While terribly inexperienced, at least Rex Tillerson understood that diplomacy is a constant give-and-take, trade-offs where parties meet in the middle. Bully-tactics are generally not considered a basic tool of diplomacy unless there is a willingness to back up the underlying threat with credible action, accepting all the consequences that go along with that strategy. Just think about it? If someone tries to force you to do something, something you basically oppose, how do you react? Get all warm and fuzzy, yearning to please your “imposing force,” or – assuming you can – get even more rigid in your resistance?
That isn’t to say that bully-tactics don’t work. If there is enough credible force and resolve in that assault, and if there is some minimal “give” that just might placate the bully in a believable fashion, you just might make that move. But there is a difference between placating a bully with a reasonable adjustment vs “appeasement,” a temporary “give” that simply spurs the bully to demand even more (think Neville Chamberlain in the years leading up to World War II). A constant concern with bully tactics. There is also the strain on the bully’s allies, often part of the same treaties as the bully, who are worried that they might be dragged into an unwanted confrontation or even an armed conflict.
Donald Trump is a passionate believer in his Art of the Deal, but there are virtually no major practitioners of that philosophy anywhere else in the world with the possible exception of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, now a global pariah. The price for using such tactics, generally negotiating approaches that scare most seasoned diplomats, includes not just the risks inherent in any single diplomatic demand or foray but a very obvious risk that your allies will slowly distance themselves from you and your objectives. Isolation.
Aside from North Korea and Russian mendacious manipulation, Trump two other major concerns are wrapped around global trade and, militarily (especially given America’s ties to Netanyahu’s vision for Israel), Iran.
On trade, Trump’s tactics have been a colossal bust. His withdrawal from multinational trade agreements to force bilateral accords from nations that would, of necessity have less bargaining power alone, has not produced a single significant bilateral agreement. Even allies desperate for our military umbrella, such as Japan and South Korea, have flatly refused Trump’s entreaties to enter into such bilateral negotiations… and have even entered into new multinational trade agreements without U.S. sanction or participation.
His imposition of the steel and aluminum tariffs, heavily opposed by his own party, is likely to get resolved sooner rather than later, but the instantaneous response was a clear threat to impose corresponding tariffs on U.S. goods, especially from our purported European allies. Whatever the result, that Trump elected to pull the trigger on those tariffs simply drove a bigger wedge between the U.S. and those critical allies, a rift that simply grows wider even when the damage is “patched up.”
Trump’s initial refusal to accept the U.K.’s clear statement, that the London assassination attempts against Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were almost certainly a product of the Russian government, was so out-of-step, so completely outrageous to our allies, that even Donald Trump realized he had crossed the line. After sending Ambassador Nikki Haley to make a hastily designed speech to the United Nations in full support of the U.K. position vis-à-vis Russia, followed-up with a jointly harshly-worded communique with other allies, Trump was also finally forced to unleash congressionally-mandate sanctions against Russia, well after the deadline to do so.
But all of the above would seem to be about Donald Trump and not Secretary of State-designee, Michael Pompeo. Not exactly. Pompeo is clearly the tip of the bully-spear as Donald Trump assembles his coterie of “yes” men and women into a reconfigured cabinet. Where he is willing to accept some dissent, it is only where there might be a better alternative to achieve his vision (e.g., the replacement of chief economic advisor, Gary Cohn, with Larry Kudlow). The writing is probably also on the wall for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and his possible firing could be a precursor to terminating Robert Mueller.
But Mike Pompeo is a Trump-hawk-bully to his core. His positions on the Iran nuclear program and resulting six-party accord are highly illustrative. “Pompeo has been one of the strongest voices against Iran in Washington… In 2014, when nuclear negotiations were going on, Pompeo, then a Republican congressman from Kansas, called for the U.S. and its allies to conduct airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, saying it would take ‘under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity… This is not an insurmountable task for the coalition forces,’ Pompeo said.
“Trump’s choice of Pompeo was hailed by Iran hawks in Washington, D.C… ‘Now there will no daylight between the president and his new secretary of State in demanding a transatlantic deal that fixes the nuclear deal by May 12 or sees the United States walking away and reimposing the most powerful economic sanctions,’ said Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank.” Los Angeles Times, March 15th.
This is a most-significant departure from both Rex Tillerson’s path toward moderation and the beliefs of the balance of the accord’s signatories. The crosscurrents in imposing such sanctions – which impact not only Iran but any nation or company that trades in violation thereof – potentially put the United States in the position of having to apply sanctions against Europe, since several of the signatories to the Iran accord are European parties who are pledged by their treaty to release many of their own trade barriers against Tehran.
Here’s how the change in our position with Iran is playing out: “Iranians braced Wednesday [3/14] for further turmoil in their country’s relationship with the United States, and the possible unraveling of the 2015 nuclear agreement, following President Trump’s nomination of CIA Director Mike Pompeo as secretary of State.
“‘The hawks overcame the doves in the American administration,’ a former diplomat, Ali Khorram, wrote in a column in Arman, a daily newspaper aligned with reformists… Khorram described Pompeo — who once called for military strikes on Iranian nuclear targets — as ‘cowboyish in character and eager to start a war similar to the war with Iraq.’
“Pompeo, whom Trump chose to replace Rex Tillerson, is a harsh critic of Iran and has called for the United States to leave the landmark nuclear deal, in which Iran agreed to shelve its uranium enrichment program in exchange for relief from international sanctions.
“Trump has called it ‘the worst deal ever’ and cited it on Tuesday in explaining why he fired Tillerson… ‘When you look at the Iran deal, I think it’s terrible. I guess he thought it was OK,’ Trump said. ‘I wanted to either break it or do something, and he felt a little bit differently… With Mike … we have a very similar thought process’…
“Tillerson, senior Pentagon and military officials, and European allies have argued that the U.S. should not withdraw from the pact, which has granted international inspectors unprecedented access to Iran’s nuclear facilities… But Trump had asked Tillerson to work with European countries to fix what Trump said were ‘terrible flaws’ in the deal, a task that now would appear to fall to Pompeo… Trump has until May 12 to issue fresh waivers on sanctions against Iran, or the penalties will be renewed, threatening the agreement. Russia, another signatory to the pact, has said it will unravel if one party withdraws.” LA Times.
Even if Trump generates a better deal, the message to our allies is that Trump’s America is no longer a genuine or trusted ally, no longer a player willing to work with them to lessen global tensions. He puts his allies in a tough spot by acting unilaterally and expecting them to follow.
Political pressures all over the world are likewise sending a message from voters in other countries: even with the rise of populism, the majority of constituents in global democracies are telling their candidates that aligning with Donald Trump is a sure path to lose an election. While there may be a few exceptions – like Israel and Poland – the biggest democracies on earth are distancing themselves from the United States… and in too many circumstances circling their wagons against the United States. China is grinning ear-to-ear!
I’m Peter Dekom, and it will takes decades to regain even a fraction of the power and influence that the United States once enjoyed on the global stage… influence that once made America particularly great!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment