strategic-culture | In an article a
few weeks ago, I tried to lay the foundations for a future US
administration, placing a strong focus on foreign policy and revealing a
possible shift in US historic foreign relations. In a passage I wrote:
Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn’t believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly.
In general, the Trump administration intends to end the policy of regime change, interference in foreign governments, Arab springs and color revolutions. They just don’t work. They cost too much in terms of political credibility, in Ukraine the US are allied with supporters of Bandera (historical figure who collaborated with the Nazis) and in Middle East they finance or indirectly support al Qaeda and al Nusra front».
The
recent meeting in Washington with Theresa May, the first official
encounter with a prominent US ally, revealed, among other things, a
possible dramatic change in US policy. The Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom expressed her desire to follow a new policy of non-intervention,
in line with the isolationist strategy Trump has spoken about since
running for office. In a joint press conference with the American
president, May said: «The era of military intervention is over. London
and Washington will not return to the failed policy in the past that has
led to intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya».
During
the election campaign, Trump made his intentions clear in different
contexts, but always coming from the standpoint of non-interventionism
inspired by the concept of isolationism. It is becoming apparent that
these intentions are being put into action, though the rhetoric
regarding Iran has become alarming. In typical Trump fashion (which
contrasts with the Iran issue), the situation in Syria is normalizing
and the initial threats directed at China appear to have been put aside.
The case of Iran is a different and complex story, requiring a deeper
analysis that deserves a separate article. What will gradually be
important, as the Presidency progresses, is understanding the necessity
to distinguish between words and actions, separating provocations from
intentions.
