Latest news with #TrumpDoctrine
Free Malaysia Today
a day ago
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Current Affairs, Business, Economy, Lifestyle, News and Analysis
The thrust of the Trump Doctrine is not to allow anti-democratic behaviour to get in the way of doing business.
Free Malaysia Today
2 days ago
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
The Trump Doctrine
US president Donald Trump's second administration is barely four months old, but already there are signs of an emerging foreign policy doctrine. And like so much else about his presidency, it represents a striking departure from the past. Doctrines play an important role in American foreign policy. With the Monroe Doctrine, announced in 1823, the US asserted that it would be the pre-eminent power in the Western Hemisphere and would prevent other countries from establishing competitive strategic positions in the region. At the outset of the Cold War, the Truman Doctrine pledged US support to countries fighting Communism and Soviet-backed subversion. More recently, the Carter Doctrine signalled that the US would not stand by if an outside force sought to gain control of the oil-rich Persian Gulf region. The Reagan Doctrine promised assistance to anti-communist, anti-Soviet forces and countries. George W Bush's Freedom Doctrine, among other things, made clear that neither terrorists nor those who harboured them would be safe from attack. What these and other doctrines have in common is that they signal to multiple audiences critical US interests and what the US is prepared to do to advance them. Doctrines are intended to reassure friends and allies, deter actual or would-be enemies, galvanise the bureaucracy tasked with national security matters, and educate the public. Although no Trump Doctrine has been explicitly put forward, one has begun to emerge all the same. You could call it the 'look the other way' doctrine, the 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' doctrine, or the 'none of our business' doctrine. Whatever the label, the doctrine signals that the US will no longer try to influence or react to how countries conduct themselves within their borders. The administration has refrained from criticising Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for arresting his principal political opponent, Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for repeated attempts to weaken the country's judiciary, or Hungary's long-serving prime minister, Viktor Orbán, who has steadily undermined democratic institutions there. While Trump has disparaged the foreign policy of Russian president Vladimir Putin and the economic policy of Chinese president Xi Jinping, he has not made an issue of either leader's repression of his own people. The Trump administration has also cut back or dismantled many of the instruments, including Voice of America, the Agency for International Development, and the National Endowment for Democracy, long used to promote civil society and democratic movements around the world. The closest there was to a public articulation of the new doctrine came in Saudi Arabia on May 13. Trump spoke with admiration of what he described as that country's great transformation, adding it 'has not come from Western interventionists … giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs … In recent years, far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it's our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use US policy to dispense justice for their sins'. Trump's actions, above all his pursuit of business deals with authoritarian governments in the Gulf and far beyond, underscore these words' import. Unlike Reagan, Carter, Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, Trump has made it clear that the US has no interest in advocating for human rights and democracy, speaking out against authoritarian abuses, and pressing for the release of political dissidents. To be sure, the look-the-other-way doctrine avoids the sort of overreach that characterised Bush's presidency, when zeal for spreading democracy led to the costly, ill-advised invasion of Iraq. It also makes it easier for the US to work constructively with governments carrying out policies at home that would normally pose an obstacle to commercial ties or cooperation on critical bilateral, regional, or global issues. But the downsides of the new approach offset these considerations. The Trump Doctrine increases the odds that governments so inclined will double down on domestic repression and efforts to subvert democracy – a form of government often associated not just with greater personal freedom but also with free markets supported by the rule of law and less aggressive foreign policy. Promoting democracy thus benefits US investors and limits the risk that America becomes mired in costly or prolonged foreign conflicts. The Trump Doctrine also distances the US from many of its traditional friends and allies, most of which, not coincidentally, happen to be democracies. Such estrangement works against American influence. That said, the ability of the US to conduct a foreign policy that supports freedom abroad depends in no small part on its willingness to practice what it preaches. No country can talk the talk without walking the walk, and the Trump administration's violation of many of the norms and practices that sustain democracy would undermine its ability to advocate for it elsewhere, were it so inclined. No doctrine is entirely consistent – during the Cold War, the US often supported anti-communists who were anything but democrats – and Trump's doctrine is no exception. There is a self-serving, rightist bias. His administration has been critical of European governments and has made clear its preference for far-right forces, including the nationalist Karol Nawrocki, who won Poland's presidency. Despite reducing America's foreign entanglements, Trump has also waged a campaign against Greenland and Canada. But these are exceptions. The thrust of the Trump Doctrine – not to allow anti-democratic behaviour to get in the way of doing business – is clear. For a long time, the US sought to change the world, annoying some and inspiring others. Those days are gone, in some ways for the better, but mostly for worse. The US has changed. It is coming to resemble many of the countries and governments it once criticised. It is as tragic as it is ironic. Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, is a senior counselor at Centerview Partners, and distinguished university scholar at New York University. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Analysis: Another word for the Trump Doctrine — Pragmatism
When it comes to Middle Eastern diplomacy, rigid ideological thinking tends to undermine American interests. US President Donald Trump's tour of Gulf capitals last month signaled that abstractions would no longer control the American approach to the region. Practical partnerships would. This was evident in 2017, when Trump said in Riyadh that he wasn't there to 'to lecture' nor 'to tell other people how to live.' While that speech was dominated by security imperatives, which was necessary at the time, the Trump Doctrine in the Middle East evolved from a recognition that America's interests are best served when its partners in the region thrive economically. In Riyadh last month, Trump praised Gulf leaders for 'forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos.' Emphasizing his duty to 'defend America and to promote the fundamental interest of stability, prosperity, and peace,' he signaled a departure of US diplomats' insistence that we couldn't foster cooperation between countries until America's foreign policy addressed 'root causes.' These abstract orthodoxies resulted in false choices and stalemates rather than cooperation and progress. The Trump Doctrine rejects these artificial constraints, and the Gulf is a prime example of the approach. Trump no longer sees the region as security partners, oil suppliers, or cash machines. The president recognizes them as engines of regional prosperity whose success directly benefits American industry. Gulf countries pledged to invest more than $2 trillion in the US, and if they follow through, it would make Trump the most significant booster of foreign investment into the American economy. The Gulf would benefit as well, reflecting Trump's fundamental worldview that the best deals improve everyone's welfare. Prosperity is not finite but grows through smart partnerships. This pragmatism extends to diplomacy. Previous administrations often assumed that deepening ties with one partner required distancing from another. The Abraham Accords showed that cooperation doesn't have to be a tradeoff. While Trump expressed his 'dream that Saudi Arabia…will soon be joining the Abraham Accords' in Riyadh, his doctrine's pragmatism requires recognizing reality: 'You'll do it in your own time, and that's what I want.' Critics argue that the president's approach lacks a moral vision. I don't see it that way. Trump's repeated refusal to 'lecture' is best understood as an appreciation that the rapid social and economic changes in the region have not been easy. The extent of further changes will come if and when the Gulf States are ready. It is wrong — and not in America's interests — to demand that they become just like us. Trump's moral choice is to respect Gulf states' unique history, culture, religion, and society. 'Peace, prosperity and progress ultimately come not from a radical rejection of your heritage,' he said, but 'from embracing your national traditions and…heritage that you love so dearly.' Trump Doctrine pragmatism extends to Iran. In 2017, Trump warned that 'until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran.' Today's approach, while still harshly critical of Iran, recognizes that Gulf prosperity naturally diminishes Iranian influence while creating space for possible diplomatic solutions. Rather than demanding Arab and Muslim partners choose sides, Trump understands that a prosperous Gulf can engage from strength. If a smart, good deal with Iran can be made, all are better off. If it cannot, all options remain on the table. What emerged from the Gulf engagement last month is a mature approach tying American flourishing to partners who share Trump's vision of security, stability, and prosperity. This builds on his 2017 message that 'America is prepared to stand with you — in pursuit of shared interests and common security,' but evolves beyond security cooperation to shared prosperity. This is a natural evolution informed by regional changes and American experiences. For those of us who have spent years watching Middle East policy lurch between overcommitment and neglect, the Trump Doctrine offers something genuinely new: a sustainable framework for American engagement based on shared prosperity rather than shared enemies.
BBC News
16-05-2025
- Business
- BBC News
Trump's frantic peacebrokering week hints at what he really wants
"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen." So supposedly said the Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. The diplomatic whirlwind that has surrounded US President Donald Trump this week suggests the old Bolshevik might have been onto the protectionist president, who promises always to put America First, has in recent days instead been busy bestriding the world and his team have done business deals in the Gulf; lifted sanctions on Syria; negotiated the release of a US citizen held by Hamas; ended military strikes on Houthi fighters in Yemen; slashed American tariffs on China; ordered Ukraine to hold talks with Russia in Turkey; continued quiet negotiations with Iran over a nuclear deal; and even claimed responsibility for brokering a ceasefire between India and pace has been breathless, leaving allies and opponents alike struggling to catch up as the US diplomatic bandwagon hurtled from issue to issue."Just, wow!" remarked one London-based ambassador. "It is almost impossible to stay on top of everything that's going on."So what is going on? What have we learned in this frantic week about the US president's emerging foreign policy? Is there something approaching a Trump doctrine - or is this just a coincidental confluence of global events? Pomp and flattery in Saudi A good place to start, perhaps, is the president's visit to the Gulf where he set out - in word and deed - his vision for a world of interstate relations based on trade, not war. In a speech in Riyadh, Trump said he wanted "commerce not chaos" in the Middle East, a region that "exports technology not terrorism".His was a prospect of a breezy, pragmatic mercantilism where nations did business deals to their mutual benefit, a world where profit can bring peace. As he enjoyed the flattery of his Saudi hosts and the obeisance of visiting dignitaries, the president signed - with his fat felt tip pen - deals that the White House claimed represented $600bn of investment in the was Trump in all his pomp; applauded and rewarded with immediate wins he could sell back home as good for American jobs. Some diplomats privately questioned the value of the various memorandums of understanding. But the show, they said, was more important than the substance. A 'none of our business' approach Absent from Trump's speech was any mention of possible collective action by the US and other countries; no talk of multilateral cooperation against the threat of climate change, no concerns about challenges to democratic or human rights in the region. This was a discourse almost entirely without reference to ideology or values except to dismiss their he used his speech to Saudi leaders to make his clearest argument yet against Western interventionism of the past, attacking what he called "the so-called nation-builders and neo-cons" for "giving you lectures on how to live or how to govern your own affairs".To the applause of his Arab audience, he said these "Western interventionists" had "wrecked more nations than they built", adding: "Far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it's our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use US policy to dispense justice for their sins. "I believe it's God's job to sit in judgement. My job is to defend America." That reluctance to intervene was on show in recent days when it came to the fighting between India and Pakistan. In the past, the US has often played a key role seeking to end military confrontations in the subcontinent. But the Trump White House was initially cautious about getting JD Vance told Fox News the fighting was "fundamentally none of our business… We can't control these countries". In the end, both he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio did make calls, putting pressure on both nuclear powers to de-escalate. So too did other the ceasefire was agreed, Trump claimed US diplomacy had brokered the deal. But that was flatly dismissed by Indian diplomats who insisted it was a bilateral truce. Pros of policy in one man's hands The centrality of Trump to US foreign policy has also become apparent this week. This is more than just a simple truism. On show was the lack of involvement of other parts of the US government that traditionally help shape US decision-making the president's extraordinary decision to meet Syria's new president and former jihadist, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and lift sanctions on Syria. This showed the potential advantage of having foreign policy in one man's hands: it was a decisive and bold step. And it was clearly the president's personal decision, after heavy lobbying by both Turkey and Saudi was seen by some diplomats as the quid pro quo for the diplomatic fawning and investment deals Trump received in Riyadh. Not only did the decision surprise many in the region but it also surprised many in the American said the State Department was reluctant to lift sanctions, wanting to keep some leverage over the new Syrian government, fearful it was not doing enough to protect minorities and tackle foreign fighters. Diplomats say this pattern of impulsive decision-making without wider internal government discussion is common in the White House. The result, they say, is not always positive. This is due, in part, to Trump's lack of consistency (or put simply, changing his mind). Take the decision this week to do a deal with China to cut tariffs on trade with the US. A few weeks ago Trump imposed 145% tariffs on Beijing, with blood thirsty warnings against retaliation. The Chinese retaliated, the markets plunged, American businesses warned of dire in Geneva, US officials climbed down and most tariffs against China were cut to 30%, supposedly in return for some increased US access to Chinese markets. This followed a now-familiar pattern: issue maximalist demands, threaten worse, negotiate, climb down and declare victory. Limitations of his 'art of a deal' The problem is that this "art of a deal" strategy might work on easily reversible decisions such as tariffs. It is harder to apply to longer term diplomatic conundrums such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine. On this, Trump's policy has been fluid, to put it mildly. And this week was a case in Saturday the leaders of the UK, France, Poland and Germany visited Kyiv to put on a show of support for Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. And in a group call with Trump on French President Emmanuel Macron's phone, they spelled out their strategy of demanding Russia agree an immediate 30-day ceasefire or face tougher was Trump's policy too. The day before he wrote on social media: "If the ceasefire is not respected, the US and its partners will impose further sanctions." But then on Sunday, President Vladimir Putin suggested instead there should be direct talks between Ukraine and Russia in Turkey on Thursday. Trump immediately went along with this, backtracking on the strategy he had agreed with European leaders a day earlier. "Ukraine should agree to (these talks) immediately," he wrote on social media. "I am starting to doubt that Ukraine will make a deal with Putin."Then on Thursday, Trump changed his position again, saying a deal could be done only if he and Putin were to meet in puzzles some diplomats. "Does he genuinely not know what he wants to do about the war in Ukraine?" one remarked to me. "Or does he just grasp at what might offer the quickest resolution possible?" A snub to Netanyahu? Into this puzzling mix fell two other decisions this week. First, Trump agreed a ceasefire after a campaign bombing Houthi fighters in Yemen for almost two months. There have been questions about the effectiveness of the hugely expensive air strikes, and the president's appetite for a long military operation. He repeatedly told his Arab hosts how much he disliked Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, held his fourth round of talks with Iran over efforts to curb their nuclear ambitions. Both sides are hinting that a deal is possible, although sceptics fear it could be quite modest. Talk of joint US-Israeli military action against Iran seems to have dissipated. What unites both issues is that the United States was acting directly against the wishes of Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu may have been the first world leader invited to the Oval Office after Trump's inauguration, but in recent days, he seems to have been snubbed. Trump toured the Middle East without visiting Israel; he lifted sanctions on Syria without Israel's support. His Houthi ceasefire came only days after the group attacked Tel Aviv fear Netanyahu's reaction. Could the spurned prime minister respond with a more aggressive military operation in Gaza? Capitalism to overcome conflict So after this week of diplomatic hurly burly, how much has changed? Perhaps less than might all the glitz of Trump's tour through the Middle East, the fighting and humanitarian crisis in Gaza continues unresolved. A fresh Israeli offensive seems imminent. One of Trump's chief aims – the normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia - remains all the talks about ending the war in Ukraine, there is no greater likelihood of the guns falling silent. Putin's ambitions seem unchanged. And for all the deals to cut US tariffs, either with the UK or China, there is still huge global market instability. We do have a clearer idea of Trump's global ideology, one that is not isolationist but mercantilist, hoping optimistically that capitalism can overcome conflict. We also have a clearer idea of his haste, his desire to clear his diplomatic decks – in the Middle East, Ukraine and the subcontinent – so he can focus on his primary concern, namely that may prove an elusive ambition. If there are weeks when decades happen, there are also weeks when nothing happens. Top picture credit: Getty Images BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
CBC
16-05-2025
- Business
- CBC
A Trump doctrine in foreign policy? He just made it clearer than ever
Social Sharing In one notable speech, on one memorable trip, we saw the clearest ever outline of what one might call the Trump Doctrine in foreign policy. The current U.S. president doesn't tend to indulge in grand theory talk, but he effectively laid one out in Saudi Arabia. It might be summed up as: less moralizing, more money. In other words, the pursuit of prosperity takes precedence over lofty rhetoric about democracy. This, in his telling, is a recipe for peace and stability. Tuesday's speech in Riyadh was not, of course, the speech the last Republican president, George W. Bush, would have given for the first overseas trip of a presidential term. Nor was it the speech Barack Obama gave in his first presidential address to the Arab world, when he spoke at length about democracy to university students in Cairo. Trump spoke to a business crowd. And he, in contrast, disparaged Western do-gooders who travel around the world trying to spread democracy. He had the CEOs on their feet applauding as he saluted the leadership of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. That's the same Mohammed bin Salman who was briefly treated as persona non grata in Washington for his suspected role in the murder and hacking to pieces of a columnist for the Washington Post. "Commerce, not chaos," is how Trump described the Saudi leader's winning approach, before turning to criticize Western busybodies. "It's crucial for the wider world to note, this great transformation [in Saudi Arabia] has not come from Western interventionists or flying people in beautiful planes giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs," he said. "No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neo-cons or liberal non-profits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, and so many other cities." WATCH | Trump tours the Middle East: Recapping Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia 2 days ago Duration 0:36 Trump ridiculed so-called nation-builders who, he said, wrecked more nations than they built, intervening in complex societies they did not understand. The speech "might've been the clearest articulation of how Trump sees foreign policy," said Stephen Wertheim, a historian of U.S. foreign policy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "He openly espoused transactionalism." What this means for the rest of us The address helped weave together loose threads in seemingly unrelated events of his presidency. Gaza? In Trump's view, it should be a resort, rich with hotels and U.S. investors. Ukraine? President Volodymyr Zelenskyy got browbeaten in the White House, but has since signed a U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal and is back in Trump's better graces. Trump announced hundreds of billions in business deals in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, including a massive investment in a sprawling data centre. During the trip, he also lifted sanctions on Syria, drawing a standing ovation led by the Saudi leader. Does this approach make the world safer? Foreign policy thinkers interviewed for this story raised some pros, and cons, then, on balance, admitted they don't know. "To be determined," said Wertheim, who sees some benefits — lower risk of a certain type of war, and fewer accusations of U.S. hypocrisy while promoting democracy but selectively choosing which autocrats to ally with. On the other hand, he says, allowing autocrats free rein is a potential recipe for instability. "No one knows. Absolutely no one," said Daniel Immerwahr, a historian of U.S. foreign policy at Northwestern University. He agrees with Trump that nation-building has been destructive, but worries about a world where dictators abuse their citizens, and threaten neighbouring countries, without fear of the U.S., resembling the early 20th century. Trump's values-light approach certainly has potential to make foreign affairs less, not more, predictable. Look no further than U.S. allies, and adversaries, now finding themselves confused about where they stand. Look at how he's blown hot and cold on NATO, on Ukraine and on China, imposing and removing tariffs, and swerving back and forth on restricting trade in high-tech products. It can be hard to plan around that. Especially for the countries closest to the U.S., notably one, Canada, that he keeps talking about as some corporate takeover target. Perhaps Canadians might draw limited reassurance from one rare thing Trump said he would do as a matter of principle: defend Canada if it were invaded. "We protect Canada militarily and we always will. That's not a money thing," Trump said, during his White House meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney. There is some appeal to Trump's approach to foreign policy. Even his critics concede that. Two former Obama staffers, on their foreign-affairs podcast this week, saluted some things Trump is doing in the Middle East. They said the traditional foreign-policy attitudes in Washington are, sometimes, not transactional enough; they applauded Trump for ignoring any criticism, including from ally Israel, and reopening ties with Syria. "I think Trump deserves a lot of credit," Tommy Vietor said in his podcast Pod Save The World, adding that he likes the fact Trump doesn't care what Washington's foreign-policy "blob" thinks. New York Times reporters in different parts of the Arab world chronicled the mixed reactions in a piece titled: "Trump's Pledge to the Middle East: No More 'Lectures on How to Live.'" A human-rights lawyer told the paper that this is less hypocritical than the U.S. constantly talking about rights and democracy, and then selectively ignoring those things in places, and moments, that suit it. At least now, he said, the Americans are clear. Or are they? A consistent philosophy? Not exactly There are still hypocrisies, or at the very least inconsistencies. The U.S. talks to autocrats and communists on several continents but, in part for domestic political reasons, shuts them out in Venezuela and Cuba. That's one reason not to read too much into the speech, Wertheim says. It's not an iron-clad philosophy. Also, he says, Trump isn't as radical a change agent as he presents himself. For example: the neoconservative impulse to spread democracy at gunpoint went out of fashion years ago. It's true, Joe Biden backed Ukraine, sending it arms; but, Wertheim added, he opposed Bush-style interventionism and actually pulled out of one such mission, in Afghanistan. As for the potential effect of Trump's attitude on human rights, the Times also spoke to people in the Middle East worried about what it could mean. One was the son of a 75-year-old U.S.-Saudi dual citizen, forbidden from leaving the kingdom after he was arrested, then released, over critical social-media posts. He said past U.S. administrations might have raised this with the Saudis. But he said he hasn't managed to get anyone in the Trump administration to talk to him. On their podcast, the ex-Obama staffers said there's a third approach. A middle ground between military adventurism and democracy-at-gunpoint, and, on the other end, the near-total indifference to democratic values. "We shouldn't let [Trump's] accurate disregard for American interventionism lead you to believe that the only alternative is a bunch of, let's face it, a bunch of … white American CEOs and a bunch of royals sitting around and deciding everything themselves either," Ben Rhodes said. "There needs to be a voice for people in these discussions in this part of the world." The podcast episode was titled, "Con Man Air: Trump's Middle East Cash Grab," reflecting a jaundiced view of this Mideast trip as a grift for Trump and his family. It could just as easily have been a reference to the animating philosophy of Trump's foreign policy. Unlike Ronald Reagan, who spoke of America as a shining city on a hill, Trump speaks of a different gleam — of a golden age, animated by a simpler, clearer philosophy: Follow the money. Where ideals are out, and the art of the deal is in.
