A PROGRESSIVE'S SURPRISING ASSESSMENT OF TRUMP'S OVERSEAS TOUR
The consensus within the mainstream media (Fox News excepted) views Trump’s recent overseas tour as disastrous: cozying up to a repressive regime in Saudi Arabia and dissing our European allies. As you know, I am no fan of Mr. Trump. However, upon reflection, I must give the devil his due and say that I can appreciate the logic and worthy objectives underlying his apparent strategy.
There appear to be three overriding objectives to the trip, with the common denominator of persuading and pushing America’s allies to assume greater responsibility for defending their own interests (combatting Muslim extremists, peace in the Middle East and common defense in Europe) while scaling back American involvement and leadership.
1. In the Middle East, Trump said, in effect, ISIS and Iran pose threats to the other countries in the region and, therefore, having the greatest vested interests, they should take the lead in resolving these threats, with the U.S. in a supporting rather than leading role -- in effect, a forceful restatement of his predecessor’s policy. To that effect, Trump sold $110 billions of armaments to the Saudis, thereby providing them with additional tools to accomplish the job (not to mention jobs for American defense contractors). Trump also wrested a significant concession from the Saudis and neighboring Arab countries, namely to criminalize any financial support for ISIS from Gulf-State citizens and subjects. To the extent that such initiatives reduce America’s role and corresponding expense in the region, I wholeheartedly concur. I’ve been saying all along that the U.S. has no business wreaking death and destruction in the Middle East. I say this not only for humanitarian and financial reasons, but also because such involvement provides ISIS with a powerful recruiting tool, prolonging the conflict and promoting home-grown terrorism. Moreover, the quarrel between Iran and other neighboring countries represents the continuation of a civil war among co-religionists ongoing since the death of the Prophet more than 13 centuries ago. There is no profit for the U.S. in interjecting its military in the crossfire of such a longstanding conflict. So far so good.
2. In Israel, Trump urged Netanyahu to elevate the priority of peace negotiations with the Palestinians at least on a par with Israel’s efforts to “recalibrate relations with Sunni Arab nations in a mutual bid to counter Shiite-led Iran” as the N.Y. Times put it. In this effort, Trump revitalized the U.S. in its longstanding posture as an “honest broker” for peace. By not formalizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and shelving the promise to move the U.S. embassy there, and by not publicly pressing Israel to curb construction of settlements in the West Bank, Trump avoided aggravating both the Israelis and the Palestinians so as to maintain that posture. He underscored his role as an intermediary among the Israelis, Palestinians and Gulf States by demonstrating his cordial relations with all parties through meetings with each in which he was warmly received. “For the first time in my lifetime, I see a real hope for change,” Mr. Netanyahu told Mr. Trump. “The Arab leaders who you met yesterday could help change the atmosphere, and they could help create the conditions for a realistic peace.” Meeting with the Pope in Rome added an essential complement to the peace process, given Christianity’s antecedents in Israel and the Pope’s well-established credentials as a peacemaker.
3. In Europe, Trump ruffled not a few feathers by a) publicly chastising the majority of NATO members for not contributing as agreed to the common defense, and b) refusing to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty requiring all NATO allies to come to the defense of any member nation under attack. The two issues are intertwined. Frankly, it is fair comment on Trump’s part to insist on NATO allies ponying up their agreed contribution to the alliance. Traditionally, such admonitions have taken place in private – though without notable success because NATO allies figure, as long as the U.S. is on the hook under Article 5, they can skimp on their military budgets without consequences. Trump, ever the dealmaker, sees withholding U.S. reaffirmation for Article 5 as leverage to get NATO members to fulfill their obligations. To apply such leverage, it was necessary for Trump to publicly link the two, in effect, intimating that if members wanted American Article 5 protection, they had better contribute their full share to the alliance. This conditional negotiating stance is appropriate from the point of view of American taxpayers who must otherwise carry the weight of defaulting members. Yet it is something of a gamble, perhaps inviting Russian aggression in bordering countries under the assumption, rightly or wrongly, that the U.S. will stick by its veiled threat not to come to the aid of under-contributing members.
Reflecting the mainstream consensus, the N.Y. Times’ Nicholas Kristoff complained “President Trump’s overseas trip marked an abdication of American leadership, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel concluding that Europe can no longer rely on the United States.” In an editorial titled, “President Trump Fails NATO” the Times Editorial Board commented: “All told, Mr. Trump’s commitment to NATO and America’s tradition of leadership remain very much up in the air. Should the president abdicate both, no one would be happier than Vladimir Putin.”
That may very well be. However, U.S. allies in Europe and the Middle East have long played on American vanity as “leader of the free world,” to induce the U.S. bear the primary burden of protecting their interests while they step aside in supporting roles, be it in defending Europe or combatting Muslim extremists in the Middle East. Moreover, the same allies who rely on the U.S. leadership complain of U.S. “arrogance” in exercising it. They can’t have it both ways, calling for American leadership and complaining about it in the same breath. As I see it, Trump’s abdication of a measure of American leadership is precisely what is required to persuade U.S. allies to “not rely on the United States” and rightly assume primary responsibility for defending their own interests.
People sometimes speculate: Is Trump crazy, or crazy-like-a-fox? My answer: “Yes.”