Will Trump change US policy towards global conflicts?
This article is authored by Mehdi Hussain, research associate, Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi.
The history of geopolitical rivalries involving the United States (US) and Russia (also the former Soviet Union) teaches us that tensions and conflicts tend to become protracted. West Asia and eastern Europe have been the theatres of power rivalries during the Cold War and post-Cold War eras. Due to multiple power centres in the post-Cold War, wars and conflicts have become more complicated on at least two fronts: global leadership and “free-raider” countries. The global leadership is contested by countries outside the ‘US-Russia’ hyphenation. Emerging economies like those in BRICS are strengthening their collaboration on international peace and security matters. Nonetheless, the BRICS countries themselves are unclear about what alternative form of international peace and security structure suits the current global conflict scenarios.
The US positions on the Ukraine-Russia war and the Israel-Palestinian conflict are ambiguous in terms of its commitment to international laws. The US policy towards Ukraine supports the United Nations (UN) Charter and international law to the cause of Ukraine’s sovereignty and international peace. It voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolutions, for example, ES-11/1 of March 2, 2022, which condemned Russia’s invasion and stood firm, which has been maintained throughout the ongoing conflict, that Russia should withdraw its troops from Ukraine. The Global South has not been on the same footing with the US’s policy of isolating Ukraine diplomatically. Some of these countries have maintained special exemptions, like India’s oil import from Russia at a discount, from the US sanctions against Russia.
The US policy towards the Ukraine-Russia war has shown consistency and unambiguity in support of Ukraine. The victory of Donald Trump as President in the recent election, who will take charge January 20 next year, might change the policy. He will assume power after the war, which marks the completion of 1,000 days. Trump’s focus is on diplomacy and a rapid resolution to the conflict. He showed his confidence to end the war “within 24 hours,” talking directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He strongly felt that the US aid to Ukraine was at the cost of US interests, and bringing back America First is his priority. Moreover, his explicit criticism of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (Nato)’s dependency on US funding cannot go unnoticed in the current war efforts in Ukraine.
Thus, it departs from President Biden’s strong support for Ukraine. It remains to be seen if his transactional diplomacy will be able to “end” the war, although he has not laid down a concrete strategy yet. Geopolitical experts are observing which direction the US policy might swing under his reign, either towards diplomacy or sanctions to resolve the long-drawn-out war. Experts consider that his Ukraine policy might concede to Russia in favourable terms regarding territorial concessions primarily.
On the other hand, Trump has shown steadfast support for Israel in the October 2023 Israel-Hamas conflict. The UN General Assembly and the US Security Council are ineffective due to different member States' positions in each body. In these bodies, the US has been supporting Israel while a significant number of countries are supporting Palestinian rights and statehood. Columbia and Turkey recently announced that they would cut ties with Israel. South Africa, Chile, Honduras, Chad, and Jordan withdrew their ambassadors earlier. In 2023, Bolivia and Nicaragua severed relations with Israel.
Both the Trump and Biden administration continue to support Israel. The only difference with President-elect Trump is his approval to give Israel greater freedom to act militarily in Gaza without any US pressure. President Biden, in the past, warned the Israeli leadership against excessive use of force and advised Israel to exercise restraint in military operations in Gaza.
The possibility of bringing back Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan of 2020 is reported. The Peace Plan proposed a two-State solution. It, however, also approved of Israel’s annexation of settlements in the West Bank and retained control of the Jordan Valley. The territorial demarcation to create a Palestinian State is not according to the pre-1967 borders. Its control over its security is limited, which would be under Israel.
Palestinians rejected the peace plan, while Israelis welcomed it. Although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the plan with reservations at the time, the current conflict with Hamas has expanded to include Lebanon and Iran in the fray. It took a more complex turn before Trump’s second term began.
While Trump’s endeavours in both cases seem to pick and choose favourable international laws of peaceful settlement to global conflicts, leveraging his personal connections with global leaders to resolve long-drawn crises is his style of diplomacy. Trump might cut down on US aid to Ukraine and use his personal connection with Putin to bring both to the negotiating table. He insisted that Israel to end the Gaza conflict swiftly. All of this carries his intentions towards global conflicts, which are consistent with his endorsement of withdrawing the US from Nato and the United Nations operations, which, he believed, are financially dependent on the US disproportionately.
Nonetheless, Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and imposition of heavy sanctions against Iran is an example of unpredictability in his conflict resolution methods. On the other hand, his significant diplomatic achievement involved the Abraham Accords, which normalised relations between Israel and several Arab nations.
President-elect Trump does not fit into the traditional internationalist or pacifist category. His transactional diplomacy and selective engagement define his foreign policy. However, the risk of escalation is now even more significant for any US policy without the support and collaboration of Ukraine or Israel and their counterpart actors, alongside emerging economies, in his peace efforts. Although not an easy task, these global conflicts require long-term conflict resolution. It is a difficult task for the US alone to see through the global conflicts without involving other power centres like the BRICS nations, which have appealed for amicable solutions to global conflicts. However, involving the BRICS countries is unlikely if the peace efforts are in US terms. They subscribe to multilateralism and international laws for peaceful settlements of conflicts.
This article is authored by Mehdi Hussain, research associate, Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi.
Continue reading with HT Premium Subscription
