Trump to Zelenskyy: ‘You don’t hold the cards’
By Herbert Rothschild
My online search for foreign views of President Donald Trump since his inauguration was hampered by the language barrier and paywalls. Still, I noticed something that seems worth passing on — the frequent occurrence of the word “transactional.”
Here are two instances: “Trump’s politics are transactional in a way that’s never been more overt and the game is no longer about validating or caring for existing relationships, whether allies or not. The U.S. has just reset to ‘pay to play’ for everyone — including Japan, which must take notice after decades of a softer approach focused on values and mutual interests” (The Japan Times, Jan. 28). “Trump is changing U.S. foreign policy by focusing on deals rather than alliances. His approach is transactional, viewing international relations as business deals” (The Times of India, Feb. 28).
That contrast between narrowly self-interested dealmaking and policy based on a concept of the kind of world the U.S. wants is a helpful lens through which to view Trump’s behavior toward other countries. It explains actions that might otherwise appear merely capricious or intemperate.
There are two things I don’t wish to convey by this contrast. One is that U.S. policy prior to Trump has been altruistic. Since the end of World War II, our foreign and military policy, presided over by Democrats and Republicans alike, has aimed at global hegemony. We’ve been an empire, the largest in history, and empires aren’t un-self-interested. We have forced many nations to enter or remain in our economic and political orbit.
Understood broadly, however, self-interest isn’t incompatible with decency. We have understood that it’s better for us that industrialized countries have democratic institutions and a free citizenry. That was why we promoted such conditions in Europe and Japan after World War II — which was the finest thing we ever did as the dominant world power.
Shamefully, we didn’t behave that way toward nations in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, whose resources and labor we thought we could engross, often frustrating their quest for self-determination and democracy. But even in those cases, such as Vietnam, we paid lip service to ideals and values. As bad as hypocrisy is, it indicates that the offender knows what is right and decent and wants to be seen in that light.
We’ve also understood that it’s in our self-interest to promote health and education worldwide. The work of USAID was partially corrupted by its catering to narrow self-interests, most obviously in its directing so much funding through U.S. corporations. Nonetheless, its achievements were important, and so were our contributions to U.N. agencies like the World Health Organization.
The other thing I don’t wish to convey by the contrast between Trump’s transactional approach and prioritizing relationships and values is that his crass commitment to U.S. self-interest will be good for our country. The pursuit of narrow self-interest often proves damaging to a larger and lasting self-interest.
As proof, one need only consider the fate of the Trump Organization in New York. Years ago, many financial institutions stopped doing business with it because of its multiple bankruptcies and habit of stiffing its creditors. Finally, it was found guilty of criminal behavior and banned from operating in New York State. Despite Trump’s self-curated image as a dealmaker, only his political success rescued him from failure as a businessman.
Having said all that, I want to focus on what Trump’s transactional approach entails. Most important, it makes no distinctions among nations except what he thinks he can get out of them and how much power they have to keep him from steamrolling them.
Thus, it obviously means nothing to Trump that Canada and Mexico are our closest neighbors. It means nothing to him that European countries have been loyal allies and cooperated in maintaining a global order over which the U.S. presides. It means nothing to him that Russia is a dictatorship and has acted hostilely to other nations, including ours. All that counts is whether he believes he can gain some immediate advantage — either personal or collective — by his treatment of them.
The grossest application of Trump’s transactional approach was his treatment of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. A key feature of Trump’s peace initiative has been an effort to get control of strategic minerals from Ukraine. Zelenskyy was ready to make that concession in return for U.S. help ending Russia’s aggression. Trump, though, decided that Zelenskyy didn’t “hold the cards” to demand much in return. When Zelenskyy tried, doubtless Trump enjoyed humiliating him in public — that’s the way with bullies — but bullying is one of his go-to bargaining tools. That seems to be behind his ill-advised 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods.
Trump’s on-again off-again economic decrees seem confusing and indeed do create confusion, but dealmakers change their stance when they think it will be advantageous. For Trump, this seems to apply even to China, the nation he has often characterized as the main enemy of the U.S. An instance of it was his waffling on the de minimis rule that has greatly benefited China at the expense of U.S. manufacturers and retailers. That was my focus last week.
Unlike Europe, many countries weren’t initially upset by this approach to foreign policy. After Trump won reelection, the European Council on World Affairs published a story based on its poll of 28,549 people across 24 countries. What used to be called nonaligned nations, especially India, were mostly upbeat about a Trump-led United States. The general perception is that the U.S. is finally acting like any other great power.
One of the conclusions the authors of that story drew from the survey results was that, “To wield the influence within their grasp, Europeans need to recognise the advent of a more transactional world. Rather than attempt to lead a global liberal opposition to Trump, they should understand their own strengths and deal with the world as they find it.”
Here is my prediction: Trump’s misunderstanding of what makes a country great, conjoined with his misplaced confidence in his dealmaking skills to make it great, will work out badly for the U.S. But by hastening the end of Western global hegemony, it may create space for greater self-determination by people elsewhere. I for one won’t be sorry to say farewell to the U.S. as the “indispensable nation.”
Herbert Rothschild’s columns appear Fridays. Opinions expressed in them represent the author’s views. Email Rothschild at [email protected].
