a “trade war” rather than pursue a new transatlantic economic agenda that would deepen ties and expand economic opportunities.
Reforming the global economic order is a reasonable aim. Globalization has lifted over a billion individuals out of abject poverty since the Cold War but has also diminished gains for the Western middle class. Yet, proposed solutions that drive wedges between the United States and its allies only weaken Washington’s negotiating position on trade. Furthermore, renewed economic protectionism and tensions among allies have security ramifications – will Trump defend those allies he perceives as trade rivals?
On its current course, the Trump administration will undercut the security and economic conditions that ensured relatively tranquility in Europe and Asia since 1989. Already, challenges posed by populism, nationalism, and Russian and Chinese revisionism have begun to erode regional stability. Within Europe, illiberal populists threaten to roll back integration that has supported internal peace and relative prosperity. Simultaneously, Russian aggression in Eastern Europe and Chinese assertiveness in East Asia demonstrate an effort to project military power to regain spheres of influence at the expense of US allies’ security.
By viewing past US policy as part and parcel with American interventions in the Middle East, Trump overlooks the broader successes of the post-Cold War era. This period witnessed great power peace, overall global economic growth, and the expansion of human rights. Stability in Europe and Asia – maintained by US security and economic cooperation with allies – defined the past decades as much as Middle Eastern disarray.
Order, not adventurism, was the true watchword of that era. If antipathy toward instability truly guides the President’s strategy, then a radical revision of the United States’ presence in Europe and Asia comes at grave peril. Without policies to bolster those two regional orders against rising geopolitical challenges, the chaos Trump ascribes to the Middle East will soon emanate from new homes.
About the author: Will Moreland is the International Order Fellow at Young Professionals in Foreign Policy (YPFP). He also works at a leading Washington DC think tank on issues of American strategy and the liberal international order. Will earned his MSFS from Georgetown University in 2015.
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
Order, Not Adventurism
April 22, 2017
As a candidate, Donald Trump did not hide his disdain for traditional American foreign policy. From free-riding allies and job-killing trade deals to terrorist threats spawned from the Middle East, Trump fed on the public’s fears of an increasingly uncertain world. Yet, for a candidate who capitalized on concerns of instability, he is quite willing to court it in office. While criticisms of allies and the global economic system were cornerstones of Trump’s campaign, as president his continued questioning of the United States’ postwar security and economic role in Europe and Asia could lead to even greater instability than that witnessed in the Middle East in recent decades.
Throughout the 2016 campaign, Trump held up the Middle East as a symbol of the widespread failure of US foreign policy. In Trump’s view, his predecessors committed a cardinal sin by “racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about.” US strategy failed, Trump argued as he hyped fears of the next San Bernardino or Orlando, because it fueled instability that exposed Americans to threats from groups like ISIS. The then-candidate argued for pulling back in order to reduce risk and avoid contributing to global volatility.
Trump’s “America First” foreign policy, however, is more likely to expand instability beyond the Middle East by sowing doubts in the United States’ over seventy-year role as a security guarantor in Europe and Asia. Americans have largely taken stability in these regions for granted since the Cold War, however these areas are far less secure today as they confront resurgent geopolitical challenges from Russia and China.
Following a campaign of criticism that unnerved steadfast friends, President Trump has made only checkered progress on repairing relations with allies. He has warmed ties with Japan and South Korea following North Korean provocations; nonetheless, ambiguity continues to permeate the security environment. On China, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statements have oscillated between presaging conflict with China in the South China Sea and mimicking Beijing’s language. Despite a recent show of force around North Korea, Trump’s response to potential Chinese belligerence in the region remains unclear.
A similar situation prevails in Europe. At a recent NATO meeting, Tillerson named terrorism the “top national security priority” but skirted the issue of Russia. Even after the April 6 strikes on Syria brought Russo-American relations to a “low point,” Trump’s view of Russia within Europe remains uncertain. His recent declaration that NATO is “no longer obsolete” was in reference to counterterror efforts rather than Russian aggression. When combined with his insistence on payment of “vast sums of money” in overdue defense spending from alliance members – as if these obligations were a protection racket – Washington’s reliability remains an open question.
Trump’s economic rhetoric has compounded these concerns; skepticism of free trade has created a leadership vacuum. The Trump administration offered no alternative when it walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Asia, ceding the initiative to Beijing to propose a path forward. In Europe, the White House continues to alienate Germany with accusations of “currency exploitation” and a “trade war” rather than pursue a new transatlantic economic agenda that would deepen ties and expand economic opportunities.
Reforming the global economic order is a reasonable aim. Globalization has lifted over a billion individuals out of abject poverty since the Cold War but has also diminished gains for the Western middle class. Yet, proposed solutions that drive wedges between the United States and its allies only weaken Washington’s negotiating position on trade. Furthermore, renewed economic protectionism and tensions among allies have security ramifications – will Trump defend those allies he perceives as trade rivals?
On its current course, the Trump administration will undercut the security and economic conditions that ensured relatively tranquility in Europe and Asia since 1989. Already, challenges posed by populism, nationalism, and Russian and Chinese revisionism have begun to erode regional stability. Within Europe, illiberal populists threaten to roll back integration that has supported internal peace and relative prosperity. Simultaneously, Russian aggression in Eastern Europe and Chinese assertiveness in East Asia demonstrate an effort to project military power to regain spheres of influence at the expense of US allies’ security.
By viewing past US policy as part and parcel with American interventions in the Middle East, Trump overlooks the broader successes of the post-Cold War era. This period witnessed great power peace, overall global economic growth, and the expansion of human rights. Stability in Europe and Asia – maintained by US security and economic cooperation with allies – defined the past decades as much as Middle Eastern disarray.
Order, not adventurism, was the true watchword of that era. If antipathy toward instability truly guides the President’s strategy, then a radical revision of the United States’ presence in Europe and Asia comes at grave peril. Without policies to bolster those two regional orders against rising geopolitical challenges, the chaos Trump ascribes to the Middle East will soon emanate from new homes.
About the author: Will Moreland is the International Order Fellow at Young Professionals in Foreign Policy (YPFP). He also works at a leading Washington DC think tank on issues of American strategy and the liberal international order. Will earned his MSFS from Georgetown University in 2015.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
