.png)
5 hours ago
2
Michelle Obama’s one-woman boycott of Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration on Monday requires no explanation. It’s plain that the former first lady has zero tolerance and even less love for a man who delights in racist and sexist behaviour. Lots of other people, especially among US allies in Europe, would boycott Trump, too, if they could. Yet, inescapably, they must deal with him for the next four years.
Such fear and loathing is by no means universally shared. A poll, published last week by the European Council on Foreign Relations, found that in China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, South Africa and Brazil, more people welcome Trump’s return than deplore it. In contrast, people in the UK, France, Germany and a clutch of other west European countries are frankly appalled at the prospect.
That’s why Obama’s nose-holding is an unaffordable luxury for most. Despite the decline in American power and influence, it’s just not practical or workable to “cancel” a US president. And evidently many leading countries believe Trump #2 could be a good thing for them. Europeans are the odd ones out. If they refuse to play ball, they risk marginalisation and irrelevance.
These findings contradict outgoing president Joe Biden’s bizarre claim to have reinforced American global hegemony. The world is turning its back on what many see as a hypocritical US-supervised international “rules-based” order. Emerging powers believe that Trump’s non-ideological, non-interventionist, nationalistic, transactional, self-serving outlook is better suited to the times. In truth, it reflects their own approach. For them, he’s a necessary agent of change.
Is this a miscalculation they will come to regret? Charles Kupchan, a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University, suggests that Trump’s foreign policy, lacking firm principles and beliefs, could swing either way, for good or bad, better or worse. The whole ballgame for foreign politicians, diplomats and lobbyists is to lead him in desirable directions, find ways of working with or around him, and curb his worst instincts.
For Britain, there is a parallel with the former prime minister Margaret Thatcher, who tore things down but failed to build back up. “Trump is more demolition man than architect. Instead of helping build a new and better international order, he may well bring down the old one and simply leave the US and the rest of the world standing in the rubble,” Kupchan warns.
These are not mere academic hypotheses. Real lives depend on the redirecting or reining in of Trump – as does, perhaps, the avoidance of global conflict. Much talk in Brussels concerns so-called “Trump whisperers” – people who may have the president’s ear. Italy’s Giorgia Meloni is mentioned. So, too, are Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Nato chief Mark Rutte. None wields decisive clout. What the world needs now is a “Trump tamer”.
The Ukraine war is a key test of the “good Trump, bad Trump” theory. He criticises the cost of military assistance to Kyiv. He says he understands why Vladimir Putin opposes Ukraine joining Nato. He claims he can end the war quickly, but at the price, apparently, of Ukraine surrendering sovereign territory and rewarding Russian aggression.
On the other hand, Trump knows he cannot afford a damaging repeat of Biden’s disastrous 2021 abandonment of Afghanistan. He dare not give the revamped “axis of evil”, as some describe Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, a watershed strategic victory. Thus there is talk of him increasing, not reducing, US assistance in the short term, to bolster Kyiv’s negotiating position in future talks.
“Peace through strength” is an objective that Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and European governments are rallying around. And if they act on calls by Poland’s Donald Tusk and France’s Emmanuel Macron to step up collective EU and Nato defence efforts (and spending), there’s a better chance of getting “good Trump” batting for their side as the Ukraine endgame nears.
Trump’s instincts on Israel-Palestine range from poor to terrible. He places deal-making with the Gulf Arab states ahead of peace-making. In office, he treated the Palestinians with contempt, cutting aid and moving the US embassy to disputed Jerusalem. And yet, envious of Barack Obama’s 2009 award and oblivious to irony, he covets a Nobel peace prize. He once promised to deliver the Middle East’s “ultimate deal”. Perhaps he thinks he still can.
Trump does not necessarily buy the Israeli right’s greater Israel agenda – and deplores US involvement in forever wars. Unlike Benjamin Netanyahu, he does not want to fight Iran; indeed, there is talk of talks with Tehran. He would greatly prefer Israel-Saudi normalisation. Guided by skilful diplomacy of the kind that Britain’s Peter Mandelson has been sent to Washington to practise, it’s possible Trump, if handled right, could become a force for good in the Middle East. Right now, it’s a toss-up.
after newsletter promotion
Trump’s other big international challenge is China. Will he really slap 60% tariffs on Chinese imports? He surely realises how damaging, and inflationary, the ensuing trade war would be. At the same time, he is iffy about defending Taiwan, which Beijing threatens with invasion. Pragmatic, sordid US-China deals are not out of the question. “Good Trump” invited President Xi Jinping to his inauguration. “Bad Trump” scapegoats China for all the world’s woes.
Do or say what they may, Europe’s leaders and other Trump sceptics are ultimately ringside spectators at the greatest political show on Earth. If it all goes to hell, “bad Trump” will win out, retreating further into unilateralism, disengagement overseas, broken alliances, disdain for democracy (at home and abroad), dictator coddling and the antagonistic trolling by stooge Elon Musk of old friends in Germany, Canada and the UK.
If that happens, it’s unclear what anyone can really do about it. Who will tame Trump? An answer is urgently required. But don’t ask Michelle Obama. She’s out of here.
Simon Tisdall is the Observer’s Foreign Affairs Commentator
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at [email protected]
