The first hundred days of a new administration, especially when that administration comes from a different party than the previous one, are often full of great changes and confusion. Add a figure like President Donald Trump into the mix, who many commentators have described as possessing an unpredictable personality, and these changes and confusion are magnified significantly. This is especially true in the field of foreign policy, where an incoming President often has the most authority to bring about rapid change. Indeed, the entrance of a second Trump administration has already brought about many major foreign policy developments: a ceasefire in Gaza, followed by a plan to expel the Palestinian population; meetings with Russian leaders and negotiations to end the war in Ukraine; and tariffs on China, in addition to threats of tariffs on Mexico and Canada.
To better understand these rapid developments, UVA’s Miller Center convened a panel of eight experts on foreign policy last Wednesday to discuss the nature of Trump’s foreign policy. The event, which was held online due to weather conditions, was hosted and moderated by William Antholis, the director of the Miller Center. The eight experts each gave their own views on the matter, followed by a general question and answer session.
Allan Stam, professor of politics and public policy at the Batten School, was the first to speak, discussing the recent peace negotiations over the Russo-Ukrainian War. Stam noted that it was important to look at the perspective of each side in the negotiations. Russia has been suffering from economic stagnation as a result of the war, in addition to expansion of NATO into Scandinavia. Ukraine has lost significant portions of its territory, and millions of its people have fled. The United States, however, has suffered significantly less, having gained new NATO allies in Europe. He provided a historical comparison to the current situation: the Korean war, in which two opposing sides similarly found themselves in a stalemate after a period of protracted fighting. He advocated that NATO use a ceasefire to create a heavily guarded defense perimeter on the Ukrainian border, as in Korea.
Mara Rudman, professor at the Miller Center, spoke next. Rudman was critical of the Trump administration’s stance on Ukraine, noting that Trump was not making the United States more secure by cozying up to Russia. She was especially critical of the fact that Ukraine was excluded from the peace negotiations, explaining that there would be no real path to peace if all sides were not included. Antholis jumped in, noting that even many conservative media outlets, such as The Wall Street Journal, were critical of this policy.
John Owen, professor of politics at UVA, discussed the grand strategy behind Trump’s foreign policy. Owen asserted that Trump is attempting to build a world in which the United States, along with great powers such as Russia and China, establish a new order in which “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” This stands in contrast, in his view, to the kind of world order that the United States had been trying to build for most of its existence, in which the sovereign ownership of territory is inviolable and global institutions are strong.
Jeff Legro, professor of political science at the University of Richmond, argued that Trump’s foreign policy lacks a clear strategy. In his view, Trump appears to want NATO to do most of the work, though he is generally hostile to many NATO countries. While Legro believes ending the conflict between Russia and Ukraine would be the right move, he also stated that breaking the united front of Western nations that NATO represents would be detrimental. He attributed this focus on breaking with NATO to a misconception that the United States would somehow be able to “flip” Russia away from China.
Steve Mull, vice provost for global affairs at UVA and former U.S. ambassador to Poland, agreed that Trump’s policy was a radical shift compared to typical American foreign policy, even that of the first Trump administration. He noted that the current peace talks were not entirely Trump’s doing, and that both Russians and people in the rest of Europe were clearly growing tired of the war well before he took office. Mull also articulated worries about America’s future relationship with eastern European nations, noting past resentment over deals with Russia, such as during the Yalta Conference during World War II.
Brantly Womack, professor of foreign affairs at the Miller Center, discussed Trump’s China policy. In his view, his statements on this matter showed mixed signals, and existing policy appears mostly transactional. He noted that there are two main factions on China policy within the Republican Party: an “America-first” group, mostly full of isolationists who view China as less of a direct threat, and a “China-first” group, mostly full of people who are more hawkish on China. He also discussed Taiwan policy, noting that Trump’s policy on Ukraine has led some Taiwanese people to become more skeptical of his ability to protect them.
Dale Copeland, professor of international relations at UVA, agreed with Womack’s description of the divide in the Republican Party. He also explained that Trump’s foreign policy was quite unusual, in that it appears to be mostly motivated by domestic politics rather than broader concerns. Copeland asserted that Trump’s policy was based around both reducing taxes at home and reducing American presence overseas, of which a decoupling of the American and Chinese economies could be a part. On Taiwan, he stated that while it was unlikely China would invade, it was possible that such a thing could occur if China perceived a genuine opportunity.
Scott Miller, research assistant professor at the Darden School of Business, also discussed China. He noted that China, despite an outward veneer of power, is actually experiencing significant economic problems, and that domestic affairs in China could have significant future ramifications. He also explained that while the Trump administration’s policies on China appear to be generally hostile, they are also cautious in some respects, as evidenced by the relatively low severity of the tariffs on China compared to those on Canada and Mexico.
The conversation then moved onto other topics, notably the ongoing wars in the Middle East. The commentators generally agreed that there was a significant opportunity for improvement in the situation at the moment, but that it was also possible the Trump administration would not be able to use those opportunities to the fullest extent. The talk ended with a “lightning round,” in which each of the participants was invited to note a development to look out for in the future. Among the topics mentioned were the possibility of a notable national security disaster, the fate of a summit between Putin and Trump, whether or not Trump would listen to Supreme Court decisions against his administration’s policy, and, interestingly enough, the “meme coin” cryptocurrencies promoted by Donald and Melania Trump.
Leave a Reply