The new President is taking the American policy to a perilous course whose consequences are fraught with serious consequences, says Rajaram Panda
less than a month into the White House, US President Donald Trump seems to be in excessive hurry in signing many contentious executive orders in tune with his campaign’s favoured policy “America First”, thereby threatening to reset the established global order. In the process, he has to choose the right path from the several options on his plate. The trouble is, none of the options are in tune with the global norms and if implemented could shake the world.
Be it North Korea’s nuclear development issue, the nuclear deal with Iran, building a wall across Mexico border, China’s trade practices and the ‘One China’ policy, Islamic terrorism, snubbing Australian Prime Minister by abruptly snapping the telephone call, speaking to Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen on telephone and thereby annoying China, barring nationals from seven Muslim majority countries and threatening others to be put in the same category or banning on-line betting, killing the much touted Trans-Pacific Partnership, and many more, Trump’s plate is already full. It seems he is taking more bites than he can chew, thereby taking the future of the world on an uncertain course.
From all the above issues, the most worrying seem to be handling relations with China and North Korea, both of which have potentials to develop into a major international conflict. Past US Governments and Asian regional leaders laboured hard but unsuccessfully to deter Pyongyang to eschew its chosen nuclear path in return of economic help. Kim Jong-un’s commitment to nuclear development programme and defiance to world counsel against it could be a true test to Trump leadership.
When Kim Jong-un announced in his annual New Year address that his country had reached the “final stages” of developing an intercontinental ballistic missile, Trump responded with a defiant message by saying: “It won’t happen!” But if Pyongyang does, in fact, launch a missile, what options shall Trump have and what way he is going to respond shall be the true test to his leadership.
Any precipitous action by Trump would render his policy on the issues of immigration, building a wall on Mexico border, or withdrawal from the TPP and many more to be relegated to the second category of importance as the North Korean issue would definitely overwhelm all other policy responses with world-wide consequences, with the fear of the world even drifting towards a nuclear war.
But by his out-of-the-box policy pronouncements, Trump is determined to reset the world order on his own terms. In the process, he is going to create more enemies and could lose existing friends. If his “America First” policy stands the test of time during his presidency remains to be seen. By doing so, Trump may have been trying to resurrect the Monroe Doctrine. Many Americans have started experiencing its resurgence under President Trump. However, a vigorous resuscitation of the Monroe Doctrine could contradict Trump’s favoured “America First” policy.
Reviving Monroe DoctrineIJ
The Monroe Doctrine was first articulated in 1823 as the US policy of opposing European colonialism in the Americas. It was a means of blocking external interference in the Western hemisphere. It further stated that efforts by European nations to take control of any independent state in North or South America would be viewed as “the manifestation of an unfriendly indisposition towards the US”.
The Doctrine was issued at a time when nearly all latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved or were at the point of gaining independence. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress. The term ‘Monroe Doctrine’ itself was coined in 1850 and by the end of the 19th Century, Monroe’s declaration was seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the US and one of its longest standing tenets. Several US Presidents, including Ulysses S Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan, invoked the doctrine.
This doctrine remained the central pillar of US policy towards latin America until Barack Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry told a group of latin American diplomats in 2013 that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over”. The statement was part of an effort to rehabilitate the US image in a region long accustomed to seeing the US as seeking to control it through persuasion when possible, and force when necessary.
Trump seems to have upturned such US stance. Craig Deare, Trump’s latin America advisor on the National Security Council staff, denounced Kerry’s statement by saying it “was a clear invitation to those extra-regional actors looking for opportunities to increase their influence”. He specifically mentioned China. But what is frightening in Trump’s foreign policy stance is that the country is retreating towards isolationism. Trump wants to build a literal wall between latin America and the US.
‘America First’ POlICY
Trump’s policy approaches may keep US-latin America relations on the edge because of his competing impulses — the interventionism of Monroe and the isolationism of “America First”. His unilateralist style has already affected Mexico on the wall building issue. If Trump does indeed resuscitate Monroe Doctrine’s unilateralism in response to perceived threat from China throughout the region, one can foresee a denouement in US ties with latin America.
Over the years, Mexico and the US have forged closer ties and more mature relations under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA has helped Mexico promote economic integration with the US. Mexico has also deepened security cooperation. Now, by stressing on “America First” agenda, Trump insists that Mexico pay for the multibillion-dollar wall project, thereby displaying the ugly arrogance of the US in Mexican eyes, forcing Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto to abruptly cancel a scheduled visit to the White House. Trump’s arrogance was in full display when he told the Mexican President to either accept to pay for the wall or not to bother travelling to Washington. This was rather undiplomatic -- giving a choice to the head of state of another country. This signals that Trump’s arrival portends an era of deteriorating relations between the US and the hemisphere.
So, the Monroe Doctrine is back in full vigourIJ Diplomacy by the threats and force is going to be the new mantra in Trump presidency. Trump’s pursuit of an “America First” policy has already started putting off a number of allies and partners. Besides bullying Mexico, its closest partner in the hemisphere and America’s third largest trading partner after Canada and China, Trump has already upset 11 other countries by unilaterally cancelling TPP and has started annoying China by questioning the ‘One China’ policy. These are worrisome and portend bad times ahead. By signing an executive order to build a wall across Mexico, Trump has begun to reset America’s role since World War II.
The question that begs an answer is can Trump secure national security by adopting an isolationist policy to make his “America First” campaign a successIJ Will his withdrawal from the 12-nation TPP help him achieve his objectiveIJ Thus far, the US had created a web of interdependence around the world, which has defined post-War US policy and a sudden departure from such a strategy could expose the US with unknown uncertainties. A sudden dramatic reversal of the existing stance could have unpredictable consequences.
Slash in UN Funding
The other area where Trump is resetting the world order by signing executive orders is to drastically reduce funding for the UN and other international organisations, as well as beginning a process to review and potentially leave some multilateral treaties. The first executive order titled ‘Auditing and Reducing US Funding of International Organisations’ calls for terminating funding for any UN agency or other international body that meets any of several criteria. The order is aimed at cutting Washington’s funding for international organisations by 40 per cent.
The second executive order titled ‘Moratorium on New Multilateral Treaties’ calls for a review of all current and pending treaties with more than one country and asks for recommendations on which negotiations or treaties Washington should abrogate. These orders are in tune with his campaign promise that he would make the US withdraw from international organisations like the UN. He had also expressed distrust about multilateral agreements, such as the Paris climate agreement.
What it means in practical terms is that an executive order by President Trump would mean a decrease in funding to international organisations that could severely curtail the work of UN agencies, which rely on billions of dollars from the US. The order calls for enacting “at least 40 per cent overall decrease” in US funding towards international organisations. But it remains unclear whether the call for cutting 40 per cent of contributions is for each international agency separately or to the overall federal funding budget.
The writer is ICCR India Chair Visiting Professor at Reitaku University, Japan. The views are his own and do not represent either of the ICCR or the Government of India