{"id":23886,"date":"2019-04-25T19:50:16","date_gmt":"2019-04-25T16:50:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.onisilos.gr\/?p=23886"},"modified":"2019-04-25T19:50:16","modified_gmt":"2019-04-25T16:50:16","slug":"trumps-foreign-policy-is-not-chaotic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.onisilos.gr\/?p=23886","title":{"rendered":"Trump\u2019s Foreign Policy Is Not Chaotic"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n

By <\/b>Col (Res.) Dr. Raphael G. Bouchnik-Chen*<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

April 25, 2019<\/span><\/p>\n

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,153, April 25, 2019<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Though politicians and scholars harshly criticize President Donald Trump\u2019s foreign policy as chaotic, his policymaking seems to be based upon a sound and consistent political approach, contrary to that of his predecessor in the White House. Several decisions taken by Trump can fall under the rubric of the political science theory known as \u201cSupersession,\u201d which stipulates that changing circumstances and the passage of time are formative guidelines to the handling of international conflicts.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

In his major address at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC (April 27, 2016) as the Republican presidential frontrunner, Donald Trump outlined his \u201cAmerica First\u201d foreign policy approach. In so doing, he stated his manifesto: \u201cUnlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

More than two years into Trump\u2019s tenure at the White House, his foreign policy continues to be subjected to harsh criticism and is frequently mocked as senseless and impulsive. The term \u201cchaos\u201d appears in many contexts to describe his administration, and the suggestion is often made that there is no \u201cadult in the room.\u201d The prevailing claim is that the administration is pursuing a strategy that weakens and isolates the US and is withdrawing from its role as a global leader while at the same time distancing potential allies and partners instead of working with them. Obama administration veterans label Trump\u2019s foreign policy as a \u201cGrand Strategic Train Wreck<\/a>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Nevertheless, it appears that Trump has overcome both internal obstruction and external pressure to deliver a series of achievements<\/a>: North Korea\u2019s Kim Jong-un hasn\u2019t launched a rocket since November 28, 2017; America\u2019s NATO allies are finally starting to deliver on their obligations to increase defense spending toward the 2% of GDP target; Mexico has apparently come to terms on long-overdue NAFTA reforms; the US has stayed out of the Arab world\u2019s interminable wars; and the US embassy in Israel moved to Jerusalem in May 2018 without sparking a Palestinian \u201cintifada,\u201d as Trump\u2019s opponents warned it would.<\/span><\/p>\n

The key to understanding Trump\u2019s achievements is to recognize his embrace of a genuine political approach. This course is encapsulated in a political science theory known as \u201cSupersession,\u201d originally developed by Prof. Jeremy Waldron of the New York University School of Law. This theory highlights the principle of \u201cchanging circumstances\u201d rather than \u201crights-based\u201d and \u201ctransitional justice\u201d concepts. In other words, the need to rectify supposed historical injustices is superseded by the needs, claims, and desires of a society today. In a nutshell: the policymaker looks forward, not backward.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to Prof. Tamar Meisels of Tel-Aviv University, writing in her book Territorial Rights<\/i> (2006), \u201cThe basic logic of Waldron\u2019s Supersession argument, regarding the inevitable implications of a change in circumstances to the justice of present day arrangements, seems undeniable. On the whole, the Supersession Thesis is irresistibly convincing.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

President Trump\u2019s foreign policy employs the Supersession argument by highlighting the passage of time and changing circumstances as decisive factors. The realities on the ground can be considered guidelines that affect US international policy.<\/span><\/p>\n

For example, Trump\u2019s decision regarding the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as well as the recognition of Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights, could suggest the practical ratification of current circumstances as a result of the passage of time.<\/span><\/p>\n

The reshaping of US policy toward the Palestinian \u201crefugees,\u201d as manifested in the cutting of financial support to UNRWA by over $300 million and the reduction of funding to the Palestinian Authority by $200 million, is mainly related to Trump\u2019s conclusion that the inflated refugee problem is based on a false narrative.<\/span><\/p>\n

A parallel logic could explain Trump\u2019s open antagonism toward international organs such as UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council), and the ICC (International Criminal Court, to which the US is not a state party). Trump\u2019s reasoning suggests that he considers these international bodies anachronistic due to their anti-American and anti-Israeli majorities, which are composed of Muslim and third-world countries. Though it is not politically correct to distrust the objectivity of international organizations, Trump has exhibited no hesitation in directly confronting fundamental norms of the world\u2019s order.<\/span><\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s parameters in foreign policy making could indicate a potential direction vis-\u00e0-vis ongoing conflicts, with an emphasis on:<\/span><\/p>\n