Nobody really knew what to
expect when Donald Trump
became U.S. president. Would
he disrupt the status quo or maintain it?
Blow himself up or escape unscathed?
One year in, the answer is yes.
If you squint, U.S. foreign policy
during the Trump era can seem almost
normal. But the closer you look, the more
you see it being hollowed out, with the
forms and structures still in place but the
substance and purpose draining away.
The best analogy might be to health
care—something else the administration
came in hell-bent on overhauling, only
to nd it more dicult than expected.
In foreign policy, too, the Trump administration
came to power promising a revolution.
But the White House has failed to
kill the existing approach outright and has
grudgingly contented itself with hopes
that it will die of neglect anyway.
In the board game Diplomacy, the
rules state that “if a player leaves the
game, or otherwise fails to submit orders,”
the player’s country is deemed to be
in “civil disorder.” The country’s pieces
stand in place, defend themselves if
attacked, and let the game proceed
around them. That’s basically what’s
happening with the United States now.
Confronted with this unprecedented
situation, Eliot Cohen concedes that to
date, the administration’s foreign policy
might be considered “a highly erratic,
obnoxious version of the Republican
normal.” But he argues that this is
because the bill for the administration’s
unconventional behavior has not
yet arrived.Jake Sullivan examines the surprising
resilience of the liberal international order,
which has managed to take a licking and
keep on ticking—so far. Other countries
appreciate what the United States created,
even if Washington doesn’t.
Barry Posen suggests that consciously
or not, the Trump administration is
following a new grand strategy, one of
illiberal hegemony. It has “pared or
abandoned many of the pillars of liberal
internationalism” but “still seeks to retain
the United States’ superior economic and
military capability and role as security
arbiter for most regions of the world.”
Adam Posen sees the global economy
moving forward calmly and steadily, with
broad-based growth nally kicking in.
But here, too, problems have been
deferred, and a prolonged abdication of
U.S. leadership will cause real trouble.
And Sarah Margon traces the decline
of human rights as a concern in this
White House, as even the pretense of
caring about other countries’ misbehavior
has been dropped and the president
embraces a new crop of friendly tyrants.
Trying to rule the world by dominance
rather than persuasion has not worked
well in the past, and there is little doubt
that if tried again, it will fail again. The
rules of Diplomacy note that civil disorder
does not have to be permanent: “A
player who temporarily fails to submit
orders may, of course, resume play if
he returns to the game and still has some
units left.” What the world will look
like when that eventually happens is
anybody’s guess.
—Gideon Rose, Editor
Foreign affairs
Letting go...
expect when Donald Trump
became U.S. president. Would
he disrupt the status quo or maintain it?
Blow himself up or escape unscathed?
One year in, the answer is yes.
If you squint, U.S. foreign policy
during the Trump era can seem almost
normal. But the closer you look, the more
you see it being hollowed out, with the
forms and structures still in place but the
substance and purpose draining away.
The best analogy might be to health
care—something else the administration
came in hell-bent on overhauling, only
to nd it more dicult than expected.
In foreign policy, too, the Trump administration
came to power promising a revolution.
But the White House has failed to
kill the existing approach outright and has
grudgingly contented itself with hopes
that it will die of neglect anyway.
In the board game Diplomacy, the
rules state that “if a player leaves the
game, or otherwise fails to submit orders,”
the player’s country is deemed to be
in “civil disorder.” The country’s pieces
stand in place, defend themselves if
attacked, and let the game proceed
around them. That’s basically what’s
happening with the United States now.
Confronted with this unprecedented
situation, Eliot Cohen concedes that to
date, the administration’s foreign policy
might be considered “a highly erratic,
obnoxious version of the Republican
normal.” But he argues that this is
because the bill for the administration’s
unconventional behavior has not
yet arrived.Jake Sullivan examines the surprising
resilience of the liberal international order,
which has managed to take a licking and
keep on ticking—so far. Other countries
appreciate what the United States created,
even if Washington doesn’t.
Barry Posen suggests that consciously
or not, the Trump administration is
following a new grand strategy, one of
illiberal hegemony. It has “pared or
abandoned many of the pillars of liberal
internationalism” but “still seeks to retain
the United States’ superior economic and
military capability and role as security
arbiter for most regions of the world.”
Adam Posen sees the global economy
moving forward calmly and steadily, with
broad-based growth nally kicking in.
But here, too, problems have been
deferred, and a prolonged abdication of
U.S. leadership will cause real trouble.
And Sarah Margon traces the decline
of human rights as a concern in this
White House, as even the pretense of
caring about other countries’ misbehavior
has been dropped and the president
embraces a new crop of friendly tyrants.
Trying to rule the world by dominance
rather than persuasion has not worked
well in the past, and there is little doubt
that if tried again, it will fail again. The
rules of Diplomacy note that civil disorder
does not have to be permanent: “A
player who temporarily fails to submit
orders may, of course, resume play if
he returns to the game and still has some
units left.” What the world will look
like when that eventually happens is
anybody’s guess.
—Gideon Rose, Editor
Foreign affairs
Letting go...
