Will US foreign policy reverse when Mr. Trump returns to the White House?
Báo Dân trí•14/11/2024
(Dan Tri) - President-elect Donald Trump's return to the White House has raised speculation about the possibility of a reversal of US foreign policy in the next four years.
President-elect Donald Trump (Photo: Reuters).
The victory of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in the US presidential election has raised concerns among those who support the current foreign policy direction under the administration of President Joe Biden. However, Mr. Trump's return to the White House has also raised hopes for those concerned about changes in US foreign policy in the new term. A pressing question, not only in US political circles but also among Washington's allies and opponents around the world, is how much US foreign policy can change under the administration of a Republican president. Many experts, based on the tough statements of President-elect Trump and his campaign team, believe that this return will bring significant changes in policy. However, even if the Republicans hold majorities in both houses of Congress (especially the Senate, which has significant influence on foreign policy), Mr. Trump is unlikely to be able to fully implement his foreign policy commitments. In theory, Mr. Trump's return to the White House will take place under the most favorable conditions to implement his foreign policy agenda. The Republicans not only have a majority in the House of Representatives, but also regained control of the Senate, which has significant influence on US foreign policy by approving important appointments and international treaties. When he returns to the White House, President-elect Trump is expected to re-apply the "America First" principle in foreign policy. This suggests a more pragmatic approach to international affairs, but does not necessarily lead to a comprehensive change in foreign policy goals and priorities. First term President Trump's first term saw tactical changes, but it also ensured strategic continuity in US foreign policy across the presidency. Many predicted that Trump would significantly change US foreign policy after his victory in 2016, but that did not happen. At that time, the Republican president announced that he would dissolve NATO, the US-led military alliance. Trump demanded that NATO countries increase their defense spending, while emphasizing that the US would not be an umbrella and shoulder most of the costs for its allies. This approach created tension within the NATO alliance and led to a redistribution of responsibilities. But in the end, instead of dissolving it, Trump's policies helped strengthen NATO by encouraging Europe to be more involved in its own security. Trump also expressed a desire to establish closer relations with Russia. He made positive statements about President Vladimir Putin and pursued a new nuclear arms control treaty that included China. But ultimately, the Trump administration’s moves have resulted in additional sanctions against Russia and increased aid to Ukraine, preventing any real improvement in US-Russia relations. During Trump’s first term, the US has started a trade war with China, restricted cooperation in high-tech sectors, and taken measures to curb China’s influence in Asia and other regions. However, these confrontational moves are a continuation of the containment policy and the “pivot to Asia” strategy initiated by the Obama administration, so it cannot be considered a major change in the Trump administration’s policy. President-elect Donald Trump and President Joe Biden met at the White House to discuss the transition of power on November 13 (Photo: Reuters).Ukraine conflict One of the key foreign policy priorities of President-elect Donald Trump's second term will be the conflict in Ukraine. During his campaign, Trump claimed that as president he could quickly end the war in Ukraine. However, he also said that he would not commit to increasing aid to Kiev, instead saying that European countries should take more responsibility for supporting Ukraine. Trump's relationship with Russia has been contradictory. On the one hand, Trump has sought warmer relations with Putin, consistently speaking positively of the Russian leader, calling him "brilliant" and "smart." Meanwhile, he has condemned Russia's actions in Ukraine, calling it a "big mistake" by Moscow. This contradiction, coupled with anti-Ukrainian statements from members of Trump's inner circle, has created uncertainty around the stance Washington will take under the new Republican administration. Trump is expected to pursue a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Ukraine, potentially using Kiev’s dependence on US military and economic aid, and the potential end of that support, as leverage for a peace deal. A peace deal would likely come with terms less favorable to Ukraine than they were a year ago. With the situation on the ground shifting in Russia’s favor, Ukraine’s territorial losses suggest that the terms of any future peace could be more challenging for Kiev than if negotiations had taken place earlier. If this scenario materializes, it would not signal a major shift in US foreign policy under President Trump, as it has in other key areas. The current Biden administration has shown signs of “Ukraine fatigue,” maintaining costly aid to Kiev. Public support for maintaining current levels of aid to Ukraine has also waned. The Trump administration could adopt a strategy focused on a more pragmatic solution to the conflict in Ukraine. This approach could combine cuts in military aid with active diplomatic mediation, which, if successful, would allow Trump to achieve an “effective solution” to the conflict. For Ukraine and its allies, however, this strategy would mean increasing pressure on Kiev to compromise, potentially weakening its negotiating position and changing the balance of power in the region. A second Trump term would likely result in a more pragmatic foreign policy. The Trump administration would likely focus on a tougher stance toward China, reducing support for Ukraine, redistributing responsibilities within NATO, and reducing US participation in global alliances and agreements. While these changes may seem significant, analysts say they would not amount to a complete shift in Washington’s long-term foreign policy direction.
Comment (0)