10
Loading video...
By Anthony J. Constantini
Contributing Fellow at Defense Priorities
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
President Donald Trump returned to the White House on a promise to reform America's foreign policy, transitioning away from the idea of "spreading democracy" and refocusing on the country's national interest.
A major impediment to fulfilling this promise, however, is the collection of treaties, international agreements, and institutions that comprise the "international world order." Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in his confirmation hearing, highlighted this Gordian knot as a major threat, saying America had replaced "a foreign policy that served the national interest" with "one that served the 'liberal world order.'" But, he added, that "postwar global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us."
America can reorient its foreign policy to prepare for the future by slowly leaving treaties that do not serve its interests, but this process would be cumbersome and somewhat scattershot.
Read More
If You Think the U.S. Will Abandon Ukraine Now, You Don’t Know Donald Trump | Opinion7 min read
Trump Has a New NATO—in the Middle East | Opinion5 min read
Congressman: To Protect America, We Must Fight Foreign Corruption | Opinion4 min read
Or it could take an alternative path: Instead of untying the Gordian knot, America could slice through it via a new presidential doctrine. Such doctrines—statements indicating a new direction for American foreign policy—have been a staple of American politics since President James Monroe announced the Monroe Doctrine, which declared European powers should stay out of the Americas. Recently, they have become rare. The only president to issue one this century was George W. Bush; the "Bush Doctrine," as Bush defined it in his memoir Decision Points, espoused preemptive war and democracy promotion. This lack of vision is reflective of the past 30 years of uninventive and disastrous foreign policymaking.
President Trump has the chance to reverse this trend with the announcement of a new, unifying presidential doctrine. The doctrine could be something along these lines: "The United States of America will aggressively defend its national interests wherever and whenever it so chooses and will interpret existing agreements in light of said national interests."
Such a doctrine takes inspiration from two previous doctrines, Monroe's and President Richard Nixon's, the latter of which pledged to keep "all of [America's] treaty commitments" and defend nations whose survival America considered vital to its security.
There will be complaints from those who wish to continue along America's present, untenable course. First is the argument that such a doctrine would break the international order. After all, the argument goes, if a country can simply interpret already agreed-upon treaties however they wish, then any cohesion within the liberal international order will be lost—as will the liberal international order itself.
...
This, however, is the point of the doctrine. President Trump will only have four years in office; it is unfeasible to completely reorient everything in only those four years. But these four may ultimately define the next 40. Adopting this doctrine would be a mission statement for America—a setting of purpose which Trump's successors could carry out.
One of the clearest examples of how this can function is NATO's Article V, which requires that member states come to the aid of others. During his first term Trump was barraged with demands to state his acceptance of Article V; when he did so, it still did not seem to be enough for some. But while Article V made sense when NATO was first created, and the Soviet Union wanted to create a communist world order, how reasonable is it for the United States today?
Here is where a new doctrine would come into play. The actual text of Article V does not require an armed response: each member is to "assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith...such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." That "action" could constitute, for instance, sending humanitarian aid. Right now, the expectation is that America will interpret Article V by focusing on the "use of armed force" phrase; a Trump Doctrine could reset that expectation, giving our allies a reason to care for their own defense. It would leave the United States more strategic options, and turn defense into something that each side can gain from.
President Trump is unlikely to withdraw America from NATO over the following four years. But he can use these four years to rework America's relationship with Europe and to lay the path for a future president to take any actions within the national interest.
Others may criticize this vagueness. But this too is a feature, not a bug. America once understood strategic ambiguity was the way forward; former president Joe Biden sought to eliminate it when it came to concepts like defending Taiwan, without really gaining anything. Having a clear statement of purpose while allowing future presidents to fill in the details will enable America to have a flexible foreign policy instead of keeping it locked into a few, narrow choices.
Finally, some might argue that opening old treaties up to interpretation will make future diplomacy impossible. But future diplomacy between America and other states would be conducted under the auspices of national interest, rather than maintaining the post-Cold War status quo. Diplomats will go into negotiations understanding America is seeking to protect its national interest.
Presidential doctrines, when made to fit the moment, define the direction of the country. Should President Trump elect to leave a lasting mark on American foreign policy, he should consider officially re-aligning America's foreign policy toward its national interest with a new, formalized doctrine.
Anthony Constantini is a Contributing Fellow at Defense Priorities.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines