Tehran (ER) – Trump’s doctrine “America first” was created to form a new unipolar system with the leadership of the U.S. and it was based on nullifying the interests of multilateralism in regular world relations.
Based on this doctrine, a U.S. defeated in domestic and foreign policies over the past presidential terms, should reconsider and rebuild relations with more profitability in order to revive the old hegemon and regain its lost title as the world leader.
In the economic sector, Trump considered establishing ties towards more profit for the U.S. in bilateral relations, trying to build America’s foreign policy on bilateral ties and trade.
Trump was seeking profitable and guaranteed deals in foreign relations, to make which come true he resorted to the policy of fear and hope to gauge extraterritorial relations. He defined mid-term U.S. policies by presenting as inconsiderable the international pacts, conventions, and approaches.
This new American leadership spearheaded by Trump, with more media presence than executive reality, when faced with the international structure, challenged China’s economy. When facing Russia, it discarded the INF pact. It also encouraged European countries to leave the EU, left the Paris agreement, and quit Iran’s nuclear deal with had four UN Security Council members and Germany as a partner. Trump went so far as to call the UN costly and unproductive, calling for its removal from the U.S.
In the war of tariffs with China, the EU, and Japan, as well as his expansion of arms trade with Arab states of the Persian Gulf, Trump girdled his loins to place America’s political ties and economic relations on a basis which considered only “America first” as its approach and its defining rule.
In the process, disregard for international relations and considerations should have the least impact on earning more profits. In other words, if there were no more profitable trade in “one-way or multilateral” interactions, for Trump, such relationships would be meaningless.
With the start of Trump, countries with a global economy and trade had to part with Trump to maintain their global position and achievements. Taking advantage of this opportunity, Trump initiated unilateral policies based on specific relations with several major countries of the world, including Russia, China, India, Japan, Britain, and EU member states. But in the process of implementing this policy and excessive demands, he questioned all the arrangements and achievements of post-World War II agreements.
Trump and his assistants did not know that much could change in the world and were unaware of the profound impact of the intertwined interests and structures of world trade; they were more narcissistic than looking for accomplishments. For this reason, countries have challenged the Trump doctrine by emphasizing the continuity of the World Trade System and regional and transnational international agreements.
China, Germany, France, and Canada responded to U.S. tariff threats by brandishing their teeth and talking about countermeasures and braking the U.S. economy, which in the first two years of the Trump presidency flourished by creating economic challenges for the world’s major countries.
With the EU and China standing against Trump’s ambiguous economic policies, the U.S. has no choice but to withdraw or declare an economic war against China and the European Union. It is clear that continuing tariff strikes on the Chinese or EU economies could ruin the global economy led by the United States. For the United States, this is a fear of suicide.
Trump’s other feat was to ignore the powerful locked-in structure of the world system – to enter the world arena with a hollow fist – and to transform the monopoly world of today into a non-polar world. At present, America has no place in any political, economic, or military dimension after World War II.
By challenging the liberal order of the world economy and the uncertainties in world trade, Trump has equally affected U.S. foreign policy. Mistaken by repeated miscalculations and the use of “part-time strategists”, Trump was forced to engage in “short-term” U.S. foreign policy with the constant change in administration and government.
Engaging in “short-term strategies” has led to the elimination of strategic plans and goals, making the global view of the U.S. short-term, complicated, and questionable.
If Trump wins the 2020 presidential election, given the resistance of China and the European Union, the U.S. economy will be in a recession, forcing Trump to return to the WTO and its special regulations to exit a stagnant or even stagnant, costly recession, and make a choice, a reverse Brexit.
But if the United States is determined to return to world leadership, it must be able to prevent the division of the world into a bipolar or multipolar world. This would require serious trade confrontation with Europe and a cold war which would lead to a military confrontation with China and even Russia.
But countries around the world are well aware that the United States has always acted against multilateralism and at all costs is seeking to maintain American leadership. China, Russia, and the European Union have shown by their actions that they are ready to face future U.S. tensions that will continue even after Trump.
This post was written by Mohammad Ghaderi for Eurasia Review and appears here with permission.
Mohammad Ghaderi is Chief Editor of Tehran Times.