FLASH
Shkruar nga Bernhard Zand
Preventing rivals will remain an important element of his approach.
Stephen Wertheim, is a well-known historian of US foreign policy. He is a fellow of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank based in Washington, and a professor at Princeton University. His latest book is titled Tomorrow's World: The Birth of US Global Supremacy.
What role did foreign policy play in Donald Trump's re-election?
As in many other countries, election campaigns in the US are focused more on domestic issues. However, foreign policy played a similar role as it did some 50 years ago.
What do you mean by that?
In the 1970s, after the United States suffered a kind of national humiliation as a result of the Vietnam War, Americans wanted to come to terms with themselves and feel good about their country's role in the world again. Both sides were thinking about how this could be achieved. Jimmy Carter's response was a foreign policy based on human rights, an idealistic approach, influenced by idealistic appeals to the values of liberal democracy. But it generally failed.
Because among other developments, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in late 1979?
Yes, there was a resurgence of Cold War tensions. Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, had a different answer, centered on the idea of "peace through strength," a formula that President-elect Donald Trump is using today. But both Carter and Reagan used a lot of moralistic language because of the perceived failure of realpolitik.
Meanwhile, Trump is saying: We have tried idealistic crusades, which could not achieve anything. So let's be more stubborn and pursue a foreign policy that benefits America. So Trump rejects the moralism of Democrats and neo-conservative Republicans.
And apparently with some success...
Wars in Europe and the Middle East have helped him convey the impression that the world is on fire. His main message during the campaign was: the Biden administration displayed weak leadership. Everything was better, safer and more stable under my leadership. If I had been president, these wars would not have broken out. And if I become president again, I will quickly put an end to them. So vote for me.
Do you think it can keep its promise?
I don't think he can keep his promise to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. But it can stimulate negotiations between the two sides. For now, this conflict is at a stalemate, and Trump can change that, for better or worse. If he is determined to reorient the US away from Europe, he can do so.
Would you advise the Europeans to increase their defense spending as soon as possible?
They have to face a reality that has nothing to do with the election results. The United States today is not ready to be the main military helper for Europe. If there is an attack on NATO territory, the US may be unable or unwilling to defend that territory.
Europe is very late in defending itself. This would be true even if Harris had won the election. Of course, the election of Trump increases the pressure for them. But I don't think Trump will withdraw from NATO or that he will withdraw most US troops from Europe.
What is Trump's main strategy? What does he aim to achieve in world politics?
Preventing rivals will remain an important element of his approach. But will he focus on the strongest adversary, China, or will he make a deal with Russia, perhaps even with North Korea? This is an opportunity. Trump believes he possesses a certain toughness and charisma in persuading an opponent to sit down at the table and make a deal. While Democrats have become much more reluctant to negotiate with opponents, especially under the Biden administration.
Military deterrence also includes the nuclear arsenals of major powers. During his first term, Trump threatened North Korea with "fire and fury" and his "nuclear button." Some even talked about the possibility of the US using nuclear weapons first. Where does Trump stand today on this issue?
I don't know, and I'm not sure he does. But it is logical that if the United States insists on maintaining its geopolitical objectives, and does not shift the burden of defense onto the shoulders of allies, then it has two options. The first is to spend a lot more on defense, maybe 2 or 3 times more.
The other option would be to find a clever way to offset our adversaries' advances in conventional military power. This leads to the idea of escalating the use of nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence. I think this step would be wrong, and would not be a very credible threat.
What can historians like you write about the re-election of Donald Trump, in 25 or 50 years?
It is very difficult to understand these events at the time they occur. In 2016 and 2020, some people jumped to conclusions, and this often led them astray. Joe Biden took office 4 years ago and said: America is back! Now Donald Trump is back. The truth is the same America that once elected Joe Biden, this time elected Trump. We must give up the idea that Trump was an accident./ Adapted "Pamphlet" from "Der Spiegel"
Lini një Përgjigje