For the United States, diplomatic actions range between supporting those whose principles we admire, and making alliances with those who can provide immediate strategic advantage regardless of human rights abuses. A purely altruistic foreign policy would reward good behavior where it was found, withhold from bad actors, and meet needs in any case. Such a foreign policy might be effective at not just promoting exactly the policies we want to see in the world, but cementing the United States as a genuine force for good. It might. But we don’t know, because such a policy has never been followed.
At the far end of the spectrum is a policy in which all decisions are weighed against a simple formula: Do they have something I want, right now? It’s enlightened self interest. Without the enlightenment. It’s a policy that takes when it can, and never pauses to think about either who might be harmed or the long-term consequences. Nations that follow such policies aren’t without alliances—but those alliances are based on mutual gain, rather than support for the broader good. A nation following this policy would make alliance with the bastard offspring of Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler … if it generated even a fleeting advantage over other players.
On occasion over the 240 plus years it has played on an international state, the United States has come close to touching the moral end of the axis. It’s done so when it realized that offering a fallen enemy a hand up was more effective than a boot heel. Or when it’s used its force in genuine defense of the downtrodden. But on way too many occasions, the United States has slipped down the realpolitik scale to indulge in war for profit, the overthrow of democratic governments, and alliance with tyrants. Those actions may be justified with theories that employ dominoes or split the world into “spheres of influence.” But even when they’re justified, they’re in no sense just.
Most of the time, the United States, like most countries, has really aimed at the angel end of the spectrum. It has sought the middle of the field. It’s attempted to balance self-interest with a smidge of genuine attempt to Do Good. Which, yes, was often more self delusion than self-enlightenment, and as often about moralizing than morality. But the point is, occasionally we have tried. More importantly, we’ve told ourselves that trying to do good—defending the threatened, supporting human rights, upholding equality under the law, expanding education, and addressing basic needs—is a good thing. It may not be where we’ve always felt we could go, but it’s been where we felt we should go.
Until now.
Under Donald Trump, the foreign policy of the United States has taken on a simpler approach. It’s not just that Trump has echoed mid-century American fascists through his cries of “America first,” it’s that he’s made clear his criteria for making alliance. There aren’t any. Or rather, there are no restrictions when it comes to human rights, or democracy, or the rule of law. Donald Trump will cheerfully declare his “love” for North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un even as that leader carries out mass executions on a whim, and defend Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman against the news that he ordered a US resident journalist dismembered—one finger at a time.
Trump makes these deals, no matter who is on the other end, because he sees them as offering gain. It’s not just that moral concerns don’t enter the picture—Trump does not believe moral concerns should enter the picture. For Trump, the pragmatic center is not a target, because it gives some value to human rights and democratic values, or at least to the US image in defending human rights and democratic values. Trump does not see this as a goal. Unlike previous executives, Trump is aiming at just one point on the diplomacy spectrum. And it’s one he can hit every single time.
But what compounds Trump’s morality-free view of foreign relations is that he doesn’t just weigh every action on a scale of immediate, and often financial, gain. That scale is calibrated only to hold Donald Trump. He doesn’t view his policies in terms of long-term agreements between nation states. They are the result of one on one deals between Trump and some other leader. Preferably—preferably—an autocratic leader who commands a state without the check of a genuine Congress or court. Trump gets along with Kim. He gets along with Putin. He gets along with bin Salman. It doesn’t matter if the goals of those countries are 180 degrees removed from those of the United States.
Trump “likes them very much” because they send him nice notes, praise his giant brain, or buy very expensive apartments.
Every now and then, there are still echoes of the old way of doing things—where the interest of the nation was considered, and the interest of even those outside the nation got some attention. As when Turkish dictator Recep Erdogan claimed victory in a referendum that awarded him even more expansive powers. The State Department issued a statement warning that Erdogan should “protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all its citizens” including those in the opposition. Trump simply called Erdogan, praised him, and congratulated him on his victory.
Trump hasn’t hesitated to explain his view of life. He’s nice to people who are “nice to him.” And for people who are critical, he “hits back ten times harder.” As an inverse of the Golden Rule, it is hard to do better than “I say good things about people who say good things about me.”
That sometimes doesn’t mean that Trump occasionally makes alliance with nations that have less than admirable human rights records. It means he only makes alliances where concern for human rights is not part of the discussion. It might well be argued that for Trump, human rights and democracy aren’t just a non-factor, they’re an obstacle.
When it comes to actually trying to do good, in the form of foreign aid that’s not military aid, Trump has made his feelings completely clear: He doesn’t believe in it. Instead, he believes only in quid pro quo arrangements. If he can’t get reciprocal payments for his dollars, he demands loyalty. For Trump promoting human rights or democracy, is no longer a concern of the United States.
Trump: Few give anything to us, that is why we are taking a hard look at U.S. foreign assistance. ... Moving forward, we are only going to give foreign aid to those who respect us and, frankly, are our friends.
Again, this is just a reflection of the way Trump has run his personal affairs. Compare Trump’s statements on why the United States shouldn’t contribute to foreign aid.
Trump has repeatedly argued that wealthy countries in the Middle East should be helping their neighbors instead of relying on the United States.
With how Trump funneled money through his personal “charity.”
A review of the Trump Foundation's tax records by CNN finds that although the charity has received more than $4 million in contributions from other organizations and individuals and in turn donated millions to various charitable causes since 2009, Trump has not made any personal contributions to the foundation in that time.
Donald Trump’s view of foreign relations is free of any taint of morality, and divorced from any anything that it’s concerned with the long-term goals of nation states. Instead, Trump views this as a series of personal deals between sovereign individuals, each of whom is scratching for personal advantage.
The way that Trump has defended that personal connection to Mohammed bin Salman even in conditions that are harmful to the safety of journalists around the world and damaging to other alliances of the United States is illustrative of how his self-interest only version of relationships is damaging on every front. It’s also likely to be deadly to journalists in Russia, in Saudi Arabia, in Turkey, and in other nations where the press is already under daily assault.
The United States may have been an erratic and far from perfect presence on the moral battlefield, but the withdrawal of the United States from that battlefield has been noted. Jamal Khashoggi’s murder may have cast a spotlight on that departure, but it’s an absence that threatens to have damage that extends far beyond journalism or Saudi Arabia.
Note: Yes, I’ve misused realpolitik, at least in the sense that it was originally intended. As voiced by those who coined the term, it would solidly envelope the pragmatic center, and might even lean to the enlightenment side of the line. But the term has long taken on a darker tone, ranging from “pragmatic” to “cold-hearted,” and that’s the sense I’ve adopted here.
Other Note: The “Partners” point on the line may make it seem as if I intended the idea of foreign alliances as a bad thing—perhaps in a George Washington sense. But all I really meant to imply was that a nation couched in unalloyed self-interest would make alliance with anyone, regardless of their form of government or treatment of their citizens. Which all seemed clear to me when I was drawing the diagram but looks a bit less obvious on the page.