{"id":8384,"date":"2016-11-09T11:59:18","date_gmt":"2016-11-09T11:59:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=8384"},"modified":"2016-11-25T19:04:01","modified_gmt":"2016-11-25T19:04:01","slug":"donald-trump-and-the-world-five-challenges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/donald-trump-and-the-world-five-challenges\/","title":{"rendered":"Donald Trump and the world: Five challenges"},"content":{"rendered":"

Simon Reich<\/a>, Rutgers University Newark <\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

The election is finally over. It has resulted in the most stunning political upset in the modern era.<\/p>\n

But that is really just the end of the beginning. The country will require a large amount of healing<\/a>. That the electorate has expressed<\/a> record high levels of disgust with the political process, and few believe that the country can be united, does not augur well for the new administration.<\/p>\n

And, unlike in the past, America appears as divided over key aspects of foreign policy as it is over domestic policy. So how does President-elect Trump hope that to handle that divide, and what will be the major issues facing him?<\/p>\n

Foreign policy was once bipartisan<\/h2>\n

At the outset of the Cold War, Republican Sen. Arthur Vandenberg uttered what became a common mantra. Faced with the Soviet threat, he suggested that<\/a> \u201cpolitics stopped at the water\u2019s edge.\u201d The American approach to foreign policy was to be bipartisan. <\/p>\n

The protests against the Vietnam War dealt a blow to that assumption. But Americans were united in initially supporting the wars in Afghanistan<\/a> and Iraq,<\/a> even if Democrats and Republicans were divided on this too a decade later.<\/a> Indeed, Americans today are as polarized about foreign affairs as they are about domestic matters \u2013 and regard them as very important.<\/p>\n

In pre-election polls, the economy and job security were ranked the number one <\/a>issue. But, in fact, this was a foreign policy issue masquerading as a domestic one because it was a debate about the merits of globalization and whether the new president should pursue a free trade agenda. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s significant that in these same polls<\/a>, terrorism ranked second, and foreign policy in general ranked third, in front of health care.<\/p>\n

Old and new style<\/h2>\n

Hillary Clinton campaigned on a promise, largely, of extending Barack Obama\u2019s legacy.<\/a> Donald Trump campaigned to reverse domestic reforms and repeatedly signaled a disdain<\/a> for Obama\u2019s preference for multilateralism and \u201cstrategic patience.\u201d Instead he offered Americans a return to a more muscular foreign policy \u2013 crushing ISIS, rebuffing China and engaging Russia. <\/p>\n

Scholars, unlike the media, often argue about whether individual leadership really matters when it comes to foreign policy. Many<\/a> argue that American foreign policy is dictated by consistent factors such as the size of its military and its importance to the global economy.<\/p>\n

So is it the personality of the leadership, or are broader factors at play in the formulation and implementation of U.S. foreign policy? In a grand experiment, we are about to find out.<\/p>\n

And what is likely to preoccupy the new president when it comes to foreign policy over the next four years? I\u2019d identify five challenges \u2013 in order of their public visibility, if not their importance \u2013 plus a bonus that nobody is yet discussing. <\/p>\n

Challenge number one: The Middle East<\/h2>\n

Americans regard IS<\/a> as the greatest foreign threat. But clearly, IS\u2019 position in both Iraq and Syria is waning.<\/a> <\/p>\n

By the time Trump gets into office in January, IS will probably represent a negligible threat in Iraq. And there will be no need for American intervention in Syria if, as anticipated,<\/a> Trump signals a willingness to let Bashar al-Assad and Putin finish the job of pulverizing the opposition. So, ironically, it is likely that Trump will maintain Obama\u2019s policy of \u201cno boots on the ground\u201d in Syria, although in reality<\/a> American forces are already there, assuming a variety of advisory and training functions. <\/p>\n

Still, the abiding question is what the U.S. will do after IS disintegrates as a coherent fighting force in Iraq and Syria. American Special Forces are now operating in Libya,<\/a> where IS has a powerful affiliate. That may become the next large-scale venue for American operations in the vortex of the Middle East.
\nBut it is just as possible that Trump will tell the Europeans that Libya is their problem, not America\u2019s, and they should invade the country to stop the flow of both migrants and terrorists into Europe.<\/p>\n

Unlike Obama, however, there will be no JV comments<\/a> about IS coming from Trump. <\/p>\n

Challenge number two: Russia<\/h2>\n

Trump, of course, has spoken admiringly of Putin. His views of the Russian leader are more reminiscent of George Bush\u2019s comment that he famously \u201clooked Russian President Vladi\u00admir Putin in the eye and peered into his soul<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

So there is some superficial evidence that Trump and Putin can reach some rapprochement, a kind of reset. This view is further fueled by Trump\u2019s avowed preference to treat every negotiation as \u201ctransactional<\/a>\u201d \u2013 pragmatically treating any foreign policy like a business deal. <\/p>\n

So, in the short term, Trump\u2019s election boosts Putin\u2019s ambitions to regenerate Russia as a global power. Nonetheless, a shrinking economy<\/a>,
\ndeclining military spending<\/a>, a host of domestic problems<\/a> and no sign of a major rise in oil and gas prices to bring Putin more revenues will limit Russia\u2019s options. <\/p>\n

But then again, if personality plays a role when it comes to foreign policy, then there are grounds for concern that Trump\u2019s and Putin\u2019s honeymoon won\u2019t last long. The president-elect likes to play second fiddle to no one. The same is true for Putin. <\/p>\n

So a clash could eventually ensue. There is now an arc that spreads from the Arctic down to the Black Sea that constitutes a zone of potential conflict. And there has already been a small movement of NATO\u2019s troops into the Baltics<\/a> and Poland<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Trump may make greater demands of NATO. But troop deployment won\u2019t change in the short term. So their presence may eventually reinforce hostilities once the honeymoon is over.<\/p>\n