Neither Carrots Nor Sticks

Indeed, the second coming of Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency raises all sorts of fears and questions. The foremost concern all around the world is the difference it will make to the fast-changing world order. Here, I am reminded of the 1980s when President Ronald Reagan used to orate against the Soviet Union. He often quoted from Thomas Paine’s ‘Common Sense’ with his vision of a United States great enough “to begin the world over again.” It seems his two Republican successors, President George W. Bush at the very onset of the new millennium and, lately, Donald J. Trump, both did try to ‘begin the world over again.’ But in doing so, the former turned the world upside down, and the latter spared no effort to turn it inside out.

No wonder our world today couldn’t be in greater flux. The question that now spontaneously comes to mind is, would the world have been any different if the Twiddling George W. Bush and the Tweeting Donald Trump were not there? World powers cannot afford to change their policies with every change of head of state or government. Policies are determined by a country’s national interests, not by the whims of an individual. That is what Adlai Stevenson, a two-time Democratic Party presidential candidate in the 1950s and a renowned diplomat who served as US Ambassador to the UN (1961-1965), said: “Gaining perspective on America’s foreign policy begins with gaining a view of its position in the world as a World Power.”

This can be depicted in half a dozen words: “American interests, worldwide power and responsibility.” No matter who is at the White House, the U.S. always had the same worldwide interests, with direct or indirect stakes in almost all peace and security issues across the globe. Foreign policy goals under every president in Washington remain unalterable. Yes, individuals do make their mark on the conduct of foreign policy through their personality, personal demeanor, and temperamental proclivity. From his campaign rhetoric, long-held public views, and business life, one gets a snapshot of a man who would look at foreign policy only as a business transaction, not in terms of America’s worldwide interests.

To him, every political decision or foreign policy initiative is nothing but a profitable transaction. He is always looking for profitable bargains. His instincts of expediency and opportunism made him a shrewd, hard-boiled negotiating hand. No one expects from him a foreign policy with a design or vision. Trump also has a complex personality, thick-skinned on criticism of his policies and thin-skinned on personal slights. That makes him an unpredictable politician and a dicey diplomat. Last time, Trump inherited a world in chaos. Earlier, during the election campaign for his first term, Trump had unabashedly threatened to upend whatever part of the global system remained in terms of multilateral institutions, including NATO.

In December 2017, with no comprehension of history or regard for the special status of the Holy City Jerusalem, he decided to jolt the Muslim world by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Taking advantage of his personal wheeling and dealing with the Arab princes in the Gulf, Trump moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This decision was a departure from the known U.S. policy since the recognition of Israel by the United Nations in 1949 and also a blatant violation of the UN resolutions on the Palestinian question. In fact, this decision was to lead to the Israel-Hamas war six years later. In his poker game, playing both the ‘player hand’ and the ‘dealer hand,’ Trump managed to induce four of the vulnerable Arab states to recognise Israel.

In September 2020, the United States mediated the Abraham Accords, bilateral agreements between Israel and the Arab Gulf states of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to normalise their relations. Months later, two more, Morocco and Sudan, were to join the accords, and it seemed like the US was possibly on track to sign up even more Arab countries. Obviously, Iran had been a common bête noire among some of the Gulf regimes and may have been the reason behind these deals. For Palestinians, the Arab-Israel deals were a betrayal of their cause. For Israel, they were a significant breakthrough since the 1990s, giving it acceptance in the region without making any concessions in a quid pro quo.