DOCSLIB.ORG

International Reports 1/2019, Pp

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
International Reports 1/2019, Pp KONRAD-ADENAUER-STIFTUNG 1|2019 INTERNATIONAL REPORTS Looking West An Assessment of the Transatlantic Partnership INTERNATIONAL REPORTS 1 | 2019 Editorial Dear Readers, The first two years of Donald Trump’s term as the 45th president of the United States have seriously damaged Europe’s confidence in the US as a partner, and put a strain on transatlantic relations. However, this review of American foreign policy under Trump, which takes a look at how Europe and the US are actually cooper- ating in five regions and five policy fields, reveals a differentiated picture with some rays of hope. Trump has taken a more national- istic, unilateral, and protectionist approach to policy, and adopted a more confrontational style. This has certainly reduced the num- ber of overlaps between US and German interests, but it has not prevented pragmatic cooperation in key policy areas. Over the last two years, Trump’s foreign policy has, in many respects, followed the route of traditional US policy. Thus, the preservation of the transatlantic partnership – for which Germany has no alternative, particularly in terms of security and economic policy – remains, just as it once was, both possible and necessary. Continuity Generally Prevails in Foreign Policy As our contributors highlight, the policies of the Trump adminis- tration – especially as relates to security issues and Russia – have been characterised above all by continuity. Despite all of Trump’s rhetorical sabre-rattling, he has held fast to the key transatlan- tic alliance – NATO. Indeed, over the past two years, the US has ramped up its presence in Europe as a deterrent to Russia. In many respects, the US’s approach to China also stands in conti- nuity with its former policies, although it is being pursued much more aggressively and via other means. Trump’s withdrawal from the Middle East ties in with Obama’s policy. The termination of the nuclear deal with Iran represents a return to the traditional American Middle East policy and “corrects” the historical “anom- aly” of rapprochement under Obama. The same applies to the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. The apparently unilateral shift in US foreign policy is not really a break with the past. Instead, it follows the traditional American logic, which regards the multilateral system merely as a means to an end – the 2 enforcement of American security and economic interests. This being said, the new protectionism in trade policy does represent a clear break with the traditional maxims of US foreign policy; although the critical attitude towards the World Trade Organisa- tion dates back to the era of President George W. Bush, and the US has always had its share of critical voices with regard to trade. A New Transactional Style First and foremost, it is the president’s style and rhetoric that has changed. Trump’s transactional, often erratic style has given US foreign policy a new rationale. True to his campaign slogan “America First” – an exaggerated extension of Obama’s “Nation-Building at Home” –, US foreign policy is now more strongly geared towards domestic voter groups. Trump’s policies are a symptom of a deeper process of domestic political change in the US. It takes into account the increasing divisions in American society, which have been emerging over many years as a result of changes in the country’s economic and socio-political structures. As the US midterm elections showed, Trump’s policies are sup- ported by large sections of the American public. The same applies to the president’s aggressive rhetoric, which clearly articulates this course. There Is No Alternative to the Transatlantic Partnership Following Trump’s logic, transatlantic relations are now more than ever understood by the US as a means to an end, rather than a partnership of values. Even after Trump leaves office, it seems unlikely that the US will change its course given the aforemen- tioned domestic political changes. The media’s focus on Trump and the president’s style and rhetoric have affected confidence in the US as a reliable, protective, and regulatory power. However, Europe has no alternative to the transatlantic partnership in terms of other world regions and shared values. Over the last two years, the congruence of common interests has diminished in the ten 3 Editorial areas examined. Nevertheless, our authors describe how nothing has stood in the way of pragmatic cooperation in many areas, and this seems set to continue. This applies first and foremost to coop- eration in what is probably Europe’s most important transatlantic field of cooperation – security policy, particularly as regards Rus- sia, and the fight against international terrorism. The digital rev- olution is another area that will become increasingly important for both sides, and there is also potential for cooperation in Africa. With regard to China and Iran, the US and Germany are pursuing congruent goals, but arguing about the right means with which to pursue them. The US and Germany are diametrically opposed in the area of a rule-based, multilateral system, including on climate change, development policy, and international trade, and, with some exceptions, in their approach to the Middle East conflict. The Preservation of the Partnership is Possible Over the next two years of the Trump presidency, it will, there- fore, be important to maintain a dialogue with the US, and to shape relations in a pragmatic way. The rule-based world order is vital to Germany’s interests, but it cannot defend it without the US – and certainly not against the US. However, the federal sys- tems and different constellations of actors in the two countries offer opportunities for a multi-layered dialogue. A transatlantic friendship does not mean it is necessary to be in total agreement. Germany and the EU must have the courage to take a clear stand. For the US, the competition of ideas also applies to politics. In the US, objective criticism is also seen – if not by all, by many – as a strength and a sign of respect. It is therefore important to concre- tise, substantiate, and raise awareness of topics of mutual interest. With regard to the multilateral order, Germany and the European Union must actively advance into the areas from which the US is withdrawing. Efforts to find multilateral partners – such as Can- ada, Australia, the Latin American countries and Japan – may complement, but not replace, the transatlantic partnership. A key factor in maintaining relations with the US will be to increase the 4 European Union’s internal and external capacity to act, and to assume more responsibility in international politics. The current “disenchantment” with transatlantic relations could act as a vital catalyst in this respect. I wish you a stimulating read. Yours, Dr. Gerhard Wahlers is Editor of International Reports, Deputy Secretary General and Head of the Department European and International Cooperation of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung ([email protected]). 5 Content Looking West An Assessment of the Transatlantic Partnership INTERNAL PERSPECTIVES 8 The Fast-Forward President How Donald Trump Accelerates Long-Term Trends Paul Linnarz 18 Disenchantment The European View of Transatlantic Relations Olaf Wientzek REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES 28 Talking Much, Changing Little Relations with Russia in the Wake of Trump Claudia Crawford / Philipp Dienstbier 39 62 Less Trump, More Europe! Trump, China, and Europe America’s Tilt Away from the Middle East What Remains of the “Pivot to Asia” Requires Stronger European Commitment Rabea Brauer / Alexander Badenheim Edmund Ratka / Marc Frings 71 51 More than Walls Much Ado About Nothing Latin America’s Role in the Triangle Trump’s Africa Policy and Its Consequences with the US and Europe for Europe Hans-Hartwig Blomeier / Patricio Garza Christoph Plate Girón / Christian E. Rieck 6 International Reports 1|2019 THEMATIC PERSPECTIVES 83 “America First” Transatlantic Relations in the Trump Era Benjamin Fricke / Nils Wörmer 94 A Transatlantic Relic? 116 The Future of the WTO and Its Role in the America Alone Transatlantic Economic Relations Transatlantic Challenges with Regard to David Gregosz / Stephen Woolcock Climate Change and Energy Policy Céline-Agathe Caro 105 Between Innovation and Regulation 126 The Necessity of Transatlantic Cooperation Denier of the Liberal World Order? in the Digital Sphere Trump’s Unilateralism and Its Implications Sebastian Weise Andrea E. Ostheimer Looking West 7 Source: © Carlos Barria, Reuters. Source: Looking West The Fast-Forward President How Donald Trump Accelerates Long-Term Trends Paul Linnarz 8 Hopes that Western allies would be able to better assert themselves following US mid-term elections are unfounded; preparations for the current political position begun long ago. However, new agreements remain possible. Within the US, resistance to President Trump’s position is growing. More than two years after his assumption there during the Trump Presidency.”3 European of office, Donald Trump can confidently be allies reacted to this decision with astonishment regarded as unique in his style of communica- and concern; the move was also met with incom- tion. His statements on-camera and via Twitter prehension among members of Congress and annoy, affront, and even shock not only politi- the administration. One day after the president’s cal opponents in his own country, but also allies announcement, Secretary of Defense James abroad. Those who hoped that Trump would Mattis submitted his letter of resignation. strike a more conciliatory tone after the US mid- term elections on 6 November, and try to find Fundamentally, however, these controversial common ground with his allies abroad, were dis- positions held by the US president are far from abused of this notion in the weeks that followed. new. For one thing, Trump continues to hold fast to demands that he formulated for the most In early January, the US president said at a cabi- part even before taking office in January 2017: net meeting, “I don’t care about Europe.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Agricultural Policy for the 21St Century
    CONTENTS Introduction 1 Major Agricultural Subsidy Programs 2 Crop Insurance 2 ARC 3 PLC 3 Damage to Taxpayers 3 Environmental Damage 5 Trade Distortions 5 Stalled Liberalization and Damage to Developing Countries 5 WTO Violations 6 Policy Recommendations 7 Eliminate tariffs and cut subsidies 7 Expand international trade 7 Conclusion 7 About the Author 7 and ranchers. A year later, the administration levied “nation- R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 200 al security” tariffs on imported steel from virtually every July 2020 country in the world, including long-standing allies. Like- wise, the president began a two-year trade war with China over Beijing’s allegedly unfair and burdensome trade policy practices. The consequences of the president’s moves were entirely predictable as foreign retaliation fell heavily on AGRICULTURAL POLICY FOR American agriculture and exports fell.3 THE 21ST CENTURY In response, President Trump directed the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide about $28 By Clark Packard billion in additional aid to beleaguered American agricul- ture producers who saw their foreign market access erode due to retaliatory tariffs.4 As a result, the USDA dusted off a INTRODUCTION New Deal-era program, the Commodity Credit Corporation he United States is one of the largest agriculture pro- (CCC), to facilitate payments to farmers. Yet, recent research ducers in the world. In fact, agriculture is so abun- shows that certain politically favored farmers received pay- dant in the United States farmers and ranchers are ments well in excess of their actual losses.5 Likewise, much able to export about 20 percent of what they produce of the aid was directed to wealthy, well-connected corporate Tfor foreign consumption.1 Much of the nation’s dominance farms rather than small, needier ones.6 in international agriculture markets is due to technological advantages, but all is not well with American agricultural In January 2020, the United States and China signed a policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Trade: Trade and Investment Frameworks
    The G20 Research Group at Trinity College at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy in the University of Toronto presents the 2017 G20 Hamburg Summit Final Compliance Report 8 July 2017 to 30 October 2018 Prepared by Sophie Barnett, Hélène Emorine and the G20 Research Group, Toronto, and Irina Popova, Andrey Shelepov, Andrei Sakharov and Alexander Ignatov and the Center for International Institutions Research of the Russian Presidential AcadeMy of National EconoMy and Public AdMinistration, Moscow 29 November 2018 www.g20.utoronto.ca [email protected] “The University of Toronto … produced a detailed analysis to the extent of which each G20 country has met its commitments since the last summit … I think this is important; we come to these summits, we make these commitments, we say we are going to do these things and it is important that there is an organisation that checks up on who has done what.” — David Cameron, Prime Minister, United Kingdom, at the 2012 Los Cabos Summit Contents Preface ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 G20 Research Group Research Team ............................................................................................................. 4 G20 Research Group Lead Analysts ........................................................................................................... 4 G20 Research Group Analysts ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Trade Agendas in the US Presidential Campaign
    PIIE Briefi ng 16-6 Assessing Trade Agendas in the US Presidential Campaign Marcus Noland, Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Sherman Robinson, and Tyler Moran SEPTEMBER 2016 CONTENTS Preface 3 1 Could a President Trump Shackle Imports? 5 Gary Clyde Hufbauer 2 Impact of Clinton’s and Trump’s Trade Proposals 17 Marcus Noland, Sherman Robinson, and Tyler Moran 3 A Diminished Leadership Role for the United States 40 Marcus Noland Appendix A Disaggregation Methodology 45 © 2016 Peterson Institute for International Economics. All rights reserved. The Peterson Institute for International Economics is a private nonpartisan, nonprofit institution for rigorous, intellectually open, and indepth study and discussion of international economic policy. Its purpose is to identify and analyze important issues to make globalization beneficial and sustainable for the people of the United States and the world, and then to develop and communicate practical new approaches for dealing with them. Its work is funded by a highly diverse group of philanthropic foundations, private corporations, and interested individuals, as well as income on its capital fund. About 35 percent of the Institute’s resources in its latest fiscal year were provided by contributors from outside the United States. A list of all financial supporters for the preceding six years is posted at https://piie.com/sites/default/files/supporters.pdf. Preface International trade is a more prominent issue in this year’s presidential campaign than it has been in de- cades, if ever. Certainly, some of this attention is due to the combination of stagnating average incomes in the United States over the long term and the severe damage wrought by the American financial crisis of 2008–10.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump's Trade War Timeline: an Up-To-Date Guide
    TRADE & INVESTMENT POLICY WATCH BLOG Trump’s Trade War Timeline: An Up-to-Date Guide Chad P. Bown and Melina Kolb, Peterson Institute for International Economics Updated May 17, 2021 This post, originally published on April 19, 2018, will be updated as trade disputes with China and other countries evolve. In 2018, former President Donald Trump started a trade war with the world involving multiple battles with China as well as American allies. Each battle has used a particular US legal rationale, such as calling foreign imports a national security threat, followed by Trump imposing tariffs and/or quotas on imports. Subsequent retaliation by trading partners and the prospect of further escalation risked significantly hampering trade and investment, and possibly the global economy. President Joseph R. Biden Jr. must now determine whether to keep US tariffs and other trade barriers in place or adjust policies in the wake of changing conditions, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. The timelines below track the development of the most pressing trade conflicts with links to the latest available data and PIIE analysis. TABLE OF CONTENTS BATTLE #1: Solar Panel and Washing Machine Imports Injure US Industries, page 2 BATTLE #2: Steel and Aluminum as National Security Threats, page 3 BATTLE #3: Unfair Trade Practices for Technology, Intellectual Property (IP), page 8 BATTLE #4: Autos as National Security Threat, page 15 BATTLE #5: Illegal Immigration from Mexico, page 16 BATTLE #6: Safeguarding US Semiconductor Supremacy, page 17 References, page 20 1750 Massachusetts Avenue, NW | Washington, DC 20036-1903 USA | +1.202.328.9000 | www.piie.com TRADE AND INVESTMENT POLICY WATCH BLOG BATTLE #1: SOLAR PANEL AND WASHING MACHINE IMPORTS INJURE US INDUSTRIES USITC Recommends Remedies October 31, 2017 The US International Trade Commission finds that imports of solar panels (October 31, 2017) and washing machines (November 21, 2017) have caused injury to the US solar panel and washing machine industries and recommends President Trump impose “global safeguard” restrictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary • Since Taking Office, President Trump Has
    Executive Summary • Since taking office, President Trump has unilaterally imposed numerous new tariffs on steel, aluminum, and a variety of goods from China, creating upward pressure on prices in the United States. • Based on 2019 import levels, U.S. and retaliatory tariffs currently impact over $460 billion of imports and exports, and President Trump’s tariffs are increasing annual consumer costs by roughly $57 billion annually. • The tariffs are having a notable impact on trade levels, decreasing both imports and exports, which reduces consumers’ options and further increases prices in the United States. Introduction One of President Trump’s most prominent policy actions since taking office has been to raise tariffs, which significantly harm the U.S. economy. Trade barriers such as tariffs increase the cost of both consumer and producer goods and depress the economic benefits of competition, inhibiting economic growth. Research suggests that the president’s tariffs have been directly responsible for reducing both imports and exports, raising prices, and reducing national welfare. Research also suggests that the entire cost of the tariffs has been borne by U.S. importers.1 The president’s tariffs, when combined with corresponding retaliation, threaten over $460 billion of traded goods annually. The following analysis calculates the overall impact these tariffs could have on the prices of goods in the United States. The Economic Cost of Current Tariffs This analysis focuses exclusively on the impact of tariffs unilaterally imposed by the president. These include tariffs—either enacted or officially ordered—under Section 232 or Section 301. Section 232 allows the president to impose trade barriers if the Department of Commerce finds that imports threaten U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Brazil: Background and U.S. Relations
    Brazil: Background and U.S. Relations Updated July 6, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46236 SUMMARY R46236 Brazil: Background and U.S. Relations July 6, 2020 Occupying almost half of South America, Brazil is the fifth-largest and fifth-most-populous country in the world. Given its size and tremendous natural resources, Brazil has long had the Peter J. Meyer potential to become a world power and periodically has been the focal point of U.S. policy in Specialist in Latin Latin America. Brazil’s rise to prominence has been hindered, however, by uneven economic American Affairs performance and political instability. After a period of strong economic growth and increased international influence during the first decade of the 21st century, Brazil has struggled with a series of domestic crises in recent years. Since 2014, the country has experienced a deep recession, record-high homicide rate, and massive corruption scandal. Those combined crises contributed to the controversial impeachment and removal from office of President Dilma Rousseff (2011-2016). They also discredited much of Brazil’s political class, paving the way for right-wing populist Jair Bolsonaro to win the presidency in October 2018. Since taking office in January 2019, President Jair Bolsonaro has begun to implement economic and regulatory reforms favored by international investors and Brazilian businesses and has proposed hard-line security policies intended to reduce crime and violence. Rather than building a broad-based coalition to advance his agenda, however, Bolsonaro has sought to keep the electorate polarized and his political base mobilized by taking socially conservative stands on cultural issues and verbally attacking perceived enemies, such as the press, nongovernmental organizations, and other branches of government.
    [Show full text]
  • America First and the Populist Impact on US Foreign Policy
    Survival Global Politics and Strategy ISSN: 0039-6338 (Print) 1468-2699 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsur20 America First and the Populist Impact on US Foreign Policy Georg Löfflmann To cite this article: Georg Löfflmann (2019) America First and the Populist Impact on US Foreign Policy, Survival, 61:6, 115-138, DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2019.1688573 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2019.1688573 Published online: 19 Nov 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 515 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsur20 America First and the Populist Impact on US Foreign Policy Georg Löfflmann The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States and the success of Brexit in the European Union referendum campaign in the United Kingdom are the most prominent examples of the populist disruption of the status quo in international politics. This has led to heightened interest in the phenomenon of populism, both among global media and in academia.1 In the past, most analysts viewed populism as a domestic phenomenon rel- evant to voter mobilisation, with a particular focus on its impact on liberal democratic systems, comparisons among populist movements and leaders, and its development in Europe and Latin America.2 Populism’s impact on foreign policy and national security has garnered relatively little attention, and there has been little crossover between
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Fort Trump Couldn't Be Stronger | Salvatore Babones
    09/10/2018 The Case For Fort Trump Couldn’t Be Stronger | Salvatore Babones Unknown date Salvatore Babones The Case For Fort Trump Couldn’t Be Stronger Poland’s President Andrzej Duda met with President Donald Trump at the White House Tuesday to talk defense. Poland’s defense. But then, Poland’s defense is Europe’s defense, and European defense has been a core U.S. foreign-policy mission for more than a century. Poland is crucial to European defense because it is the keystone of a NATO arch that runs from Norway in the Arctic to Turkey in the Caucasus. NATO’s northern ank is secure. NATO’s southern ank is in disarray as Turkey’s commitment to NATO comes under doubt. But it is in the center that any future conict will be won or lost. Germany used to be the bulwark of NATO’s central front, but today Germany’s defense spending is among the lowest in Europe and its operational readiness is abysmal. Just as important, the German public does not support NATO’s mission or America’s role in it. By a 42 percent to 37 percent margin, Germans want U.S. troops out of their country. Even more alarming is the fact that only 40 percent of the German public supports the use of German troops to defend another European country from a Russian invasion. The corresponding gure for both the United States and Poland is 62 percent. That’s right: Americans are more willing to send troops to defend a European ally than Germans are.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Raport
    SPECIAL REPORT 02/11/2019 U.S. PERMANENT MILITARY BASE IN POLAND: FAVORABLE SOLUTION FOR THE NATO ALLIANCE Warsaw Institute U.S. PERMANENT MILITARY BASE IN POLAND: FAVORABLE SOLUTION FOR THE NATO ALLIANCE U.S. Permanent Military Base in Poland: Favorable Solution For the NATO Alliance Publisher: Warsaw Institute Wilcza St. 9 00-538 Warsaw Poland www.warsawinstitute.org [email protected] Authors: Grzegorz Kuczyński - Director of Eurasia Program, Warsaw Institute Krzysztof Kamiński – President, Warsaw Institute Glen E. Howard - President, Jamestown Foundation Laurynas Kasčiūnas - Member of the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania Iulian Chifu – President, Conflict Prevention and Early Warning Center Editor: Agnieszka Nitek - Warsaw Institute Translations & proofreading: Aleksandra Iskra - Warsaw Institute ISBN 978-83-947602-2-9 © Warsaw Institute 2019 The opinions given and the positions held in this publication solely reflects the views of authors. 2 Special Report www.warsawinstitute.org U.S. PERMANENT MILITARY BASE IN POLAND: FAVORABLE SOLUTION FOR THE NATO ALLIANCE Dear Readers, On September 18th, 2018, during a joint press conference of the President of the United States and President of the Republic of Poland, the proposal to increase the involvement of U.S. Army in Central and Eastern Europe was announced. President Donald J. Trump said the U.S. is considering to deploy more U.S. troops and military equipment to Poland. His Polish counterpart, President Andrzej Duda, suggested building a permanent U.S. base in Poland. Poland has openly proposed a permanent U.S. presence since President George W. Bush was in office. All significant political forces in Poland have been supporting this idea for years.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 June 2019 Diego García-Sayán, United Nations Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the Independence of Judges A
    5 June 2019 Diego García-Sayán, United Nations Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations Office at Geneva 8-14 Avenue de la Paix 12-11 Geneva 10, Switzerland Via Email: [email protected] RE: Complaint Against the United States of America: Interference with Judicial Proceedings at the International Criminal Court “The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court.” - U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton1 “…subsequent changes within the relevant political landscape both in Afghanistan and in key States (both parties and non-parties to the Statute), coupled with the complexity and volatility of the political climate still surrounding the Afghan scenario, make it extremely difficult to gauge the prospects of securing meaningful cooperation from relevant authorities for the future.” - ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II, 12 April 2019 Decision2 Dear Special Rapporteur García-Sayán, This complaint and request for a comprehensive investigation is prompted by the well- founded belief that there has been, and likely continues to be, interference with the independence of judicial proceedings at the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “Court”) by senior officials of the United States, up to and including President Donald Trump. Public statements by U.S. officials make clear that the target of this interference extends not only to personnel of the ICC, including members of the judiciary, but also to Member States of the ICC as well as inter-governmental organizations, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (“NATO”), and threatens to interfere with the work of lawyers representing victims or otherwise engaging with the ICC.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump's False 'Realism'
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University International Bulletin of Political Psychology Volume 20 Issue 1 Article 2 1-13-2020 Trump’s False ‘Realism’ Muhammad Ali Baig National Defence University, Pakistan, [email protected] Syed Sabir Muhammad University of Peshawar, Pakistan, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/ibpp Part of the American Politics Commons, International Economics Commons, and the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation Baig, Muhammad Ali and Muhammad, Syed Sabir (2020) "Trump’s False ‘Realism’," International Bulletin of Political Psychology: Vol. 20 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://commons.erau.edu/ibpp/vol20/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Bulletin of Political Psychology by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Baig and Muhammad: Trump’s False ‘Realism’ TRUMP’S FALSE ‘REALISM’ Muhammad Ali Baig* and Syed Sabir Muhammad** Abstract Foreign policy pivoted upon realist principles has have remained a vital instrument to pursue, achieve, secure and sustain the policy objectives of a state. America being the liberal hegemonic state maintained ‘liberal hegemony’ since the end of the Second World War. Realists intended to adopt a realist foreign policy; however, ideologies like ‘American Exceptionalism’ dominated over the former. President Donald Trump opted for protectionism with the objective of strengthening U.S. indigenous economy – a realist approach. Nevertheless, Trump’s foreign dealings in relation to America’s allies are causing damage to the established balance of power and the hard-earned trust of allies.
    [Show full text]
  • European Army Or Fort Trump? the Case of Polish Participation in Headquarters Eurocorps in the Issue of Multinational Military Echelons in the 21St Century
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive DSpace Repository Theses and Dissertations 1. Thesis and Dissertation Collection, all items 2019-06 EUROPEAN ARMY OR FORT TRUMP? THE CASE OF POLISH PARTICIPATION IN HEADQUARTERS EUROCORPS IN THE ISSUE OF MULTINATIONAL MILITARY ECHELONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY Bohnsack, Heiko Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/62796 Downloaded from NPS Archive: Calhoun NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS EUROPEAN ARMY OR FORT TRUMP? THE CASE OF POLISH PARTICIPATION IN HEADQUARTERS EUROCORPS IN THE ISSUE OF MULTINATIONAL MILITARY ECHELONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY by Heiko Bohnsack June 2019 Thesis Advisor: Donald Abenheim Second Reader: Uwe Hartmann Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Form Approved OMB REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED (Leave blank) June 2019 Master's thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS EUROPEAN ARMY OR FORT TRUMP? THE CASE OF POLISH PARTICIPATION IN HEADQUARTERS EUROCORPS IN THE ISSUE OF MULTINATIONAL MILITARY ECHELONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY 6.
    [Show full text]