Politics

De internationale politieke uitdagingen voor Donald Trump

Nov 9, 2016 Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

CAMBRIDGE – Tijdens zijn campagne heeft aankomend Amerikaans president Donald Trump de allianties en instituties die de liberale wereldorde dragen in twijfel getrokken, maar weinig specifiek beleid naar voren gebracht. Wellicht de belangrijkste vraag opgeworpen door zijn overwinning is of de lange periode van mondialisering die begon aan het einde van de Tweede wereldoorlog in feite voorbij is.

Dit is niet noodzakelijk het geval. Zelfs wanneer handelsovereenkomsten zoals het Trans-Pacifisch Partnerschap en TTIP mislukken en de economische mondialisering vertraagt, bevordert de technologie ecologische, politieke, en sociale mondialisering in de vorm van klimaatverandering, transnationaal terrorisme, en migratie – of Trump het nou leuk vind of niet. De wereldorde behelst meer dan alleen economie, en de Verenigde Staten blijft hier een centrale rol in spelen.

Amerikanen misvatten frequent onze positie in de wereld. We oscilleren tussen triomfalisme en achteruitgang. Nadat de Sovjets in 1957 de Spoetnik lanceerden geloofden we dat we in verval waren. In de jaren tachtig dachten we dat de Japanners ver boven ons uittorenden. In de nasleep van de grote recessie van 2008 geloofden veel Amerikanen abuis dat China machtiger dan de Verenigde Staten geworden was.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 17 Comments on this article

S.A R Nov 21, 2016

"Financial and energy sanctions are necessary for deterrence; but we also have genuine interests that are best advanced by dealing with Russia. No one would gain from a new Cold War."

And what exactly are "Financial and Energy sanctions" if not a new Cold War? Russia considers itself in total war with the West ever since the EU and US backed Maidan in Ukraine.

Russia is not in decline like you claim. It's population is rising rather quickly as a result of pro-natalist campaigns and immigration from the various post-Soviet "-stans" in Central Asia. It's economy is rather miraculously starting to pick up regardless of the sanctions.

Russia has zero reason to cooperate with US in any way as long as those sanctions that according to you are not a Cold War are in place. Russia will provide Iran with the various air defence missile systems it is developing. If the US pushes Russia in any of the current open wounds; Syria, Ukraine, the two renegade Georgian provinces... Russia might find it expedient to quickly help Iran develop the nuclear weapons it has been seeking.

Now that would bring real trouble for US allies, Saudis and Israel in particular. As such, you are correct that a Cold War does not serve anyone's interests, but here we are nonetheless.

I hope Trump ends it by ending the insane sanctions regime against one of the principal powers in the world.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alex Tuz Nov 14, 2016

The world is extremely tired of the US intrusion. If the US sees itself to be bringing liberal world order, all others in fact see it to be a totalitarian arrogant bully, only deal with it because they have to, and are dreaming of US decline to have a breath of fresh air of freedom.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Nov 12, 2016

As a non-American passerby ( but a regular visitor) I am writing my comments during my flying visit to a friend's place in a rural town in USA . I notice here that the electrical grid, bridges , roads and rail system etc. are atleast 50 years old and will fall apart in next 15 years unless modernised or disaster will strike. But, US has shown it can mobilize and counter as has been done in other areas in previous years. That characteristic is evident in all progressive , free and modern societies. So the author is right here in writing US is not a declining power. It has been a dynamic society all along. So I wouldn't worry about its future. America is simply going through a passing phase and it is absurd to think, countries like China will run over USA.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Nov 12, 2016

The United States is not in decline, particularly as it has allies in many important parts of the world. But it cannot necessarily turn it into an advantage; it can turn it into an unfriendly or opposing one's advantage if it misperforms or underperforms as when we lose a baseball game by making errors.
Misperforming can be being outperformed. For instance military power cannot turn a regime like Saddam Hussein's or Gaddaf's into a democratic system. Underperforming can also be being outmaneuvered. Xi Jinping has been outmaneuvering President Obama in spite of his military inferiority, because he knows very well that the US president will never excercise military power; he has been enlarging China's sphere by a process known as osmosis in chemisty.

But US decline can come in unexpectied directions, for instance immigration. Immigration, unless integrated, can cause a serious problem which was pointed out by Samuel Huntington in Who Are We. Globalization is a pretty name, but if it is merely a finacial trick in the nice name of finacial engineering, it will still further make worse the already aggravated income and wealth gap of 1 percent and 99 percent, giving berth to Roman citizens and non-citizens.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Nov 11, 2016

Hi Joseph,

I agree with much of what you assert.

Globalization has it's own momentum and will continue no matter if TPP passes or not, and the same goes for TTIP, or any other trade agreement, including NAFTA (which should be enlarged to include Australia, New Zealand, post-Brexit Britain, and any other Atlantic nation that wants to join)

Hopefully, all of them would want to join. (Yes, NAFTA might need a name-change, that's all)

The U.S. is not in decline as a nation, but for the bottom-two quintiles, their standard of life is declining rapidly -- and it's those disaffected voters who pushed Hilary aside in favour of a chance of change.

Brexit, President-elect Trump, and soon, possible electoral upsets in France, Italy and other countries, may curtail globalization (not because globalization in itself, is 'bad' -- but because the needs of the bottom-two quintiles were seemingly not important to some Western politicians) and what a mistake that has turned out to be!

The 'elites' dropped the ball with regards to the bottom-two quintiles, and now those two quintiles are going to dump (seemingly) uncaring politicians on their butts.

>> Anybody who didn't (doesn't) see that coming, has no business calling themselves 'elites' and no business in public office! <<

I certainly agree with you that trying to control the Middle East is a recipe for failure. There is no good course there, other than to support stability (Turkey and Jordan need huge international funding to handle the 5 million refugees they are feeding and sheltering) and to support stability in Israel -- and to assist (not do it for them) Iraq's quest for stability.

I would humbly advise President-elect Donald Trump to restart the hugely successful Cold War-era Megatons t0 Megawatts programme that reached all of it's parameters and can only be called a stunning success story.

Megatons to Megawatts took thousands of old, 'rusting' nuclear weapons from both the United States and Russia, and both countries combined forces to reprocess those old bombs into useful fuels for nuclear power plants.

The programme succeeded in attaining all of it's original goals -- yet, a M2M II is needed nowadays, as there are thousands of other warheads that have aged in the meantime.

No country needs 10,000 or 20,000 thermonuclear weapons to defend itself!

Even major powers like the U.S., Russia, China, Japan, Germany, the UK and France, only need (at the maximum) 1000 bombs each in order to guarantee their survival.

M2M II could present a unique opportunity to help restore relations between the U.S. and Russia -- something the Russian president Vlad Putin has been dropping major hints about in recent weeks.

China's growth is important to the global economy, but so is the U.S. economy.

It was a mistake to not invite China to participate in TPP, and many consequences have arisen from that flawed decision, or non-decision, such as the creation of the AIIB, and other China-led moves to counter a U.S. that (seemingly) wants to contain China's economic power, while benefiting from it. (???)

TPP is dead anyway, and one of the reasons is that China was made to feel *part of the problem, instead of part of the solution* -- and that's simply not acceptable in the 21st century.

All countries, all leaders, *are either part of the solution, or they are part of the problem* therefore, why not choose to make them part of the solution?

There is no other answer to that question, than, "Yes, we (the U.S.A.) will seek to make (name any country) part of the solution." Full stop.

'Containment' of China is a ridiculous notion, and I agree with your statement on that.

What has given me much hope for the next four years is the very conciliatory and statesmanlike victory speech made by President-elect Donald Trump.

Though a hard-fought, and sometimes bitter campaign, real leaders rise above partisan politics -- and in that, Donald Trump reminds me of former President Ronald Reagan who started off and maintained that attitude throughout his brilliant two terms in office.

It's always great to read your fine essays at ProSyn. Thank you for making them publicly available!

As always, very best regards, JBS
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jean nutson Nov 11, 2016

A continuously worsening relationship between the US and other countries even including it's so called allies is as a result of the growing domestic terror and crimes often perceived to have foreign influences behind,the harsh economic situation and increasing financial difficulties is also associated with foreign trade policies and presence of foreigners.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Nov 10, 2016

"All roads to understanding American foreign policy run through Joe Nye" - according to the establishment. In this commentary Joseph Nye himself highlights Trump's foreign-policy challenges, fearing the president-elect could upend America's role in the international order. He urges the new regime not to turn its back on old allies and revoke treaties the previous administration had concluded.
Throughout the campaign Trump has instilled fear and pessimism. Nye says, "the US is not in decline. The immediate foreign-policy task for Trump will be to adjust his rhetoric and reassure allies and others of America’s continuing role in the liberal world order."
But is Trump liberal? Being ignorant in politics, one would expect him to surround himself with competent people. But he resents experts and elites, and there is fear that he places loyalty ahead of meritocracy. It looks likely that he will appoint a bunch of opportunists, who have supported him from the start. Seen as outsiders - older men and controversial figures - they are neither known to, nor highly respected by the establishment.
Newt Gingrich could be America's new top diplomat. The former GOP House speaker and the 2012 presidential candidate - once one of the most powerful and divisive figures in American politics - can relish a chance to return to politics after falling from grace in 1999. Instead of falling into oblivion, he became a conservative spin doctor and an attack dog - writing books, producing films, making speeches and appearing on television to criticise Democrats. The bombastic house speaker had in the past made caustic, vicious remarks that are on par with Trump's lewd comments.
Perhaps Trump believes he would need a tough secretary of state like Gingrich to implement his foreign policies, and sort out "great power relations with China and Russia and the turmoil in the Middle East." Trump has vowed to scale down America's strong military role in Europe and Asia, which has always been "an important source of American influence" abroad. He has told Japan and South Korea to arm to defend themselves against the nuclear threat posed by Pyongyang. Countries that are embroiled in territorial disputes with China and NATO member states in Europe shouldn't expect Washington to foot their defence bills etc. Since Trump wouldn't seek military confrontation with Beijing, he would instead target China's economic policies, imposing tariffs on Chinese imports etc to improve America's trade deficit with China.
Unlike Obama, Trump wants to reconcile with Putin, turning a blind eye to his annexation of Crimea and aggression in eastern Ukraine. Nye believes it not a bad idea to work with Russia, "a country in decline, but with a nuclear arsenal sufficient to destroy the US – and thus still a potential threat to America and others." As Russia depends solely on exports of energy resources, international sanctions had taken a toll on this “one crop economy” that grapples "with corrupt institutions and insurmountable demographic and health problems." Putin’s expansionist policies - "interventions in neighboring countries and the Middle East, and his cyber attacks on the US and others, though intended to make Russia look great again, merely worsen the country’s long-term prospects." Nye fears that "declining countries often take more risks and are thus more dangerous" - as it was the case in 1914 with the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Nye gives Trump credit for planing to reach out to Russia as there are "overlapping interests when it comes to nuclear security, non-proliferation, anti-terrorism, the Arctic, and regional issues like Iran and Afghanistan."
But it would be tough to find a tradeoff between upholding sanctions, as "deterrence," without revisiting the the spectre of the Cold War. Russia wants to be seen by Washington as its equal partner, while dictating terms and course of actions. We have two old, stubborn, narcissistic leaders - Trump and Putin - who each wants his way and might end up falling out with each other, with fatal consequences. The other question is whether Newt Gingrich has the temperament to be America's top diplomat to steer the country through troubled waters.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hayda do Baydy Nov 10, 2016

Переділля Путін відчуває прутень Трампа
Pussy Putin feels the cock Trump
"Och, come..."
~:{) )))

I don’t refer in my relaxing thought to the pussy of the dictator Putin or the cock of the president Trump. It would be “переділля Путіна” and „прутня Трампа“. So, I “equalize” Putin as a pussy and Trump as a cock :) )))
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Armin Schmidt Nov 10, 2016

Thanks, Prof. Nye
This is not entirely related but I need to post it here.

Mr. Trump is about to liberate subgroups for existential reasons. This is understandable but problematic, as other ignored subgroups that get damaged will be inclined to liberate themselves as well. Spiralling with nukes.
A rule-of-thumb for a way out of this dilemma may be:

Subgroup liberation demands fairness and compensation.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
shanmugham anand Nov 10, 2016

Yes Mr.Author, you are absolutely right. U.S has to recalibrate its relations with Russia. Why, because U.S can't take Russia-China combine!
Putin shall be ready to be part of europe, rather than continue to be junior partner to China.
U.S needs Russia on its side to deal with the 21st Century Authoritarian threat to world peace.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Nov 10, 2016

I had thought Sonya was a Russian name until I happened to talk with a young lady, Sonya, from the State of Washington in the late 1980s or the early 1990s. Her family name ended with sen like Andersen. She said she was frightened with Japan's rising economic power; I told her weaknesses of Japanese economy. If people had talked with Japanese intellectuals at that time, though there were, as there are, many dunces in the elite, they would have known it was all hype that the Japanese were ten feet tall. Zbigniew Brzenzinsky had written The Fragile Blossom: Crisis and Change in Japan and Frank Gibney Japan: The Fragile Superpower.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kai Kaufmann Nov 10, 2016

"Americans frequently misunderstand our place in the world. We oscillate between triumphalism and declinism. After the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957, we believed we were in decline. In the 1980s, we thought the Japanese were ten feet tall. In the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2008, many Americans mistakenly believed that China had become more powerful than the United States." You are funny, Mr Joseph S. Nye. Funny, but wrong. Not just grammatically (indecisively making a mixed construction instead of saying either "We as Americans" or "Americans... their place") but also concerning your derivations. It is exactly those "more of the same " policies that left HRC in the dust and that reflect the Ryan ("~I want to be a Kardashian") Lochte phenomenon. Brangelina and Trump understood that it does not continue as always. So did Kurt Goedel when he predicted a "Donald" gaining power on December 5th, 1947, more than half a century before "Bart to the Future".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Nov 10, 2016

Your viewpoint is based on the idea that America is the World's policeman. Trump feels no such obligation - but rather feels America must look after itself only. Accordingly, I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew Zimin Nov 10, 2016

"...forefront of the major technologies (bio, nano, information)..."

Especially in brainwashing.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Reid Nov 10, 2016

In all areas Mr Trump will have a lot to prove, not least because his party controls both the Presidency and Congress. He also gets to appoint a new justice to the US Supreme COurt, so he will have very few excuses if the ieas his Administration proposes make things worse for the US and his people.

Mr Trump was only ever elected because he called on the poor and downtrodden to deal to the political elite. He will need to deliver to them, in particular (by making their lives better) if he is to be re-elected. It will be very interesting to see how it all pans out.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
dan baur Nov 9, 2016

The peasants are rising. What will you do about it IYI? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-09/nassim-taleb-explains-who-just-got-buried
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/cEFae8wnl

De internationale politieke uitdagingen voor Donald Trump

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

Europe, Alone in Trump’s World

Log in/Register

De internationale politieke uitdagingen voor Donald Trump

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification