No ‘Trump Doctrine’ Yet — and Wisely So: Ralph Peters, New York Post, Mar. 1, 2017— In his politically adept address to Congress Tuesday night, President Trump largely ignored foreign policy and spoke only generally — though warmly — about our armed forces.
Trump and the ‘Madman Theory’: Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2017— At the heart of President Trump’s foreign policy team lies a glaring contradiction.
The Logic of Trump’s Foreign Policy: Michael Auslin, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 20, 2017— Amid the seeming disarray of President Trump’s foreign policy, critics seem unable to make up their minds…
A Big Deal?: Elliott Abrams, Weekly Standard, Feb. 27, 2017— What a difference an election makes.
Trump’s ‘Alt-state’ Solution Suddenly Looks Like the Best Deal for Israelis and Arabs: Lawrence Solomon, National Post, Feb. 22, 2017
What is Trump’s Israel Policy?: Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post, Feb. 16, 2017
Clear, Clarify, Hold, Build: Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 27, 2017
All of Trump’s Executive Actions So Far: Aidan Quigley, Politico, Jan. 25, 2017
NO ‘TRUMP DOCTRINE’ YET — AND WISELY SO
Ralph Peters
New York Post, Mar. 1, 2017
In his politically adept address to Congress Tuesday night, President Trump largely ignored foreign policy and spoke only generally — though warmly — about our armed forces. That was a good thing. It might have been disastrous had the president attempted to lay down a “Trump Doctrine” on national security and international relations prematurely. He and his team long have been engaged on domestic issues, but, true to the pattern of recent administrations, they regarded global affairs as an annoyance and national security primarily as a stick for poking opponents.
Now, in office, Trump is learning how complex the world is and how confounding the collision of security, diplomatic and economic interests can be. Mr. President, take your time. Listen to premier advisers, such as Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Hear out the senators who’ve studied national security for decades. Recognize that politics truly ought to end at water’s edge.
The president does need to make a defining foreign-policy speech to guide his administration. But it should come no earlier than this summer, allowing time to overcome preconceptions and face reality. Trump needs to get this right. Meanwhile, his brief remarks on global issues were reassuring. His declaration of solidarity with NATO was welcome and vital. Even though new funding isn’t yet “pouring in” from our allies, there are earnest discussions in European parliaments about making greater contributions to the alliance. But we must recognize that NATO has been the greatest security bargain the United States ever got. Peace is a great deal cheaper than world war.
Trump’s dramatic support for our troops and their families provided a healthy morale boost — and a welcome change from the grudging acknowledgments of the Obama era. The president repeated his determination, if without specifics, to renew our military. All good. But for those of us who take a broader view of national security, his emphasis on supporting domestic law enforcement and making ravaged minority communities safe, with quality schools, cut to the core. It matters little if we’re safe abroad if tens of millions of our fellow citizens must fear a walk to the corner store, don’t know if their children will return safely from the playground or cannot educate the young to advance and rise from poverty.
The Democratic Party’s unforgivable confinement of minorities to a permanent underclass is a national-security crisis of the first order, a virtual imprisonment of millions. But beyond mixed metaphors and an addiction to adverbs, there were three problems with the president’s remarks on security. First, the various proposed initiatives — tax cuts, massive infrastructure spending, more social benefits and a higher defense budget — would add enormously to our national debt. We’ll see what the budget wonks can do, but a sound economy and sustainable debt are fundamental to national security. We have to learn to live within our means, make hard decisions and take responsibility.
Second, the president began by announcing that our country will again play a leadership role in the world and that our allies can count on us once more. But, later, he veered toward “America First” and a retreat from the global stage. As many a former president learned the hard way, disengagement simply doesn’t work. When we don’t venture into the world, the world comes to us — as on 9/11, or at Pearl Harbor or as far back as the War of 1812.
Third, although the president never uttered the name “Putin,” the Russian dictator’s ghost floated by when the president pointedly noted that old enemies can become friends. Beware. If any single issue has the potential to ravage the new administration, it’s the Russia connection. Trump needs to state, openly and firmly, that Vladimir Putin threatens our values, our interests, human rights, freedom and common decency.
Grave political danger lurks, as some on the extreme right insist Putin’s a natural ally in the defense of our civilization against Islamist barbarism. But Putin’s a barbarian himself. It’s naked bigotry to give him a pass on the grounds that he’s nominally Christian: His regime exploits a pliant Orthodox Church for cynical ends, as did the Soviet Union Putin worships. Putin isn’t an embattled defender of “our” civilization. He’s its enemy. His values aren’t our values; his interests aren’t our own; and yes, he’s a war criminal. Civilization begins at the Polish border.
On Tuesday, Trump disarmed political opponents by calling them out. He reassured our allies. He opened the door to cooperation and change. Now the hard work begins.
Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2017
At the heart of President Trump’s foreign policy team lies a glaring contradiction. On the one hand, it is composed of men of experience, judgment and traditionalism. Meaning, they are all very much within the parameters of mainstream American internationalism as practiced since 1945. Practically every member of the team — the heads of State, Homeland Security, the CIA, and most especially Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster — could fit in a Cabinet put together by, say, Hillary Clinton.
The commander in chief, on the other hand, is quite the opposite — inexperienced, untraditional, unbounded. His pronouncements on everything from the one-China policy to the two-state (Arab-Israeli) solution, from NATO obsolescence to the ravages of free trade, continue to confound and, as we say today, disrupt. The obvious question is: Can this arrangement possibly work? The answer thus far, surprisingly, is: perhaps.
The sample size is tiny but take, for example, the German excursion. Trump dispatched his grown-ups — Vice President Pence, Defense Secretary Mattis, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — to various international confabs in Germany to reassure allies with the usual pieties about America’s commitment to European security. They did drop a few hints to Trump’s loud complaints about allied parasitism, in particular shirking their share of the defense burden. Within days, Germany announced a 20,000-troop expansion of its military. Smaller European countries are likely to take note of the new setup. It’s classic good-cop, bad-cop: The secretaries represent foreign policy continuity but their boss preaches America First. Message: Shape up.
John Hannah of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies suggests that the push-pull effect might work on foes as well as friends. On Saturday, China announced a cutoff of all coal imports from North Korea for the rest of 2017. Constituting more than one-third of all North Korean exports, this is a major blow to its economy. True, part of the reason could be Chinese ire at the brazen assassination of Kim Jong Un’s half brother, who had been under Chinese protection. Nonetheless, the boycott was declared just days after a provocative North Korean missile launch — and shortly into the term of a new American president who has shown that he can be erratic and quite disdainful of Chinese sensibilities.
His wavering on the one-China policy took Beijing by surprise. Trump also strongly denounced Chinese expansion in the South China Sea and conducted an ostentatious love-in with Japan’s prime minister, something guaranteed to rankle the Chinese. Beijing’s boycott of Pyongyang is many things, among them a nod to Washington. This suggests that the peculiar and discordant makeup of the U.S. national security team — traditionalist lieutenants, disruptive boss — might reproduce the old Nixonian “madman theory.” That’s when adversaries tread carefully because they suspect the U.S. president of being unpredictable, occasionally reckless and potentially crazy dangerous. Henry Kissinger, with Nixon’s collaboration, tried more than once to exploit this perception to pressure adversaries.
Trump’s people have already shown a delicate touch in dealing with his bouts of loopiness. Trump has gone on for years about how we should have taken Iraq’s oil for ourselves. Sunday in Baghdad, Mattis wryly backed off, telling his hosts that “All of us in America have generally paid for our gas and oil all along, and I am sure we will continue to do so in the future.”
Yet sometimes an off-center comment can have its uses. Take Trump’s casual dismissal of a U.S. commitment to a two-state solution in the Middle East. The next day, U.S. policy was brought back in line by his own U.N. ambassador. But this diversion might prove salutary. It’s a message to the Palestinians that their decades of rejectionism may not continue to pay off with an inexorable march toward statehood — that there may actually be a price to pay for making no concessions and simply waiting for the U.S. to deliver them a Palestinian state.
To be sure, a two-track, two-policy, two-reality foreign policy is risky, unsettling and has the potential to go totally off the rails. This is not how you would draw it up in advance. It’s unstable and confusing. But the experience of the first month suggests that, with prudence and luck, it can yield the occasional benefit — that the combination of radical rhetoric and conventional policy may induce better behavior both in friend and foe. Alas, there is also a worst-case scenario. It needs no elaboration.
THE LOGIC OF TRUMP’S FOREIGN POLICY
Michael Auslin
Wall Street Journal, Feb. 20, 2017
Amid the seeming disarray of President Trump’s foreign policy, critics seem unable to make up their minds: Either Mr. Trump is upending America’s traditional postwar priorities, such as by denigrating NATO, or he is easily accommodating conventional wisdom, such as by accepting the “One China” policy. Which is it?
These critiques miss the logical thread that ties together Mr. Trump’s actions. Although it is too early to expect the president’s foreign policy to be fully fleshed out, especially after the abrupt resignation of Mike Flynn as national security adviser, the White House appears to be guided by a consistent approach.
On foreign issues that directly affect domestic concerns, Mr. Trump pursues radical change. But on matters that are truly foreign, he is willing to adopt a traditional stance. What looks like inconsistency is actually an instinct deeply grounded in his worldview.
This explains the president’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and his desire to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. Some charge that this is a betrayal of America’s decades-long commitment to a liberal global economic system. But Mr. Trump sees it as a domestic priority, a necessary shielding of American workers. Instead of sweeping, multicountry agreements, he has proposed bilateral trade pacts, beginning with Britain and possibly Japan.
On pure foreign policy, Mr. Trump has stayed the course for now. After initially questioning the relevance and utility of America’s main postwar alliances, he now seems committed to them. The president and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis have affirmed the mutual-defense agreements with Japan and South Korea. Mr. Mattis had tough words for NATO allies last week when urging increased military spending, but walking away seems a remote possibility.
Even more surprising was the recent phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Mr. Trump dropped his criticism of the “One China” policy that has defined relations with Beijing since the 1970s. Mr. Mattis, during a visit to Japan, also calmed fears that the U.S. Navy might physically confront Chinese vessels in the South China Sea. The Trump administration has kept Russia at arm’s length, too, despite the president’s continued praise of Vladimir Putin. U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley has made clear that American sanctions will remain in effect unless Russia withdraws from Ukraine.
Mr. Trump rejects the widely held belief that globalization always benefits American interests. This may be his most lasting challenge to the postwar international order. Still, the Trump administration appears willing to live up to commitments and responsibilities that do not impose costs at home. None of this means Mr. Trump’s policies will go smoothly. But critics are wrong to claim he is suddenly kowtowing, seeing the wisdom of “orthodoxy,” or being tamed by the establishment. At least so far, Mr. Trump has been remarkably consistent. Critics from the left and right should accept that the next four years of American foreign policy will be defined by a mix of traditionalism and radicalism.
Elliott Abrams
Weekly Standard, Feb. 27, 2017
What a difference an election makes. Benjamin Netanyahu, for eight years scorned and insulted by the Obama administration, found himself warmly embraced in the Trump White House last week. No more name-calling, no more deliberate "daylight" between Israeli and American positions, no more abandonment of Israel at the U.N.
This was the central achievement of the Netanyahu visit: to demonstrate a visible end to the Obama years and put Israeli-American relations back where they were in the George W. Bush administration. The warmth of the White House greeting was no doubt bitter gall to Bibi's many enemies in Jerusalem, and in the Israeli press accounts they carped and complained about this word and that phrase. But having a close and supportive relationship with Washington is always an asset to an Israeli prime minister, and so it will be for Netanyahu.
Beyond this symbolic reset of the U.S.-Israel alliance, the visit was filled with several real developments. The American and Israeli press are mostly focusing on "the abandonment of the two-state solution" and quoting President Trump's lines: “I'm looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like. I'm very happy with the one that both parties like. I could live with either one. I thought for a while the two-state looked like it may be the easier of the two. But honestly, if Bibi and if the Palestinians—if Israel and the Palestinians are happy, I'm happy with the one they like the best.”
The criticism of Trump for this "abandonment" is misplaced. At least since Bill Clinton, a "two-state solution" has been the insistent American goal, but where has it gotten us—or the Israelis and Palestinians? Trump is focusing instead on the goal, which is peace, and saying any road that gets us all there can work for him if it can work for the parties. Criticism of this position is foolish, elevating the means over the end. He has not abandoned the two-state solution; the hand-wringing of the New York Times and the elation of some spokesmen for the Israeli right are both overdone. Trump is doing what he often does best: challenging the conventional wisdom and asking if there is a better path to peace.
In fact Trump has a theory of how to get there—the "outside in" approach that starts with the Arab states. The old two-state approach was to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian deal first, believing it would clear the way for the Arab states to improve their relations with Israel. Trump favors a regional approach: leverage Israel's improving relations with Arab states to help win an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. Netanyahu was first to mention this when the two men appeared together: “I believe that the great opportunity for peace comes from a regional approach, from involving our newfound Arab partners in the pursuit of a broader peace and peace with the Palestinians.
Trump agreed fully: “And we have been discussing that, and it is something that is very different, hasn't been discussed before. And it's actually a much bigger deal, a much more important deal, in a sense. It would take in many, many countries and it would cover a very large territory. So I didn't know you were going to be mentioning that, but that's—now that you did, I think it's a terrific thing and I think we have some pretty good cooperation from people that in the past would never, ever have even thought about doing this.”
Trump later added more: “Our new concept that we've been discussing actually for a while is something that allows them to show more flexibility than they have in the past because you have a lot bigger canvas to play with. . . . I can tell you from the standpoint of Bibi and from the standpoint of Israel, I really believe they want to make a deal and they'd like to see the big deal.” No doubt the Israelis would in principle like to see "the big deal," because it would mean normal diplomatic and economic relations with the Gulf Arab states. Can this work? You won't know until you try, and Trump plans to try.
Perhaps the biggest news from the visit and press conference is that Trump is a "peace processor." Instead of abandoning efforts at a peace deal as a waste of time, he plans to jump into them—or at least have his administration, led by his son-in-law Jared Kushner, do so. It's possible that something can be achieved here. The older Israeli-Palestinian "inside-out" approach tends to be all-or-nothing, and when it fails, it produces nothing but anger and disappointment. Perhaps the administration can improve Israeli-Arab relations and cooperation even if a final peace deal is elusive.
But optimism should be restrained. Cooperating with Israel is always risky for the Arab states, which is why they do it in secret. It is a potential domestic political problem of great magnitude for them, so why should they risk it? The answer is that it would improve the lot of the Palestinians—but that has never been and is not now a compelling objective for most Arab leaders. It's "nice to have" but not worth any real danger. They are most likely to try it if a strong and reliable American president presses them to do so, over and over again. And that's the rub here. Arab leaders do not yet know if they have a strong and reliable president with whom to work, or whether he is going to make this regional peace deal a major goal that he will pursue over time.
Arriving at the White House, Netanyahu barely missed passing national security adviser Michael Flynn on his way out. Who will handle the Middle East at the NSC under the new national security adviser, and what will that person's views be? Who will be the next assistant secretary of state for Near East Affairs? What will be the balance of power among Trump, the new national security adviser, Jim Mattis at Defense, and Rex Tillerson at State? And for the Arabs, the far more critical question: What will be the new administration's real policy toward Iran? One can envision a tough policy on Iran that defends and gratifies the Sunni Gulf states and leads them to cooperate fully on Israeli-Palestinian matters. One can also imagine a policy that they find wanting and that provides little incentive for them to court additional risks. Until they have made a judgment about President Trump and his administration, they will carefully hedge their bets.
At the news conference, Netanyahu had a lot more to say about Iran than Trump did. The latter did say, "I will do more to prevent Iran from ever developing—I mean ever—a nuclear weapon," which may suggest an effort to extend the Iran deal negotiated by the Obama administration. But after that opening line, and despite Netanyahu's repeated mention of Iran, Trump did not utter the word again. This will leave Israel and Arab states wondering where U.S. policy is heading.
The embrace of "peace processing" led Trump to reiterate something his administration had said a couple of times recently: Unrestrained Israeli settlement expansion is not a good thing. As Trump put it to Netanyahu, "I'd like to see you hold back on settlements for a little bit." He also said, "I think that the Israelis are going to have to show some flexibility, which is hard, it's hard to do. They're going to have to show the fact that they really want to make a deal" and added, "As with any successful negotiation, both sides will have to make compromises. You know that, right?" This is very vague, but it is enormously helpful to Netanyahu. Trump's election victory was seen by some on Israel's right as opening the gates: Now there could be many new settlements and indeed annexation of parts of the West Bank. Netanyahu, always cautious, has long resisted such proposals, but that would have been much harder for him if Trump embraced such ideas…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
Trump’s ‘Alt-state’ Solution Suddenly Looks Like the Best Deal for Israelis and Arabs: Lawrence Solomon, National Post, Feb. 22, 2017—What could President Trump have possibly meant last week at his press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when he said he wasn’t committed to a one- or two-state solution for Israel, and that he was seeking “a bigger and better deal than people in this room even understand”?
What is Trump’s Israel Policy?: Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post, Feb. 16, 2017—President Trump’s comments at a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a pleasant contrast to the frosty relationship, sometimes devolving into outright hostility, between former President Barack Obama and Netanyahu. However, Trump’s remarks left Middle East experts scratching their heads.
Clear, Clarify, Hold, Build: Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 27, 2017—The Spanish viceroys who governed the New World in the 16th and 17th centuries had a saying when it came to the edicts—usually ill-judged and invariably late—from their sovereign across the sea: Obedezco pero no cumplo. I obey but I do not comply. It could be the motto of Donald Trump’s cabinet, at least on the foreign-policy side.
All of Trump’s Executive Actions So Far: Aidan Quigley, Politico, Jan. 25, 2017—President Donald Trump has spent his first days using his executive authority to rewrite American policy and undo a string of decisions made by former president Barack Obama. Here’s a running list of the new president’s executive actions…
