President-elect Donald Trump is not someone who plays down expectations, whether about himself or the United States. And he raises the expectations of others accordingly. His re-entry onto the world stage after his victory in last year’s election prompted urgent shifts in international dynamics on the part of national leaders around the world, simply in anticipation. From midday on Monday, Mr Trump’s power is real. With it comes promise – and peril.
Four years ago, the inauguration of Joe Biden as US president was greeted, especially in Europe, as heralding a welcome return to normality. By which was meant a re-emphasis on Atlanticism abroad, a respect for the constitution at home, and, above all, a steady, predictable hand on the global tiller. That is not quite how it turned out. From the chaotic end to the US-led intervention in Afghanistan to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the new hostilities in the Middle East, Biden’s four years encompassed as much, if not more, destructive disruption as any recent US president’s term.
That needs to be borne in mind as Mr Trump enters the White House again. Stuff happens. But Mr Trump is different – and not just from his predecessor – in both the scope of his personal ambition and how he believes he can use American power, but also in the extent to which his personality dictates the terms and draws the limelight – for better and worse.
Early proof of the promise his presidency could bring were the joyous scenes that followed the agreement between Israel and Hamas; the celebrations on the streets of Tel Aviv, the festivities even amid the devastation of Gaza, and the rapturous reception, on both sides, for the released captives. The Biden and Trump teams may dispute where the credit lies for this lamentably overdue ceasefire, but Mr Trump’s imminent inauguration and the pressure exerted by his envoy on the hitherto immovable Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu are surely part of the explanation.
It must be hoped that President Trump – we must become used to hearing that combination again – can follow through, not only to pre-empt any backsliding by either signatory to this agreement but to ensure that the next stages are honoured, bringing the release of all Hamas hostages, and the possibility of rebuilding in a peace that increasingly embraces the whole region. This will not be easy; Syria, Iran and maybe Turkey are, or could all be, in the throes of change.
Mr Trump’s other foreign policy projects, as so far outlined, present at least as much peril as promise. He has undertaken to end the war in Ukraine, but he must do so without placing Ukraine’s future at still greater risk or appearing to acquiesce in the change of national borders by military force. Unpredictability and risk-taking here could have lethal consequences.
European members of Nato have been making some efforts to prepare for a time when they might have to take more responsibility for Europe’s security, but there is a long way still to go. Trump 1.0 raised concerns – in the end unwarranted – that the US could forsake Europe. There is less alarm over Trump 2.0 but no room for complacency, either.
Mr Trump has a keen sense of where power lies, abroad as at home. He has US relations with China in his sights as a priority – hence the invitation to President Xi Jinping to his inauguration. Mr Xi himself is not going but he is sending a deputy; the honour, in other words, was recognised, not spurned. Will Mr Trump suspend, or soften, the ban on the Chinese-owned social media app TikTok, if only as a gesture? Is that the right thing to do?
Will Mr Trump start a wider trade war with his threat to impose tariffs, or is the threat more by way of a signal from this arch-realist and disruptor that the rest of the world must strike new bargains to protect what he sees as the US national interest? Europe, in particular, must be as much on its guard as it was eight years ago, so as not to be wrong-footed by a US president whose exclusive concern, to a greater extent than many recent predecessors, is the security and prosperity of the United States. This is also how his striking talk about Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal might be taken, as a 21st-century Monroe Doctrine, which sees the US in hemisphere, rather than global, terms.
There have been mixed signals about how far Mr Trump’s British – in fact, Scottish – connection could translate into closer, or less close, relations with the UK. With gaps already evident over policy towards Ukraine and the Middle East, not to mention the Chagos Islands, this is already looking to be a delicate relationship, even as it has become more crucial for the UK after Brexit. If, however, as The Independent has reported, the new US administration could decide to reject Sir Keir Starmer’s nominee for ambassador, that could not but sour relations, while underlining the disparity in power. Lord Mandelson has his flaws but an ambassador with the ear of the prime minister and expertise in trade matters can be an asset for both sides.
President Trump is nothing if not his own man, and a respecter of power – his own and that of others. The UK’s position vis-a-vis the United States under such a president would be stronger, the more it can make common cause with the EU and the European members of Nato. A strong and united voice in Washington from across the Atlantic would be one way, probably the best way, to make the most of Mr Trump’s promise, while reducing the peril.
