PERSONAL POLITICS Donald Trump and the European Political Structure
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PERSONAL POLITICS Donald Trump And The European Political Structure Master Thesis in Political Science: International Organisations Leiden University Mitchell Zee S1413864 January 10, 2019 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. A.C. Verdun Second Reader: Dr. N.R.J.B. Blarel Word count: 9153 Table of Contents Introduction: Challenging The International Structure 2 Literature Review 4 Structure and Agency 4 Trump As An Anomaly In American Foreign Policy 7 Design and Methodology 13 The G20 Summit In Hamburg: Uncompromising Agency 16 The “Special Relationship” of the United States and the United Kingdom 21 World War I Armistice Centenary: Keeping Ignorance At Bay 26 Conclusion 31 Bibliography 33 1 Introduction Challenging The International Structure On January 20, 2017, Donald J. Trump became the 45th president of the United States of America. He had won the election in part because of his promise to put America first. Globalism, according to Trump, had deprived the United States of resources it could have used to improve the lives of Americans, instead of being spent on other countries. It had also transported manufacturing jobs overseas, away from working class Americans. Globalism had chained the U.S. to rules concerning climate change that had stifled the U.S. coal and oil industry. Trump had promised to right these wrongs against the U.S. when he would become president and “make America great again.” Other countries, including allies, would no longer take advantage of the U.S. as they had done for years. While the concept of making America great again through a policy of putting America first found support among a significant number of Americans, it logically failed to have the same impact abroad in Europe. At the time, the question arose what this America first policy would mean for European countries, as many of them had been significant trade partners with the U.S. Now, near the end of 2018, after the first two years of Trump’s presidency have nearly passed, it can be said that when Trump presented his America first policy, he truly meant it. The past two years have seen Trump try and start a trade war with the European Union over steel, aluminum and cars, he has formally announced the U.S. is pulling out of the Paris Agreement and he announced the U.S. would no longer support the Iran deal. All of these moves surprised and in some way shocked European allies. Trump had started a policy unlike any since World War II. It is the aim of this paper to more closely look at how heads of state of certain European countries dealt with the change in international politics that is Donald Trump. To 2 accomplish this, the core hypothesis of this thesis is that, after two years, Donald Trump’s agency has not altered the political structure in which European heads of state operate. To support this thesis, several case studies concerning interactions between European heads of state and Trump will be discussed and analyzed. The European heads of state that will be discussed are German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron. In the section on methodology it will be further discussed why these individuals have been chosen. In the following section the literature related to the subject will be discussed to more clearly define the context and theoretical framework in which this paper makes its case. 3 Literature Review This section will outline the theories and concepts that will be used to answer the main research question. First, the debate in International Relations concerning agency and structure will be discussed in order to provide a general overview for the theory on which this thesis will be based. The next part will discuss and argue why and how Trump has been operating outside the established international structure for the first two years of his presidency. This will be done by discussing the history and structure of American foreign policy. Through this analysis it will be argued that Trump appears to be an anomaly in the course of U.S. foreign policy. Furthermore, it will be argued that politics is an issue that Trump takes very personal, which directly affects how he conducts foreign policy. This personal aspect of Trump’s foreign policy will be reflected in the case studies, as they will focus on the more personal relationships between some prominent figures within Europe and the U.S. president. Structure and Agency Within the social sciences there is the ongoing debate concerning whether it is structure or agency that determines human behavior. Structure is defined as the patters that to a certain extent dictate the available actions individuals can take. Agency is defined as the extent to which individuals are able to act freely and make independent choices. Thus the debate can be seen as an argument between socialization and autonomy and whether one’s acts are defined by the established social structure or if one is able to act as a free agent. This debate will used in this thesis by applying it to the current U.S. president Donald Trump and his foreign policy. The following section will argue that Trump’s agency breaks not only with American foreign policy structure, but also clashes with the agency of several European heads of state that do operate within the international structure. 4 During the Cold War most IR scholars recognized that structures often defined the actions of states.1 Both realist and liberalist scholars, despite disagreeing on the specifics, concluded that no matter the level of agency of the states, this agency was shaped and determined within a certain structure.2 Constructivists argued for a more balanced division; they believed that while actors work within a certain structure, they are often aware of this and are able to see how their choices affect this structure.3 But how does Trump fit within this debate between structure and agency? Nick Rengger states that “it is the structure of the international system that causes states (and, thus the individuals who act for states) to act in the manner that they do.”4 I believe this is not entirely the case with Trump, as it has become increasingly apparent from sudden staff changes in his administration that he often disregards what his advisors have to say, instead favoring his own gut feeling. In this sense, Trump does not completely fit within the theory that structure determines the actions of agents. In the following section it will be argued that Trump as an actor on the international political stage tries to operate, either intentionally or unintentionally, outside of the established international structure in order to get direct results. John Peterson, when discussing the constructivist view on structure and agency, asserts that “Simply put, constructivists view structure and agency as mutually constitutive, not least because agents perceive that -and more particularly how- their choices can alter structures.”5 I think this can be applied to Trump, in that he sees himself and the U.S. as a powerful player on the world stage that can decide certain courses of actions and outcomes by throwing its weight around. However, moves like pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, 1 John Peterson, "Structure, Agency and Transatlantic Relations in the Trump Era," Journal of European Integration 40, no. 5 (2018): 637-652, 639. 2 Peterson, “Structure, Agency,” 639. 3 Ibidem, 639. 4 Nick Rengger, “Realism, Tragedy and the Anti-Pelagian Imagination in International Political Thought,” in Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans J. Morgenthau in International Relations, edited by M. C. Williams, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, 120. 5 Peterson, “Structure, Agency,” 639. 5 moving the embassy in Israel and leaving the Iran deal show the lack of effect it had on allies (as they collectively did not follow the course the U.S. had taken). This paper through further case studies will show that Trump’s strategy does not have the effect he most likely intended it to have. Foreign Policy Analysis does not necessarily assume that structure trumps agency. It recognizes that international structure matters, but only because it is perceived by those making foreign policy.6 This gives a significant amount of agency to those actors. However, Trump does not seems to fit neatly into this theory. As mentioned earlier, Trump often seems to ignore the advice given to him by his senior officials that are appointed to handle specific elements of U.S. foreign policy. This creates a disconnect within the administration; on the one hand there are those officials who are aware of the structure and recognize its importance, regardless if they agree with it or not and on the other there is the president, who at best is similarly aware of the existing international structure, but chooses to operate outside of it when possible and at worst does not comprehend the significance of certain facets of the international order. If Bob Woodward’s book ‘Fear’ is to be believed, the situation within the White House has at points seen such disarray that some officials regarded it as necessary to make sure the president did not see certain international related documents, as they feared he would make a hasty and unwise decision that could upset the international order. Some have even suggested the president is not fully aware of the history of the different relationships between countries. It has also become increasingly clear Trump often values personal connections he has with the leaders of other nations more than the relationships that have been built up throughout the course of history. He seemed to have little problem with criticizing the leaders of staunch U.S.