While campaigning to regain the US presidency, Republican candidate Donald Trump said that he would be able to end Russia’s war in Ukraine in 24 hours, warned that Israel would be “eradicated” if he lost the election and vowed sweeping new tariffs on Chinese imports.
Now that Trump has claimed victory, many at home and abroad are asking an urgent question: Will he make good on his long list of foreign policy threats, promises and pronouncements?
Trump has offered few foreign policy specifics, but supporters say the force of his personality and his “peace through strength” approach would help bend foreign leaders to his will and calm what Republicans describe as a “world on fire.”
Republicans blame the global crises on weakness shown by US President Joe Biden, though his fellow Democrats reject that accusation.
The US’ friends and foes alike remain wary as they await Trump’s return to office in January, wondering whether his second term would be filled with the kind of turbulence and unpredictability that characterized his first four years.
Trump’s presidency from 2017 to 2021 was often defined on the world stage by his “America first” protectionist trade policy and isolationist rhetoric, including threats to withdraw from NATO.
At the same time, he sought to parlay his image as a deal-making businessman by holding summits with North Korea, which ultimately failed to halt its nuclear weapons program, and brokering normalization talks between Israel and several Arab neighbors, which achieved a measure of success.
“Donald Trump remains erratic and inconsistent when it comes to foreign policy,” analysts for the European Council on Foreign Relations wrote in a blog post during the US campaign.
“Europeans are still licking their wounds from Trump’s first term: They have not forgotten the former president’s tariffs, his deep antagonism towards the European Union and Germany,” they said.
Trump and his loyalists dismiss such criticism, insisting that other countries have long taken advantage of the US and that he would put a stop to it.
How Trump responds to Russia’s war in Ukraine could set the tone for his agenda and signal how he would deal with NATO and key US allies, after Biden worked to rebuild key relationships after Trump.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy congratulated Trump on social network X, describing Trump’s peace-through-strength approach as a “principle that can practically bring just peace in Ukraine closer.”
Trump insisted last year that Russian President Vladimir Putin never would have invaded Ukraine in 2022 if he had been in the White House, adding that “even now I could solve that in 24 hours.”
He has been critical of Biden’s support for Ukraine and said that under his presidency the US would rethink NATO’s purpose.
He told Reuters last year that Ukraine might have to cede territory to reach a peace agreement, something Ukrainians reject and Biden has never suggested.
NATO, which backs Ukraine, is also under threat.
Trump, who has railed for years against NATO members that failed to meet agreed military spending targets, warned during the campaign that he would not only refuse to defend nations “delinquent” on funding. but would encourage Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to them.
“NATO would face the most serious existential threat since its founding,” said Brett Bruen, a former foreign policy adviser in the administration of former US president Barack Obama.
Trump would also confront a volatile Middle East that threatens to descend into a broader regional conflict. Israel is fighting wars in Gaza and Lebanon while facing off against arch-foe Iran, even as Yemen’s Houthis fire on commercial shipping in the Red Sea.
He has expressed support for Israel’s fight to destroy Hamas in the Palestinian enclave, but has said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must finish the job quickly.
Trump is expected to continue arming Israel, whose existence he said would have been endangered if Harris had been elected — a claim dismissed by the Biden administration given its support for Israel.
His policy toward Israel likely would have no strings attached for humanitarian concerns, in contrast to pressure that Biden applied in a limited way. Trump might give Netanyahu a freer hand with Iran.
However, Trump could face a new crisis if Iran, which has stepped up nuclear activities since he abandoned a nuclear deal with Tehran in 2018, rushes to develop a nuclear weapon.
When Trump was last in the White House, he presided over the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. However, those diplomatic deals did nothing to advance Palestinian statehood in the West Bank and Gaza.
Still, Trump is likely to push for historic normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, an effort initiated during his first term and which Biden has also pursued.
Trump made a tough stance toward China central to his campaign, suggesting he would ramp up tariffs on Chinese goods as part of a broader effort that could also hit products from the EU. Many economists say such moves would lead to higher prices for US consumers and sow global financial instability.
He has threatened to go further than his first term when he implemented a sometimes-chaotic approach to China that plunged the world’s two biggest economies into a trade war.
However, just as before, Trump has presented a mixed message, describing Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) as “brilliant” for ruling with an “iron fist.”
Trump has also insisted that Taiwan should pay the US for defense, but he has said China would never dare to invade democratically governed Taiwan, which Beijing claims as its territory, if he were president.
Another unknown is how Trump would craft his national security team, though many critics believe he would avoid bringing in mainstream Republicans who sometimes acted as “guardrails” in his first term.
Many former top aides, including former US national security adviser John Bolton and his first chief of staff, John Kelly, broke with him before the election, calling him unfit for office.
Trump has been quiet about whom he might appoint, but sources with knowledge of the matter say Robert O’Brien, his final national security adviser, is likely to play a significant role.
Trump is expected to install loyalists in key positions in the Pentagon, the US Department of State and the CIA whose primary allegiance would be to him, current and former aides and diplomats told Reuters.
The result would enable Trump to make sweeping changes to policy as well as to federal institutions that implement — and sometimes constrain — presidential actions abroad, the said.
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS