Guest AuthorPresidential candidate Donald Trump’s acerbic speaking style on the campaign trail rankles many, but focus needs to be turned to how his caustic approach would play out on the world stage. The shock and denial about Trump’s political rise is getting old, and it’s time to face the possibility that he, this time next year, may be steering U.S. national security decisions.
In contrast to the past seven years of Obama’s weak global presence, it can be argued that the same Trump persona that polarizes people now has the potential to restore U.S. negotiating power internationally.
How would a President Donald Trump be received at G-20 Summits? How effective would this former reality television star be in United Nations negotiations, or in corralling foreign allies for military endeavors? These are all useful questions that should start being examined, although given the unprecedented nature of a bombastic former pageant owner occupying the White House, none has clear answers.
What can be affirmed, however, is that the opposite approach – the ultra-smooth oratory skills and namby-pamby-style glad-handing demonstrated by Barack Obama – does not necessarily translate to greater efficacy in managing U.S. interests and needs to be dispensed with.
A cornerstone of Obama’s 2008 ascendancy was his offer to our war-fatigued nation a fresh start in global affairs. He was going to harness his genteel approach to end wars, make nice with state leaders, and rebuild foreign opinion. He promised to be the anti-Bush, an identity who would be on display most prominently in international relations.
As it turns out, American Democrats were the only ones dazzled by this docile diplomacy theory.
In 2011, Obama requested to extend military involvement in Iraq beyond the withdrawal timetable (at the time, Dec. 31). Governmental leaders within the Iraqi parliament, even in the midst of being heavily fractured in their own right, scraped together the resolve and unity to reject this request and informed the U.S. that any lingering troops would be subject to prosecution. Here, not only did Obama renege on his commitment to sever ties with Iraq, but his negotiation attempts were dismissed outright, even by the fragile and tenuous powers of a war-torn nation.
In 2013, Obama’s uselessness in foreign relations was further cemented by his bungled Syrian weapons deal. His administration claimed victory over ridding President Bashar Assad of chemical weapons through negotiations, but the stench of chlorine barrel bombs and murdered innocents wafting over Damascus soon after quickly made clear the futility of Obama’s words. Obama reacted to the massacre and deal violation by submissively assuring Assad he will be allowed to maintain power anyway, and Syria got the last laugh.
Throughout 2015, even Cuba’s Raul Castro – not exactly a beacon of world power – played Obama like a puppet, using administration meetings to get a lot in exchange for very little. Obama handed Cuba relaxed trade and travel restrictions, eased banking regulations, removal from the state-sponsored terrorist list, and the freeing of three Cuban spies responsible for espionage and the shooting of U.S. airplanes. For all this, the U.S. got the release of one USAID worker and 53 Cuban dissidents. It doesn’t take a foreign relations expert to recognize that Cuba made out like a bandit in that deal, and Obama’s weakness is what invited his glaring disadvantage.
Also in 2015, Obama polished his world stage ineptness with the Iran nuclear weapons agreement. Billions of dollars in economic sanctions were set to be lifted in exchange for limits on Iran’s weapons program, and Obama publicly touted the agreement as a foreign policy achievement. Yet, when Iran flagrantly violated the deal by launching a test missile shortly thereafter, Obama’s feeble response was, “I think what we’ll be doing is we’ll review, as we have in the past, any violations.” When a second test missile was launched that same month, only the sound of crickets chirping could be heard from the Oval Office.
Other world powers were also involved in the Iran deal and its worthlessness surely lies at their feet, as well. Yet, as Obama’s deferential diplomacy approach continues to fail to protect the country’s welfare, Trump’s nerviness and audaciousness start to gain appeal. Obama has made headlines for his constant reverent bowing before overseas leaders, but in terms of effectiveness in securing U.S. interests, it’s questionable whether he could be trusted to negotiate a car sale.
It is understandable that Trump’s scurrilous words cause hand-wringing among voters, but history shows indisputably that subservient presidents are not the answer either. The role of commander in chief, it is sometimes forgotten, is the most important aspect of the presidency, and Trump, despite his faults and disreputable pop culture associations, could be the anti-Obama. Perhaps the U.S. would benefit from a full-throated negotiation style with world leaders, who, despite often being corrupt and murderous, can spot a paper tiger a mile away.
Given Trump’s delegate success thus far, even if he is not an ideal candidate, the time has come for voters to think about how his brazenness can be turned into a benefit, how, beyond the unconventionality of his candidacy, the U.S. might get the more vociferous advocate it desperately needs.
• • •
Sarah Maricle Ayers has bachelor’s degree in economics from Florida State University, and an MBA from FSU. Her op-eds on economic issues have been published in Florida newspapers. She can be reached at [email protected]. Column courtesy of Context Florida.
