The "unpredictable" Trump is back in the White House

Tramp has been present in the American public for almost half a century. The global entertainment industry got to know him back in the nineties, while he has been more seriously present in political waters since the announcement of his entry into the race for the Republican presidential nomination in 2015. Until today, we are at the factual level about the 45th and 47th president United States of America (USA) find out everything or almost everything. However, one can ask how someone who "knows everything" surprises the global public so often. And of course, will Trump ever stop doing that?

Ever since we started getting to know the political being of Donald Trump, he has been described as childish, unscrupulous, stubborn, capricious, pushy, quarrelsome, egotistical and a person with bad manners. Trump contributed abundantly to such an image, sometimes by force of will, and sometimes unwillingly, as a trait of character. Even so, the characterization of Trump as perpetually unpredictable and erratic is exaggerated and unwarranted. Although his moves are outside the pattern and level of elementary political correctness and are often politically harmful to himself and the country he represents, it seems to me that they are very consistent.

The core of Trump's beliefs and outlook on the world has not changed since the time of his first interviews in which his foreign policy views can be "hunted". Additionally, his fickleness and unpredictability are perhaps best illustrated by the fact that Obama and Biden's foreign policies are closer to Trump than to George W. Bush.

Of course, everyone can surprise. Trump's close aides were often taken aback by their boss's decisions. Once it was part of his tactics, once pure boss. But not all of Trump's decisions are surprising.

There is great debate among scholars whether Trump had a grand strategy in his first term or whether his foreign policy beliefs and actions are part of random moves, which Richard Haas calls "adhocracy." Bearing in mind that entering into that debate would greatly exceed the needs and scope of this article, I will avoid a direct answer. However, in order to make Trump somewhat more predictable, we need to familiarize ourselves with the goals and principles of his actions. That is why it is important to explain why the moves of the former and future president of the USA are not outside his vision of international relations, completely unpredictable or difficult precedents in American national history.

FOREIGN POLICY GOALS

The first goal of Trump's "America First" approach is to maintain the United States as the most powerful country in the international order. In other words, he wants America to remain the most powerful power in the world economically, militarily, technologically and diplomatically. Such a status is necessary in order for the United States to play a decisive role in the management of the international order and "tailor" the world according to its measure or its interests. "America first" prioritizes domestic politics, but by no means implies an ignorant attitude towards the rest of the world. Why? First, because Trump also believes that it is against the national interests of the USA and secondly, because, taking into account the existing American security and political arrangements, it is not even possible in the short term.

Another goal is to preserve hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and a favorable balance of power in key regions. Trump, like all post-Cold War US presidents, after all, like himself in his first term, will strive to maintain the American presence and prevent the growth of a regional hegemon in the Indo-Pacific, Europe and the Persian Gulf. During his first term, Trump did not withdraw the United States from these regions and, despite threats, did not abolish existing US security arrangements. Furthermore, NATO expanded to include two Western Balkan states, and in the same period substantive military aid to Ukraine began.

photo: ap

LIFE-POLITICAL PRINCIPLES

The goals that Trump strove to achieve in his first term, which will be the "guiding star" of his new administration, were dominant among all American presidents in the last 35 years. The only difference was in the manner of their realization or the principles by which they were guided: more or less unilateralism, more or less struggle for the expansion of democracy and open market, more or less reliance on international institutions. Trump has carried his life and business principles into the political realm, so his actions often seem, and usually are, unusual or unpresidential.

The basic principle by which Trump has been guided for decades is transactionalism and is based on the old business and diplomatic rule "give in order to get". And not only that. Author of the book The art of negotiation (in a somewhat looser translation) The art of reaching an agreement) believes that he is the best negotiator in the world, and that he must come out as a winner from every transaction. Such an approach creates a lot of challenges in the relationship with other countries, especially with allies.

Back in the 25s, Trump declared that he would introduce tariffs on every Mercedes and every Toyota entering the American market because American allies are "sitting on the back" of Washington. When he first became president, he voiced complaints that allies spend too little on defense, that the US has a huge foreign trade deficit with European allies, and that Brussels' relationship with American companies is less favorable than Washington's relationship with European companies. Trump's anger goes so far as to frequently question collective defense provisions within NATO and threaten heavy tariffs if the practices - which he considers unfair - continue. It is the same with the neighbors - Canada and Mexico - whom Trump is threatening with XNUMX percent tariffs on imported goods.

Trump's transactionalist principle did not escape potential competition. China, which is also designated as a key rival of the US in Trump's National Security Strategy, was especially exposed to the wrath of the 47th president. The Chinese leadership has been accused of unfair trade practices, currency devaluation at the expense of the dollar and criticized for industrial espionage and patent theft, and Trump has particularly caught the eye of the foreign trade surplus that Beijing achieves in relation to Washington. During his first mandate, he tried to reduce the trade gap with tariffs, and the announcements from the previous months about tariffs in the amount of 60 percent caused anxiety. Not only in China, but also in the rest of the world, because trade and customs wars between the world's two largest economies (Washington and Beijing generate about 43 percent of the world's gross domestic product) would be disastrous for the current state of the world economy.

Another important principle on which Trump's beliefs and actions rest is thymus or recognition, paying respect. Except that Trump is not crying out for isothymia-, like Napoleon III, that is, by striving to be recognized as equal to others, already megalothymiaby striving to be above the rest. His childish nature in conjunction with the pursuit of superiority creates significant problems in the personal relations of the US president with other statesmen, which - due to the role of the president in the US political system and America's colossal power - are transferred to the interstate level. Trump's childish responses to "insults" are well remembered by Kim Jong Un and Emmanuel Macron, and his "gentle" hand on the shoulder was also felt by former Montenegrin Prime Minister Duško Marković.

Finally, an important principle by which Donald Trump is guided in foreign policy is the principle of austerity. Even though he is a billionaire, and maybe because of that, Trump is an old miser, and he has transferred that character trait to the domain of politics. Although they will not regret spending billions to strengthen the military, for reasons of national security, or support Israel, due to the support of certain donors, personal beliefs and foreign policy inertia, others will not have much reason to hope. In fact, one of the key reasons why Trump despises "endless wars" so much is the high costs. Often in his interviews, we had the opportunity to hear how much the United States spent in the War on Terror, and much less often about the number of victims. So Trump's anti-interventionist impulse is more a product of finance than values.

GRENLAND, SURPRISE OR NOT

What will Trump's foreign policy look like in practice? How unpredictable will it be? Perhaps Trump's attitudes toward Greenland are the best illustration. Are Trump's views on Greenland - which have been flooding the media for days and worrying world leaders - surprising?

Although reminiscent of modern colonialism or imperial fantasy, Trump's views are not without a foothold in his strategy, earlier views on the world's largest island, or in American history. There is no doubt that an American attempt to acquire or seize Greenland would be contrary to the fundamental norms of international law and the will of the Kingdom of Denmark, but Trump's goals and principles make it conceivable.

Trump justifies the initiative for American control over Greenland with reasons of national security. Namely, in addition to being in a strategically important position, Greenland is rich in ores of critical minerals. According to the findings of the Economist magazine, this island with only 56.000 inhabitants has known deposits of 43 out of 50 critical minerals. It is possible that China's inquiries about investment opportunities, along with the increasingly strong desire of the inhabitants of Greenland for greater self-government and even independence, further fueled Trump's fears. Especially since the world's largest island is located in the Western Hemisphere, which the United States views as a "no-go zone" for the influence of other major powers.

Also, the purchase of territory is not alien to the American tradition. Already in the era of Thomas Jefferson, Louisiana was purchased, then in 1819 Florida, a little less than 30 years later a good part of the western part of today's US territory, in 1867 Alaska, etc. It is interesting that the last American purchase of territory was made from the Kingdom of Denmark, in two phases, in 1917 and 1944, when the Danish Virgin Islands or the Danish West Indies were acquired.

Nor was Greenland exempted from American ideas about buying the territory. In fact, there was an idea in the United States of buying Greenland from Denmark as early as 1868, then in 1910 and finally in 1946 during the term of President Harry Truman. In the meantime, Denmark's membership in NATO and the opening of the American Thule air base in Greenland in 1953, at least for a short time, appeased American shopping ambitions.

Donald Trump first came up with the idea of ​​buying Greenland in 2019, but then his idea was met with ridicule. The renewed request for a 2025 purchase, reinforced by the indirect threat of a forcible annexation, was taken much more seriously. Will he succeed in his intention this time? It is not completely certain, but it is significant that he has the almost undivided support of the Republicans, who are already preparing a law that would authorize Trump to negotiate the purchase of Greenland.

Although Denmark would not be able to prevent the American seizure of Greenland, the consequences of such an act for the United States and its ally credibility and international reputation would be unfathomable and too costly, even for Trump. Given that the Danish government strongly opposes direct sales, that option also has little prospect. At this point, it seems that some kind of compromise involving greater military and economic involvement of the United States in Greenland and formal Danish retention of control over the island, with the obligation to eliminate the influence of other powers, is the most likely. Finally, bearing in mind that Trump is prone to compromises, and that in the event of such a scenario he would be on the winning side and could present it as a great victory at low costs, it seems that such a solution would satisfy him as well.

The author is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences

The article was prepared with the support of the Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia, no. of project 7752625 – NATIONAL(S)