Trump’s Endgame
When it comes to US foreign policy it has been said that Trump is a checkers player attempting to play three-dimensional chess. This reality has been on full display over the last few weeks as the president did more to dismantle the US global position than our adversaries have been able to accomplish since the end of World War II. The sudden and irrational imposition of tariffs on our most important trading partners represents the early stages of a potential trade war that would severely harm the US economy. The unilateral decision to alter the security framework on the Korean peninsula raised alarm with our most important allies in the region. And as significant as these decisions were, the biggest concern is that they were taken with no clear indications that there is an actual strategy guiding them. The country is dependent on a foreign-policy driven by a president that does not separate himself from his role as the chief representative of the United States. The result is a series of policies and decisions where the only goal seems to be the president being able to yell, “king me!”
The primary problem with Trump’s opening moves was that they were emotional, driven primarily by his dislike of Obama. Trump’s obsession with obliterating Obama’s legacy was fully established before he became president and has been a central goal since taking office. The first move was to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the capstone economic agreement of the Obama administration. The argument put forth by Trump for withdrawing was that it threatened US economic independence, and ultimately was not a balanced and fair agreement for the United States. This argument was made despite evidence produced by the US Congressional Research Service and others stating that the new agreement would create the largest US free trade area by economic flow (over $1 trillion annually). TPP would have cut almost 20,000 individual tariffs and other economic barriers against US goods across the 11 other members, as well as strengthen member protections of intellectual property. Perhaps most importantly however, it represented a significant strengthening of the US trade presence in southeast Asia and the Pacific that would have worked to directly counter the growing levels of Chinese influence in the region.
Unilateral withdrawal from the TPP had consequences beyond Trump’s myopic focus on Obama’s legacy. Not only did it harm US economic interests in Southeast Asia region, it was the first of several indications to nations around the world that the United States would no longer conduct foreign-policy in a traditional manner, a point reiterated by the follow-up withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. We have heard the rallying cry “America first” used to try and characterize the new approach to US economic policy. The problem however is that decisions such as withdrawal from the TPP and Paris Agreement, both made with no clear alternatives being offered, has left our allies asking the question, “first to what?” Rather than waiting for an answer, countries are beginning to move forward without consideration of US leadership at all. For instance, the remaining 11 members of the TPP moved forward with a new Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for the Transpacific Partnership that excludes the United States. Because of already existing economic relationships between those countries and China it is quite possible that the new partnership will work in a completely opposite manner for US interests relative to the original agreement.
Weeks before the annual G7 meeting the president again made a seemingly irrational policy decision by implementing significant sanctions against steel and aluminum coming from our allies, namely Canada and certain countries in the EU. Trump then used his well-practiced tactic of tautological accountability wherein the individual who responds with concern or disapproval over one of his decisions is held responsible for the inevitable deterioration of the relationship. Both Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and French President Emmanuel Macron were victims of this tactic before and after the meeting. Regardless of the levels and actors involved in a situation Trump’s primary focus is on the domestic game, namely continued rhetorical statements and signals that reassure his base. This is because it is a game he has already won and so he believes if he continues to tout his victory in that one area, it will lead to victories in games that he is less prepared to play. Contrary to his wishes however, the result was a significant rupturing of US diplomatic relations with some of our closest allies, no attempts to head off the impending trade war, and further global concern over exactly what role the United States intends to play moving forward.
The president left the summit early and rescinded US support of its primary document because he no longer wanted to play their game. He continues to seek the impossible: separation of the individual boards and players so that he can deal only with those he likes and feels he has advantages over. He could not wait to go and play with Kim Jong-un in Singapore precisely because he perceived it as a game of checkers relative to the chess-like negotiations that were expected to take place at the G7. In Singapore the mandate was simple, to use US power to pressure North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons. From a diplomatic perspective he had the high ground and thus it would be quite difficult for him to lose the negotiations. The situation at the summit was radically different. Rather than being the one questioning the decisions of others, it would be his decisions that would be questioned. Perhaps most importantly, the Trump and his administration were not able to legitimately support and rationalize the sanctions and thus he did the only thing he could do, took his toys and went to Singapore.
The primary reason why Singapore was more attractive than Québec was there was less to do. Just about everyone understood that the only thing that could truly be accomplished with a single three-hour meeting was some form of photo op for the respective leaders. Despite this, Trump was still able to offer potentially significant alterations to security architecture on the Korean Peninsula. The North Koreans offered nothing new beyond reiteration of statements and promises made in former agreements. In return, and without consulting either his own military experts or South Korea, he agreed to suspend joint US-South Korea military exercises. Perhaps more critically, he did so by utilizing the same pejorative language that North Korea has used to attack US security operations in general. Not only did the face-to-face meeting give Kim Jong-un and North Korea levels of legitimacy it has never enjoyed, he made a potentially devastating compromise that could shift the balance of power on the peninsula.
Pres. Trump has two primary issues when it comes to policy. The first is an inability to recognize the interconnectedness between both the levels of individual games, and the number of games being played overall. He does not for instance seem to fully understand that ANY decisions or negotiations involving North Korea also involve China. It is certain that North Korea will attempt to leverage any advantages offered by the United States against a much-preferred closer relationship to China. It was interesting that the president felt the need to ask the world to consider the negotiations “from the perspective of real estate” as it seemed to indicate a belief that improved security relations with North Korea will benefit the United States economically. The reality is that any significant economic opportunities that come about through the opening of North Korea will go to China, not the United States. Further, any reduction in the vigilance of US support for South Korean security increases the power of North Korea and ultimately China in the region. Whether you consider an increasingly isolated South Korea (i.e. less able to depend on US security guarantees), an advancing North Korea, it is hard to see a scenario where the US does not lose overall influence in the region.
In a similar way, countries such as China, Russia, and Iran are watching the current disruptions in US alliances with great interest. Since the end of the Cold War economic and diplomatic sanctions have become the primary method through which the laws and norms of the international community have been enforced. It has in turn been the strength and perseverance of the US and its allies that has served as the enforcement mechanism for the sanctions. With every fracture of the US relationship with its allies in one area, our adversaries can begin to question whether the alliances are strong in other areas. The significance of the US withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal is still being calculated. But as it was yet one more decision made with no clear alternative strategy in place, the overall effectiveness of the nonproliferation efforts against Iran are now in doubt, as is overall US leadership in the promotion of international peace and security.
The president’s second problem is a continued transference of his own ego and perception onto the interests of the country. The result is that he is continually making policy decisions for the country based upon his own emotional reactions and personal experiences. Perhaps more critically, he is replacing the national and vital interests that have guided US foreign policy for decades with his own. The goal of the G7 was not to avoid significant economic disruption to the American economy. Rather, it was to maintain Trump’s position in the face of any argument or counter evidence. Similarly, his goal in Singapore was to look presidential rather than put pressure on a dictatorial regime which routinely violates human rights and international law, all while pursuing weapons of mass destruction. It is through this “bait and switch” approach to diplomacy that he consistently claims victories, at least as far as his domestic political base is concerned.
Regardless of whether the President is playing checkers or chess, he is consistently rewriting the rules of the game. What is dangerous for the United States is he’s doing so with a combination of self-absorption and issue ignorance that has the potential to further disrupt the global governing architecture which the United States has spent the last 70+ years building and maintaining. It is perhaps in foreign policy that we can see the biggest disconnects between Trump’s skill set is a businessman and the requirements of the Office of the President. He was somewhat successful as a businessman through bullying and a willingness to bend or alter the rules as necessary. It remains to be seen whether his employment of that approach during the presidential campaign will come back to haunt him and his administration. But what is clear is that when it comes to foreign policy he prefers engaging those with similar skill sets. I believe the president when he says that him and Kim Jong-un have a great relationship… they have similar goals and methods to achieve them.
