Summary
The direction of the foreign policy of the United States has always been of great interest both for domestic and international governmental agencies. The country has established numerous connections with other states over the years, resulting in it being one of the most significant actors on the global political stage. Prior to the election of the 45th president of the USA, Donald Trump, the international policy of the country was consistent over the presidential terms of several heads of state (Thompson, 2017). This essay will examine and analyze two articles discussing foreign policy during the presidency of Donald Trump. After studying the two publications, the readers will question whether a grand strategy presided over the Trump administration’s foreign policy choices in the opening years of his presidency.
Summary of the Articles
Two articles were selected for the purposes of this essay. In the first paper, Thompson (2017) initiates the discussion by evaluating the country’s current position on the international political stage and the recent changes on that stage, including the emergence of new powers. Thompson (2017) also examines Trump’s presidential campaign’s core message, why it appealed to voters, and how it informed foreign policy at the beginning of his term.
Specifically, the author focuses the conversation on the state’s relationships with China as an emerging political power and the continuing connections with Russia, Iran, and North Korea (Thompson, 2017). Thompson (2017) argues that Trump’s election resulted in the country’s policy becoming more nationalist, departing from the longstanding internationalist foreign strategy tradition. The article concludes with a prediction that the nationalist policy has the potential to damage many of the country’s enduring relations with other states.
Similarly, the second article discusses the grand strategy of foreign policy during Trump’s presidential term. Dimitrova (2017) considers the direction of the 45th president’s international strategy, whether it is grounded in the United States of America’s political tradition, and its implications and potential risks for relationships with other states. The author notes the tendency towards a nationalist and neo-isolationist approach evident after the first 100 days in the office (Dimitrova, 2017).
It is emphasized that the president views military power as the core element of his tactic in his foreign policy tactic, rejecting globalism and multilateralism the country depended upon before. Dimitrova (2017) notes that Trump’s grand strategy is similar to the Jacksonian political school of thought, which has a strong domestic orientation and relies heavily on military power when required. The article concludes that Trump’s Jacksonian policymaking of disengagement from the international scene can result in the country becoming more vulnerable to international threats the president is eager to tackle.
Analysis
The articles by Jack Thompson and Anna Dimitrova focus on the potential foreign policy and the grand strategy of President Trump as of 2017. Both articles are appropriately titled, with Thomson selecting the heading “Trump and the future of US grand strategy,” showing his analysis of the potential policy under the elected head of state (Thompson, 2017). Similarly, Dimitrova’s title “Trump’s “America First” foreign policy: The resurgence of the Jacksonian tradition?” reflects the author’s discussion of the president’s international strategy within the established political schools of thought (Dimitrova, 2017). The main objectives of the articles are evident both in their titles and the first paragraphs. Overall, both papers aim to discuss President Trump’s foreign policy strategy and its potential implications for the United States of America and its relations with other countries.
The discussion and argument provided in the selected works are relevant to the topic and are applied to support the authors’ perspectives on external policy development during Trump’s presidency. Thomson (2017) utilizes his knowledge of international politics by discussing the main actors on the international political stage and how their respective foreign policies inform and direct the United States’ grand strategy.
Thomson (2017) identifies China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and the EU as the states or unions whose position on the international scene continues to shift and affect the USA. The author offers several examples of the listed countries successfully making trade and military agreements, illustrating the United States’ declining power. For instance, Thomson refers to China’s “One Belt, One Road” economic initiative that substantially undermines the USA’s influences in East Asia (Chatzky & McBride, 2019). Overall, the analysis of the changing international political stage and the country’s declining economic powers allows the author to support his assumption of a nationalist strategy under Trump’s administration.
Unlike Thomson, Dimitrova focuses on the decisions and speeches made by President Trump in the first 100 days of his term as the primary indicator of the potential nationalist and neo-isolationist approach. Thus, the author refers to the president’s decision to refuse the reaffirmation of the country’s commitment to Article 5 of NATO and withdraw from the Paris climate agreement (Dimitrova, 2017). In addition, the elected head of state attempted to bar immigration from majority-Muslim countries and refuse all refugees entering the country, although this effort was later overruled (Dimitrova, 2017).
The author employs these examples to support her conjecture of the strategy being aimed at establishing a nationalist approach, with Radical Islam and unfair trade agreements being declared threats to the country’s sovereignty (Dimitrova, 2017). Moreover, Dimitrova (2017) exerts passages from Trump’s speeches to illustrate his position of non-intervention and reliance on strong military forces. These passages and the president’s first decrees allow the author to compare Trump’s doctrine to the Jacksonian tradition. Overall, Dimitrova relies on indisputable facts and evidence to assume Trump’s foreign policy’s nationalist predilection.
Furthermore, both authors refer to reliable literature on the topic, citing work by prominent political analysts to support their arguments. For instance, Thompson (2017) suggests that readers examine other articles written on the subject. They include his collaboration with Oliver Thränert on President Trump’s willingness to terminate the joint nuclear program with Iran (Thompson & Thränert, 2017). Unlike Thomson, Dimitrova relies on a plethora of sources to support her hypotheses. Thus, the author cites Hal Brands and his analysis of Trump’s grand strategy and its nationalist core (Brands, 2017). Although Thomson provides a thorough examination of Trump’s actions, his article would benefit from a more comprehensive selection of sources.
In addition, it can be asserted that both articles present certain limitations. The first drawback of the selected works is the authors’ apparent antipathy towards Trump, evident in their language choice. For example, in her article, Dimitrova (2017, p. 35) refers to one of the president’s speeches as “surprisingly well-structured,” inferring his inability to produce coherent discourse. Similarly, Thomson describes Trump’s presidency and erratic decision-making as “worrying” (Thomson, 2017, p. 4). This approach to writing the articles detracts from the narrative and deprives them of impartiality. Moreover, the authors fail to speculate whether the nationalist approach to foreign policy has decisive advantages and whether they outweigh the listed disadvantages. The limitation adds to the articles being partial and arguing against nationalist grand strategy.
Conclusion
In summary, the selected articles maintain that President Trump’s foreign policy centers around a nationalist, neo-isolationist approach. The authors provide sufficient evidence of this assumption, offering readers examples of the president’s decrees in the early days of his term and the opinions of prominent political analysts. However, these works have certain limitations, as the writers fail to acknowledge the advantages of the prospective nationalist grand strategy.
References
Brands, H. (2017). U.S. grand strategy in an age of nationalism: Fortress America and its alternatives. The Washington Quarterly, 40(1), 73-94.
Chatzky, A., & McBride, J. (2019). China’s massive Belt and Road initiative. Council on Foreign Relations.
Dimitrova, A. (2017). Trump’s “America First” foreign policy: The resurgence of the Jacksonian tradition? L’Europe en Formation, 382(1), 33–46.
Thompson, J. (2017). Trump and the future of US grand strategy. CSS Analyses in Security Policy, 212, 1–4.
Thompson, J., & Thränert, O. (2017). Trump preparing to end the Iran nuke deal. CSS Policy Perspectives, 5(4), 1–4.