|
Last week, President Trump laid out his vision of American foreign policy – and his criticisms of the United Nations. While what most people will remember about the President’s speech is the escalator incident, the teleprompter, or the President’s colorful line that “all your countries are going to hell,” what was most compelling for me was the roadmap he gave foreign nations for how to best partner with the United States. It was not about trade policy, or even overtly about partnership at all. Instead, it was about their own sovereignty. By promoting domestic concerns – energy and immigration – as his core principles, and by highlighting ways in which European nations are compromising their national interests (e.g., defending their sovereignty against Russia) through their own policies (e.g., enriching Russia by purchasing their oil and gas), he clarified that the pathway to cooperation with the United States is not by some specific foreign policy aim but by building up their own strength and sovereignty.
This is a new concept neither for conservatives nor for the President. The President does not divide nations into their economic spheres, political spheres, foreign spheres, etc. Much of his foreign policy and partnerships are predicated on the social and cultural practices of other nations. If, for example, you are otherwise a decent partner, but you have compromised freedom of speech and “gone woke,” you may not be shielded from tariffs or other retaliatory practices. Likewise, if you have not historically been a strong partner to the United States, but have rebelled against “wokeness” in your own society, there may be opportunities for increased engagement. In his speech at the UN, the President seemed to lay out why – it’s no longer just “the economy, stupid.” It’s culture and sovereignty. And while that may not be a new concept for multilateral relations (our Coalition has as a core principle that “Nations joined in common cause, not supranational government, are the foundation of international cooperation and peace”), it is a new concept for bilateral ones. It will be curious to see how each nation interprets this, and which ones use it to their advantage.
(By the way, prior to the President’s speech we interviewed former National Security Speechwriter Dr. Amanda Rothschild on what we could expect, and many of her predictions came to fruition – including (perhaps most impressively!) mention of teleprompter failures. Be sure to check out that interview here.)
- Carrie Filipetti, Executive Director of The Vandenberg Coalition
|
