Oy, we are in the part of the election cycle where people have lost their goddamned minds and have forgotten damn near everything. I started thinking about this stuff today because I was interviewed by a French Canadian outlet asking me what international relations would be like if Trump gets into power again. And then I saw this:
This is, of course, after in 2016, the NYT put out this dreck:
Sure. I happen to remember that the US nearly got into two major wars under Trump: vs North Korea in 2017 and Iran in 2020. People forget that Trump spent his first few months in office amping up tensions with NK. People forget that Trump almost gave the Iran hawks what they have long wanted by killing an Iranian general (Soleimani), which did lead to a bit of tit for tat with some risk of escalation. Yes, Trump started the process of getting the US out of Afghanistan by selling out the government we had tried to build there. He did sell out the Kurds, just as other presidents have. But he ain't a pacifist or else he wouldn't be threatening war with Mexico. Yes, Mexico.
Before getting into the risks of another Trump administration, let's pause and take note of Biden's record. It sucks on Gaza, no doubt. Not sure any President could have done better, pretty sure Trump would have done worse. Remember the quick coalition Biden put together to shoot down the Iranian missiles/drones? Could Trump have done that? I don't think so. Re Ukraine, the US is not at war with Russia, but has, despite intra-Republican fights to block aid, kept Ukraine in the war and the US out. While folks will argue that the US did not escalate quickly enough in its support for Ukraine, job one has been and will be keeping the US and NATO out of a war with Russia. Biden has been very tough on Russia without putting American lives at great risk.
Ok, back to Trump, the thing that worries me so much about another Trump administration is not a war against Mexico, although that would be awful. It is the uncertainty. Pretty much every President until Trump understood very well that IR theorists are right--uncertainty is mostly quite bad for peace and stability. As a status quo power, the US spent much effort to build institutions and relationships to provide clarity and predictability, which were the foundations not just of peace (among great powers anyway) but prosperity. With great uncertainty, countries are more likely to make mistakes that lead to wars and to escalation. Trump's word can't be trusted, so that generates much uncertainty and fear. I am pretty sure Chinese leaders consider Trump to be a paper tiger, which means that they think he will fold under pressure. And that will lead to one of two bad things: China pushes the US around, causing allies to hedge (more on that in a second) or China tries to push the US around and is surprised when the US pushes back, maybe leading to a war. Not good.
Finally, the uncertainty generated by Trump will lead to allies to hedge in a couple of ways. First, they might ally with our adversaries who are seen as more predictable. Second, those without nuclear weapons may attain them since they can't rely on the American nuclear umbrella anymore. That so very few countries have developed nuclear arsenals has been a big win for US diplomacy and leadership. Which countries have attained nuclear weapons since the big five did? Only those that the US would not protect--North Korea, India, Pakistan. If Trump wins, maybe Poland, South Korea, and Japan. And if they do, maybe a cascade develops.
Again, uncertainty is bad, and Trump is an uncertainty engine. So, no, a second Trump administration would not be our best bet for peace and security. Very much the opposite.
No comments:
Post a Comment