scorecardresearch
Thursday, March 28, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeGlobal PulseGlobal Pulse: Trouble in Trump-Land

Global Pulse: Trouble in Trump-Land

Follow Us :
Text Size:

Donald Trump notoriously has no filter, and this time the victims of his tweets happen to be across the pond. The North Korean missile test is a necessary reality check for the US— coming at a difficult time for American foreign policy, as their Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, might be making an exit.

A spat with Trump was all that Theresa May needed

One of the best strategies to remain sane in 2017 was to ignore Donald Trump’s tweets. Yet, when he asked the Prime Minister of America’s closest ally to mind her own affairs on Twitter, it was not just another tweet, writes The Economist. But since the world has pretty much learned to be resistant to Trump’s tweets, it may not be a bad thing, after all.

“The good news, for transatlantic relations at least, is that Mr Trump’s tendency to go after steadfast allies can be put right, with a little stroking. Malcolm Turnbull, Australia’s prime minister, was an early victim, but America’s policy towards it has barely changed. British prime ministers are obsequiously paranoid about maintaining what they see as the special relationship with America’s presidents. Moreover, the foundation of the relationship is shared intelligence and diplomacy, which is relatively tweet-resistant. In fact, for Mrs May, who is trying to negotiate the world’s most complicated divorce while hampered by unpopularity and a self-sabotaging cabinet, a spat with Mr Trump could be just what she needs.”

Australia’s nostalgic reliance on America

Speaking of US-Australia relations, Canberra still seems to be sticking to old ways in line with its traditional dependence on the United States for its defence and security. Never mind that the US President has turned his back on the world, editorialises South China Morning Post.

“China’s rise and US President Donald Trump’s turning his back on the world can make for a confusing time for America’s allies. Australia has shown that with its latest foreign policy white paper, which frankly lays out the dilemma for all to see. The nation relies on Chinese trade and investment for its economic well-being, but traditionally looks to the United States for its defence and security. That leaves either a strategy of facing up to reality or sticking to old ways and, unfortunately, the government of Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has chosen the latter.”

“Canberra has made the heart of the white paper a plea for the US to remain engaged in the region and not to abandon its leadership role. Using the term “Indo-Pacific” rather than the long used “Asia-Pacific”, it embraces an idea promoted by the US and Japan to form an alliance with India that seeks, without being specific, to form a bloc to counter China’s growing strength. Turnbull went a step further in launching the white paper, further angering Beijing by lashing out at its island building in the South China Sea. Australia has done well by the US-dominated global order put in place after the second world war, but China’s growing economic and diplomatic power and America’s waning influence require a new mindset. The paper lays out the perceived challenges of being reliant on China for prosperity and the US for security, although offers no strategy other than to cling on to old ways to protect interests.”

Tillerson’s exit may herald the rise of the yes men in America

Back home, Trump seems to be doing what long seemed inevitable – promoting the yes men. And so reports of replacing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson ought to come as no surprise, writes Aaron Blake in The Washington Post.

“The Trump administration was initially stocked with both allies and more pragmatic picks who were less tied to Trump’s brand of politics and perhaps less willing to indulge his controversial impulses. More recently, the selection of John Kelly as chief of staff was thought to be a move away from yes-men and toward people who might keep Trump, for lack of a better phrase, in line. That clearly hasn’t happened,” Blake writes.

“As Trump’s presidency progresses — and as he makes it clearer and clearer that he’s not going to change and may actually drift further from the GOP’s comfort zone – it’s going to become more difficult to pull talent from the ranks of people who might stand up to Trump. And a reportedly exasperated Trump is likely to be drawn more to yes men and women who promise (either implicitly or explicitly) not to put him through the things he has gone through with Tillerson.”

US needs a reality check

North Korea claims to have “finally realised the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force.” But is this how it all ends – “with North Korea sprinting across the finish line, the United States panting behind it, and the two countries learning to deter one another just as nuclear-armed states have since Little Boy and Fat Man fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?” asks Uri Friedman in The Atlantic.

“‘We’re now at a point where they have tested an ICBM that can clearly hit the U.S. … They’ve tested a nuclear weapon that had a couple hundred kilotons’ yield, which they say is a miniaturized thermonuclear weapon, which kind of looks like a miniaturized thermonuclear weapon to me’,” said Jeffrey Lewis, the director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. ‘It’s done. It’s over’.”

“The window for stopping North Korea from acquiring the capacity to threaten the U.S. mainland with nukes slammed shut on July 4, when North Korea tested its first ICBM, the Hwasong-14, Lewis argued. ‘The whole point of a preventive war is to do it before they get the nuclear weapons. If you do it after, it’s just a plain old nuclear war’.”

So can the US do nothing to serve its interests now? For that, it’s important for the US to admit its policy so far has failed and go for something far more modest than what it had set out for.

“More modest and realistic U.S. goals for talks with North Korea could include reducing tensions between the countries and clearly communicating what specific North Korean actions would trigger U.S. military responses, Lewis said. DiMaggio sketched out a scenario in which American diplomats enter into direct negotiations with their North Korean counterparts without preconditions, scaling back U.S.-South Korean military exercises in exchange for the North Koreans halting their nuclear and missile tests and offering assurances that they won’t transfer weapons of mass destruction or related technology to other countries, or organizations such as terrorist groups.”

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular