new lines on the map

[Dill]

(01-28-2017, 11:16 AM)Benton Wrote: I know all the chatter right now is about the POTUS and how he either hasn't wrecked the country yet or how he's started, but something else interesting is coming about.

since the end of WWII, allies and cooperative agreements have mostly been the same. Three quarters of a century and a few major conflicts along the way, but few changes (relatively) to lines on maps, or the lines between allies.

could that be changing?

the populist movement has changed things, notably weakening the EU and, if trump follows through on pledges, the U.S. pulling back globally, cooling relations with Mexico, turkey, and other long time allies among naTO.

curious for others thoughts. Are we looking to open doors with relationships that either cooled or never warmed up, or are we just pulling back after 100 years of expanding globally?

I can't say what the US is "looking for " right now. But I do think it helpful to distinguish long term trends that are underway and will continue no matter who is president from trends begun or accelerated by the Trump presidency.

E.g., China was/is growing in military and economic power no matter who is president of the US. Challenging them or working with them helps them either way. Challenging them diplomatically and militarily does not help the US that I can see, though cooperating with them extends US power and influence. The TPP was a chance to counter Chinese economic power on the Pacific Rim and in South Asia. Not any more.  China's ability to plan long term and maintain stable relations with trade partners is an advantage we can no longer match.

Over the short term, Trump's disruption of trade with Mexico and others will not last, in part because I don't think Trump will last and in part because hostility is in the interest of neither country.  But I see three areas where he can do lasting damage that no one will be able to repair.

1. Russia has few friends in the international community (for good reasons) and its expansion is limited in part by US alliances and in part by its Italy-sized economy. Playing the US to roll back NATO would accomplish Putin's goals, which include redrawing many lines along the borders of fledgling NATO members. Trouble between the US and China also helps, removing an effective counterweight.

2. The Iran treaty. If Trump manages to blow that, the US ability to accomplish international goals with partners like China, Russia, France and Germany will be greatly damaged. Permanently, I think. Why would any of those countries sit down with us for years to work up important treaties with buy in from all stake holders when unstable domestic US politics can throw a Trump into office?  Within Iran, the authoritarian counterparts to our own Trumpsters would overpower the "failed" moderates and set Iran on course to nuclear power. We will not be able to work with them again for generations, if ever. This would be far more destabilizing to the Middle East than ISIL. The US would be seen most actors in the region as unstable and unreliable.

3. North Korea/Pakistan. I am lumping these two together as serious nuclear crises waiting to happen. Each is unstable for different reasons--NK has the most unstable leader in the world; in P the three way dysfunction between civilian gov., Military, and intel agencies is complicated by fundamentalism in country and their hysteria over India. Each has been kept in check by a complex balance of US led diplomatic alliances, aid, and military might. Each is capable of triggering a real war with real consequences--not the JV action we see with ISIL.  Trump brings a similar instability to the world's most powerful military and the lynchpin in the alliances which check these countries. Were either to meltdown, the US response has the power to manage the damage locally but not the leadership.

But the long term damage is that his behavior will push other countries to strengthen trade and military ties with each other, uncouple their currencies from the dollar, and develop their own means of "world policing".  US power will be counterbalanced by large regional alliances (economic and military) in Europe and East Asia which will be deemed more stable. The US will become a trade partner with exactly that level of influence in these regions.