Login
iscover
No other contemporary Western leader has elicited such a visceral reaction quite like former president and presumptive Republican candidate Donald Trump. But is the potential of a second Trump administration and its impact on the global stage being viewed through clear eyes?
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
Before we get started, let’s for a moment put aside all of Donald Trump’s personal character flaws, some of his contentious domestic policy decisions, and the established narratives about the man.
By the time he came to office following a stunning election victory in 2016, Donald Trump had firmly established himself as the enemy of the mainstream media, much of the post-Second World War order’s multilateral institutions and the international alliance built by the US throughout the Cold War.
Positioning himself as a champion of the “forgotten Americans” or the “deplorables”, as branded by failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Trump promised in a manner very similar to the other Republican outsider, Ronald Reagan, to “Make America Great Again”.
In speaking directly to the swathes of middle- and working-class Americans across the flyover states and the rust belt of the formerly immense US industrial base, he acknowledged their lived experience that America’s position as the global hegemon and the globalisation championed by successive administrations had ultimately failed them.
These factors, coupled with the human costs associated with America’s central position and responsibility in maintaining the post-Second World War global order, which disproportionally impact middle- and working-class America, all combined to form the basis of the Trump administration’s foreign policy approach.
Rounding out the Trump administration’s foreign policy was the brash, bombastic, and “troll like” nature of the man himself, which had served him well in his prior careers as a property developer and reality television star.
But how did the Trump administration leverage these factors to deliver a number of major successes (no matter how you look at it) and what role will that play in Trump 2.0?
Former diplomat Mark Pierce, in a piece for the Lowey Institute’s The Interpreter, titled, Imagining Trump’s second term, provides a review of two books – Canada Alone by Kim Richard Nossal and Trump’s Australia by Bruce Wolpe – both of which paint a rather grim picture of the world in the event of a returned Trump administration.
Before I unpack this analysis, can one really say that the world of Joe Biden’s administration is safer than during the period between 2016–20? No matter where one looks, the world is inherently more dangerous now than it was under the Trump administration, with Biden seemingly championing a continuation of Obama’s failed eight years of foreign policy.
Today v yesterday
Whether one looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the ongoing tensions in central Asia between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Hamas’ barbaric attack on Israel, North Korea’s renewed ballistic missile tests, a US$6 billion pay day for Iran, or Beijing’s increased antagonism and threats towards Taiwan, Biden’s world is chaotic.
Let’s not even mention the horrendous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the march of the BRICS, Saudi Arabia’s snub of Biden, and the US-led world to draw closer to Russia and China and their proposal for a vastly different new world order.
In contrast, Trump stands alone as the only US president over the last three decades not to start a new war, presided over a successful campaign against Islamic State ultimately leading to its destruction, conduct nuclear disarmament talks with North Korea, and began an economic turnaround including the “reshoring” of vast industries to the United States.
Trump’s administration also delivered the most consequential turnaround in relations between Israel and the Muslim world following the signing of the Abraham Accords, bringing together Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, and Morocco to the table, including recognising the sovereignty of the Jewish state.
The Abraham Accords also paved the way for improved relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the de facto leader of the Islamic world, a key factor in the broader acceptance of Israel across the Middle East.
Meanwhile, the arguably successful bilateral talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un marked a major milestone towards defusing the tense stand-off on the Korean peninsula.
Now yes, many a commentator and analyst will cite Trump’s “friendly attitude” towards some of the world’s most reprehensible leaders, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin among them, but one could argue that having the Leader of the Free World having robust, even cordial relationships with such leaders could be beneficial in certain contexts.
After all, isn’t it in everyone’s interest that the world’s major nuclear powers aren’t at each other’s throats?
Unfair comparisons?
Moving to the broader criticism of Trump’s time in office is the criticism of his transactional relationship with allies, mainly European allies and their attitudes towards meeting their defence spending obligations as part of NATO membership.
This is ironic, particularly given his rhetoric surrounding allies pulling their weight is no different to that of the much fawned over Obama administration, where Barack Obama repeatedly chastised major European powers, namely Germany, France, and even occasionally the United Kingdom for not pulling their financial weight in the alliance.
“Free riders aggravate me”, one could be forgiven for thinking this statement is from the maligned Donald Trump, but it is in fact the direct, disparaging assessment by Obama to his most important global allies.
Indeed, even in Obama’s 2016 State of the Union, he remarks, “We also can’t try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into crisis, even if it’s done with the best of intentions. That’s not leadership; that’s a recipe for quagmire, spilling American blood and treasure that ultimately will weaken us. It’s the lesson of Vietnam; it’s the lesson of Iraq – and we should have learned it by now … on issues of global concern, we will mobilise the world to work with us, and make sure other countries pull their own weight.”
Equally, with no new wars started under Trump, no new foreign interventions begun, or regime change operations destabilising parts of the world (think Libya) and the ensuing chaos across the world during his term, it is hard to reasonably argue that the world was safer and more secure under Obama or Biden.
Even on the Russia collusion claims, masterminded by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign team and the now discredited Steele dossier, which has since been proven to be a hoax and formed the basis of years’ worth of allegations by Clinton, Democrats in Congress, and their supporters that Trump was an illegitimate president who had colluded with the US’s chief strategic adversary to “steal the election”.
This was spelled out in the Durham report which highlighted, “Indeed, based on the evidence gathered in multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the instant investigation, neither US law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”
It would appear that there has been very little, impartial, and objective analysis of the successes, similarities (at least in terms of objectives), and efficacy of much of the Trump administration’s foreign policy that isn’t coloured by the subjective prejudices of the author towards Trump (some earned, some mere talking points parroted for in-group brownie points).
The impact of Trump 2.0
Again, we will set any prospective Trump administration’s domestic policy and theories about the “death of American democracy” to one side.
For middle powers like Australia, the reality is that the United States, in relative terms, a declining power, with waning influence on the world stage and beset by a series of major domestic, economic, and financial challenges.
Simply put, the United States isn’t as united as it once was.
Ultimately, this reality means Australia will need to take more direct responsibility for its own security, stability, and prosperity in the era of great power competition and multipolarity, no matter who is president of the United States.
However, for both Wolpe and Pierce, Trump is by far the most existential threat to our enduring security, stating, “as Wolpe puts that point, Australia should ‘step up across the Asia-Pacific as never before’ by bolstering its presence, reach and commercial ties. Clubs are trumps once more. Wolpe asks himself whether his prescriptions will be enough, given the ways in which relations might be tested by Trump’s ‘fixations and whims’ abroad or by his quest for redemption and revenge at home. He moves on from foreign policy to examine the impact of Trump’s example on Australian thinking about culture wars, institutions, race and the media”.
This uncomfortable reality is now our new norm and has arguably only accelerated in the last few years as both the Biden administration and America flounder from one foreign policy disaster to another.
Final thoughts
Fundamentally, where much of the analysis falls short is as a result of the lens through which many analysts and commentators view foreign affairs, mainly through an almost romantic, “gentlemanly” lens where the realpolitik is done behind the scenes, while empty platitudes, pointless press conference, and joint communiques are the status quo.
This romantic world view often leaves us vulnerable as a result of viewing the world as they would like it to be, rather than how it actually is. The world, whether we like to admit it or not, is a jungle and the law of the jungle is one of when the lion is hungry, he eats.
The uncomfortable reality is something we are now witnessing in real time with the chaos sweeping across the world in the face of the seemingly weak Biden administration.
It is understandable then that when a brash, womanising billionaire with a no-nonsense approach to life, who prioritises loyalty and competence, the “experts” who view the world in a romantic manner feel put off, after all their advice is only accurate if the world plays by a set of rules no one else seems willing to play by now.
In this era of renewed competition between autarchy and democracy, this is a conversation that needs to be had in the open with the Australian people, as ultimately, they will be called upon to help implement it, to consent to the direction, and to defend it should diplomacy fail.
If we are to achieve this, Dr Ross Babbage of the Centre for Strategic Budgetary Assessments told Defence Connect, “I think what we’ve got to show what’s the vision for Australia, you know, what can we achieve and what you know if we go on the trajectory we are on at the moment. I’ll tell you what, you know, a lot of people, a lot more people in a decade’s time are likely to be either in really dumb jobs or maybe not have jobs at all, and in the society be a lot weaker and will be a lot less prosperous.
“So what we want to say is, look, there’s plenty of scope for doing more and smarter things, encouraging investment to do that, and then there will be some very, very interesting additional jobs and opportunities, a lot of high tech, and so on, I can tell you that, you know, talking to foreign investors, they’re quite keen on principle to work here, and do a lot more here and provide a lot more good jobs for Australians,” he explained.
This requires a greater degree of transparency and a culture of collaboration between the nation’s strategic policymakers and elected officials and the constituents they represent and serve – equally, this approach will need to entice the Australian public to once again invest in and believe in the future direction of the nation.
Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch
*It should be noted that this is not an endorsement of Donald Trump or his policies, this is merely an attempt at analysing his efficacy on the foreign and strategic policy front.
