Keeping interlocutors off-balance cannot become the staple of a superpower’s interactions
With the recent U.S. missile attacks on a Syrian airbase, U.S. President Donald Trump rewrote much of the foreign policy script of his campaign.
Fulfilment of campaign promises was emphasised in Mr. Trump’s first executive orders: banning immigration from some Muslim-majority countries, reversing Obama-era climate change policies, withdrawing the U.S. from Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, building a wall along the Mexican border and ordering replacement of the “Obamacare” health insurance scheme.
The sobering reality, however, was that almost every order was challenged in the courts or required Congressional review, or needed further definition before implementation. The course of the failed legislative effort to repeal and replace Obamacare received real-time coverage on television.
Reversing changes
He also encountered fierce domestic opposition to many of his tweets, words and actions. There was harsh Congressional and media criticism of his views on “resetting” relations with Russia, a tougher line with China and questioning the raison d’etre of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Congressional hearings on Russian “meddling” in the U.S. elections received wall-to-wall TV coverage.
The internal dissent was also manifested by damaging leaks of classified information from within his own administration, which undermined the President’s pursuit of his policy priorities.
The Syria missile strike should be seen against this backdrop. One view is that facing plunging poll ratings, policy squabbles among his close advisers and a virtual paralysis of governance, Mr. Trump had to act. Others see the insidious influence of the American “deep state”.
In one fell swoop, he overturned some of his major campaign premises; he demanded Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s removal, his adviser branded Russia a strategic competitor and hailed NATO’s role in international security. This about-turn delivered gratifying results: cross-party support in Congress, applause from NATO allies and, for the first time in his administration, endorsement of most sections of the U.S. media.
The justification offered for the strike was alleged chemical weapons use by the Syrian Army on April 4. However, a policy shift was already signalled in end-March, when both U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defence Secretary James Mattis strongly criticised Russia’s actions in Ukraine and Afghanistan.
U.S. allies unquestioningly accepted the U.S. claim of “incontrovertible evidence” of the Syrian Army’s use of chemical weapons. Why the Syrian Army should risk such action when the military and political situations were veering in its favour was a question not asked. The suggestion that the chemical agents may have been in the militants’ possession was brushed aside, as was the Russian demand for an impartial international investigation.
Dealing with China
Mr. Trump also seems to be backtracking somewhat on his campaign promises on China. After a remarkably cordial meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on April 7, he declared that they had developed an “outstanding” relationship. Correctly gauging that the nearly $350 billion U.S. trade deficit with China was the key concern for Mr. Trump, Mr. Xi had arrived with a proposal to address this issue with a joint plan within 100 days. Mr. Trump urged China to use its economic clout with North Korea (DPRK) to make it roll back its nuclear programme. After the summit, the President tweeted that China could expect a better trade deal if it helps with DPRK. China immediately responded by tightening an import ban on DPRK coking coal, which is that country’s most important export. The added bonus for the U.S. is that the ban will significantly boost U.S. coking coal exports to China.
All this does not yet amount to a coherent U.S. foreign policy strategy. The U.S. missile strike rattled Russia but has not helped the war on the Islamic State (IS). The fragile ceasefire in Syria and the UN-sponsored intra-Syrian dialogue in Geneva are both in danger of collapse. The battle for Raqqa, the de facto IS capital, is still to be fought and won. U.S.-supported Syrian “moderate” rebels, together with Kurdish militias, are north of the city and the Syrian Army (backed by Russia) is in the south. U.S.-Russia coordination is essential for success. Even more complicated is the aftermath of the eventual victory. There are divergent strategic interests between Russia, Turkey, Iran and the Gulf countries. These messy realities of the conflict and the messier outlook for peace were the reasons why the Obama Administration tacitly acquiesced in Russia’s 2015 military intervention in Syria. Mr. Trump’s aversion to a prolonged military involvement in Syria may yet lead him to a pragmatic arrangement with Russia.
We do not know as yet how the U.S. will deal with Chinese assertiveness in its neighbourhood. Mr. Tillerson mentioned that U.S. concerns about China’s activities in the South China Sea were conveyed at the Summit, but this was eclipsed by other headlines of the summit. If a U.S.-China bargain on trade and North Korea decreases the pressure on China in the Asia Pacific, it would significantly alter the strategic calculus in the region.
By design or otherwise, the Trump Administration has kept both friends and foes off-balance by its words and actions. The President’s tweets on China kept the Chinese leadership on tenterhooks before Mr. Xi’s U.S. visit. Even after a cordial summit, the Chinese were jolted by a Presidential tweet, asserting that the U.S. could deal with DPRK even without Chinese help. The despatch of a naval strike force to the Korean peninsula added menace to the message.
U.S. allies are not exempt. Mr. Tillerson created consternation by conveying that his deputy would attend a NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting. NATO Foreign Ministers hastily rearranged their schedules to suit his convenience.
What’s in it for India?
Recent comments of the U.S. Ambassador to the UN that the U.S. would proactively prevent India-Pakistan tensions gave India some food for thought. The Trump Administration’s decision to increase defence and civilian aid to Pakistan in 2017 is also puzzling, when his own generals are publicly accusing Pakistan of supporting terrorism in Afghanistan from its territory. However, the massive U.S. bomb recently dropped near the Afghan-Pakistan border may well have sent a message to Pakistan by disrupting cross-border Taliban movement.
Keeping interlocutors off-balance by unpredictable behaviour may have tactical utility, but it cannot become the staple of a superpower’s interactions. A superpower commands respect by a level of predictability and consistency of action. It is possible – and highly desirable – that the Trump Administration gravitates towards that “normal”. Meanwhile, as the Indian leadership prepares to engage with the Trump Administration on the strong foundation established in the past three years, it might note from others’ experience that transactional aspects are important in cementing political and strategic convergences.
With the recent U.S. missile attacks on a Syrian airbase, U.S. President Donald Trump rewrote much of the foreign policy script of his campaign.
Fulfilment of campaign promises was emphasised in Mr. Trump’s first executive orders: banning immigration from some Muslim-majority countries, reversing Obama-era climate change policies, withdrawing the U.S. from Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, building a wall along the Mexican border and ordering replacement of the “Obamacare” health insurance scheme.
The sobering reality, however, was that almost every order was challenged in the courts or required Congressional review, or needed further definition before implementation. The course of the failed legislative effort to repeal and replace Obamacare received real-time coverage on television.
Reversing changes
He also encountered fierce domestic opposition to many of his tweets, words and actions. There was harsh Congressional and media criticism of his views on “resetting” relations with Russia, a tougher line with China and questioning the raison d’etre of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Congressional hearings on Russian “meddling” in the U.S. elections received wall-to-wall TV coverage.
The internal dissent was also manifested by damaging leaks of classified information from within his own administration, which undermined the President’s pursuit of his policy priorities.
The Syria missile strike should be seen against this backdrop. One view is that facing plunging poll ratings, policy squabbles among his close advisers and a virtual paralysis of governance, Mr. Trump had to act. Others see the insidious influence of the American “deep state”.
In one fell swoop, he overturned some of his major campaign premises; he demanded Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s removal, his adviser branded Russia a strategic competitor and hailed NATO’s role in international security. This about-turn delivered gratifying results: cross-party support in Congress, applause from NATO allies and, for the first time in his administration, endorsement of most sections of the U.S. media.
The justification offered for the strike was alleged chemical weapons use by the Syrian Army on April 4. However, a policy shift was already signalled in end-March, when both U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defence Secretary James Mattis strongly criticised Russia’s actions in Ukraine and Afghanistan.
U.S. allies unquestioningly accepted the U.S. claim of “incontrovertible evidence” of the Syrian Army’s use of chemical weapons. Why the Syrian Army should risk such action when the military and political situations were veering in its favour was a question not asked. The suggestion that the chemical agents may have been in the militants’ possession was brushed aside, as was the Russian demand for an impartial international investigation.
Dealing with China
Mr. Trump also seems to be backtracking somewhat on his campaign promises on China. After a remarkably cordial meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on April 7, he declared that they had developed an “outstanding” relationship. Correctly gauging that the nearly $350 billion U.S. trade deficit with China was the key concern for Mr. Trump, Mr. Xi had arrived with a proposal to address this issue with a joint plan within 100 days. Mr. Trump urged China to use its economic clout with North Korea (DPRK) to make it roll back its nuclear programme. After the summit, the President tweeted that China could expect a better trade deal if it helps with DPRK. China immediately responded by tightening an import ban on DPRK coking coal, which is that country’s most important export. The added bonus for the U.S. is that the ban will significantly boost U.S. coking coal exports to China.
All this does not yet amount to a coherent U.S. foreign policy strategy. The U.S. missile strike rattled Russia but has not helped the war on the Islamic State (IS). The fragile ceasefire in Syria and the UN-sponsored intra-Syrian dialogue in Geneva are both in danger of collapse. The battle for Raqqa, the de facto IS capital, is still to be fought and won. U.S.-supported Syrian “moderate” rebels, together with Kurdish militias, are north of the city and the Syrian Army (backed by Russia) is in the south. U.S.-Russia coordination is essential for success. Even more complicated is the aftermath of the eventual victory. There are divergent strategic interests between Russia, Turkey, Iran and the Gulf countries. These messy realities of the conflict and the messier outlook for peace were the reasons why the Obama Administration tacitly acquiesced in Russia’s 2015 military intervention in Syria. Mr. Trump’s aversion to a prolonged military involvement in Syria may yet lead him to a pragmatic arrangement with Russia.
We do not know as yet how the U.S. will deal with Chinese assertiveness in its neighbourhood. Mr. Tillerson mentioned that U.S. concerns about China’s activities in the South China Sea were conveyed at the Summit, but this was eclipsed by other headlines of the summit. If a U.S.-China bargain on trade and North Korea decreases the pressure on China in the Asia Pacific, it would significantly alter the strategic calculus in the region.
By design or otherwise, the Trump Administration has kept both friends and foes off-balance by its words and actions. The President’s tweets on China kept the Chinese leadership on tenterhooks before Mr. Xi’s U.S. visit. Even after a cordial summit, the Chinese were jolted by a Presidential tweet, asserting that the U.S. could deal with DPRK even without Chinese help. The despatch of a naval strike force to the Korean peninsula added menace to the message.
U.S. allies are not exempt. Mr. Tillerson created consternation by conveying that his deputy would attend a NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting. NATO Foreign Ministers hastily rearranged their schedules to suit his convenience.
What’s in it for India?
Recent comments of the U.S. Ambassador to the UN that the U.S. would proactively prevent India-Pakistan tensions gave India some food for thought. The Trump Administration’s decision to increase defence and civilian aid to Pakistan in 2017 is also puzzling, when his own generals are publicly accusing Pakistan of supporting terrorism in Afghanistan from its territory. However, the massive U.S. bomb recently dropped near the Afghan-Pakistan border may well have sent a message to Pakistan by disrupting cross-border Taliban movement.
Keeping interlocutors off-balance by unpredictable behaviour may have tactical utility, but it cannot become the staple of a superpower’s interactions. A superpower commands respect by a level of predictability and consistency of action. It is possible – and highly desirable – that the Trump Administration gravitates towards that “normal”. Meanwhile, as the Indian leadership prepares to engage with the Trump Administration on the strong foundation established in the past three years, it might note from others’ experience that transactional aspects are important in cementing political and strategic convergences.