Many people who never liked Donald Trump are predictably outraged by many of his actual and potential foreign policy changes. These include new tariffs on goods from countries with which the US had, until the current administration, enjoyed free trade or Most Favored Nation status, including Mexico, Canada, and the European Union. In addition, he announced imposition or intended imposition of increased sanctions against Iran, Russia and potentially other nations. He also ordered the suspension of all foreign aid except to Israel and Egypt. (The order is currently blocked in federal court.) But his most outrageous proposals are undoubtedly to annex Canada and Greenland, “take back” the Panama Canal, and acquire and develop the Gaza Strip after removing its current Palestinian population.
All of this and more has understandably been used to justify the worst fears of those who predicted disaster. Panic and hysteria are not an uncommon response in some quarters of the press and social media. This is by no means entirely unjustified, but such reactions fail to appreciate what Trump himself perceives as the method behind his madness. He loves panic and hysteria, which he considers useful, if not essential, to his “art of the deal.”
Donald Trump is by nature a businessman, more specifically a salesperson. He makes deals by persuasion, coercion, temptation, reward, and the entire panoply of inducements to achieve an outcome that may or may not be what he or the other participants in the negotiation initially intended. If he makes an outrageous proposal, he expects a counterproposal, and if his outrageous proposal helps to shape the counterproposal, so much the better. If he issues a directive that results in disaster, he expects pushback and revision. That – for better or worse – is how he operates. He doesn’t feel that he needs a lot of analysis or expertise. He depends on others to push and pull the negotiation into the solution of the problem, which can be less or more, better or worse, than either of the negotiators initially intended. His role is to move things along and break the deadlocks. The result may not always be the perfect solution, but it’s often a solution of some kind.
One of the first successes of the Trump administration has been the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. One can only imagine the threats and promises that were made for Trump to achieve this just prior to his inauguration. Did he promise Bibi that he could resume full or even intensified genocide after a short pause, which would allow Itamar Ben Gvir to reverse his resignation from the governing coalition and permit Netanyahu’s to further his own ambitions)? Perhaps. But now Trump’s aim seems to be to prolong the ceasefire by assuring that the US will transfer the Palestinians to other countries (mainly Egypt and Jordan). Never mind that Egypt and Jordan have refused to accept the Palestinians, who have themselves refused to go, and that most or all US allies also oppose the plan. The objective is to promise whatever is necessary to prolong the ceasefire, and to keep coming up with ways to do that, no matter how unrealistic. In this case, the promise is to rid Israel of the Palestinians without even having to use the Israeli military or resources. What more could they want? This buys Israel’s cooperation, and the problems and contradictions get kicked down the road. Donald Trump wants to be seen as someone who can do the impossible, even if his methods are highly, highly unorthodox and coercive, such as a proposal to cut off foreign aid to Egypt and Jordan if they don’t accept.
Thus far, there is no doubt that the ceasefire is a success, if only a qualified one, with many violations (mostly by Israel, which is less than enthusiastic about it). However, the same cannot necessarily be said about Trump’s suspension of the operations and funding of the US Agency for International Development. The humanitarian aid and technological development provided by USAID is a real benefit to the societies that receive it, and it is plausible that people will die without it, especially the medical supplies, equipment and services that preserve life and health in underserved areas. On the other hand, that aid comes with strings attached. USAID, as well as many NGOs that are at least partly funded privately, are frequently a cover for CIA spying, black ops and regime change operations. The overthrow of Ukraine’s elected government in 2014 was largely funded and enabled by USAID funds directed by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. The suspension of the USAID program is therefore not entirely unwelcome.
In any case, we can expect such strange and risky moves to be part of the next four years. In Trump’s last administration, he came in largely unprepared. This time, he appears, for better or worse, to be taking charge. It is likely to be a learning experience for all concerned, and the results are likely to be less predictable for us all, as well.