Many observers misunderstood US President Trump’s “American First” rhetoric. Trump’s earlier writings show that this is not a reference to the 1940s effort to keep the US out of WWII, with its isolationist tint.
Rather, Trump’s use goes back to the original use by President Harding in the 1920s. It was a rejection of the Wilsonian multilateralism (e.g. League of Nations) and a robust defense of unilateralism. That unilateralism was clearly on display in the missile strike on Syria.
Yet the fear of US disengagement was so acute, that many US allies welcomed the unilateralism. It may be less undesirable than isolationism, but unilateralism risks weakening the international rule of law, and sets dangerous precedents, as Putin demonstrates.
Many investors and foreign policymakers are trying to tease out underlying principles of the Trump Administration. What is the underlying narrative? If there is one, it appears to be a crude realist view that the international arena is where states compete in the pursuit of national self-interest, at the heart of which is a short-run commercial success.
It is not so much that Trump was duplicitous in referrring to China as a currency manipulator or in the missile strike on Syria, for which, after pushing the birth certificate claims, was among his most repeated criticism of Obama. Instead, US national interests are contingent, and as his perceptions of them change, Trump’s positions change. NATO was obsolete a few weeks ago. Now it isn’t. Russia’s support for Syria has not changed. Trump’s perceptions of it did. China’s behavior in the foreign exchange markets has not changed in the past 12-18 months, but Trump’s view of it changed as North Korea become more intransigent. Trump explicitly linked the possibility of China’s efforts on North Korea with the decision not to cite it as a currency manipulator, which unnecessarily further politicizes the integrity of the exercise.
Neither the missile strike on Syria nor the dropping of the largest non-nuclear bomb on Afghanistan appears to have changed the essential conditions on the ground. Nor are they perceived to be the start of an escalated military campaign. Geopolitical tensions may ease in the coming days if this assessment is borne out. If one believes that both conflicts will require a political solution, the US attacks may be more important for their signaling rather than the punishment delivered.
The anniversary of the birthday of the founder of North Korea passed without much incident, though early Sunday, a ballistic missile launch apparently failed after a few seconds. China reportedly is putting more pressure on its ally to give up its nuclear capability. A preemptive strike by the US does not seem particularly likely, but if North Korea were to conduct another nuclear test, some military response by Trump cannot be ruled out.
