Trump is loyal to the Monroe doctrine: US interests first of all
The first 100 days of the new US president's foreign policy in Asia have been characterised by continuity with past democratic and republican administrations, and new threats to Syria, Iran, and North Korea. This has marginalised the UN and boosted arms sales.
Milan (AsiaNews) – Donald Trump’s military and political intervention in Asia during his first 100 days as president belies the isolationist and neutralist platform he vigorously advocated during the US election campaign.
The Trump cyclone caught the international community unprepared, showing on the ground a quick activism and decision-making ability, with the clear intention on his part of making Americans forget Barack Obama's colourless foreign policy.
Indeed, the effective "America first" and "Make America great again" slogans with which President Trump won millions of votes must be seen instead as a sign of a continuity with the history of US foreign policy, which has always put security and national interest first, according to an inevitably more and more hegemonic logic that has made the US the world's policeman starting in the 20th century.
A hasty interpretation of Trump's political platform by scholars and mass media has obscured the central thread of US foreign policy for more than a century – the so-called Monroe doctrine – that brooks no meddling in US interests and national security by other states, even outside US territory.
This has resulted in a world-wide political strategy that is inevitably "imperial", capable of economically and politically fulfilling America's great ambition of making “America great again”, under both democratic and republican administrations, and Trump's moves reflect this.
In the early 19th century, US President James Monroe laid down foreign policy principles still used to justify US intervention outside its borders. Monroe said that the US would not tolerate any intervention by foreign powers in the Americas, and that any involvement would be considered an attack on the peace, security and liberty of the United States. This laid the ground for US political hegemony in the Americas, oddly ending US isolationism in the name of national freedom and security.
Since then, the Monroe Doctrine has been interpreted more broadly to cover the whole planet, on behalf of a fideistic messianism with which US political rulers feel moved to support, often nonchalantly, the cause of democracy in the world.
In the 20th century, President Franklin D. Roosevelt supported the view that the US was entitled to use force in the western hemisphere in case international obligations damaged US national interests. President Thomas W. Wilson justified US intervention in World War I as an way to defend democracy and the right of nations to be free from the oppression of the empires of Central Europe. Similarly, President John F. Kennedy justified intervention in Cuba and Vietnam as a way to counter the totalitarian communist danger. George Bush used the same argument with respect to his military intervention and preventive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, i.e. the defence of liberty and democracy.
Turning to President Trump's muscular geopolitical action in Asia, one cannot but see continuity with previous US interventionism, which de facto up subordinate the interests and policies of other states to US political, economic and military power.
It is no accident that Trump, at the press conference following the bombing of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad's air base, felt it necessary to justify US intervention to the world by referring exclusively to alleged "crimes against humanity" committed by the Assad regime.
In fact, the US administration has yet to provide any evidence to the international community that would prove Assad's responsibility. The military operation was carried out ignoring the United Nations, especially the Security Council, showing that the system of multilateral consultation and the participation of the international community in the diplomatic resolution of the crisis are not exactly at the top of Trump’s agenda.
Even more worrying is the crisis in US-North Korean relations, and thus also in the relationship with the latter’s patron, the People's Republic of China.
The US's interest in controlling the northwest coast of the Pacific and containing China is at the heart of its very close military and political cooperation with South Korea and Japan. In this context, North Korea is just a starter for the show of force between the Trump administration and China to decide which will hold the political, economic and military leadership in Southeast Asia and the Far East. North Korea’s dictatorial regime has long been a useful buffer state for Communist China, which obviously has no intention of allowing Korean reunification under democratic auspices, with the risk of having a loyal US ally on its border. At the same time, the devastating effects of Kim Jong-un's dictatorial regime represent a real threat to the security of Japan and South Korea, Trump's most loyal allies.
This explains the forceful policy, which does not exclude, according to some US think-tanks, the "very dangerous" option of pre-emptive war to defend allies should China lose control over North Korea. However, a preventive war, which is what the Bush administration conducted in accordance with its National Security Strategy after the terrorist attacks at the Twin Towers, has never been accepted and legitimised by the international community and the United Nations.
The application of the Monroe doctrine in Asia by the Trump administration does not end with Syria and North Korea. US-Iran relations are rapidly deteriorating since, according to Trump, the Islamic republic is the main culprit for the instability in the Middle East and the world.
Trump's threat to renegotiate the Iran nuclear deal and possible economic sanctions against Tehran as envisaged by the UN Charter in such cases are evidence of this. The attack on Syria and the freezing of relations with Iran are also a boost to the US-Israeli partnership, after it reached a low point during Obama's presidency.
Unfortunately, this means pushing détente in the Middle East back by many years, since it completely ignores the major role played by Arab Sunni regimes and governments – not infrequently formally allied to the United States - in indirectly supporting International terrorism and destabilising the Arab and Islamic world along fundamentalist lines. At the same time, it ignores Iran’s legitimate aspirations – like any other state – for a regional role in the Middle East, seriously penalising Teheran's exports through the ban on the use of US dollars in financial transactions despite the end of the international embargo.
Unfortunately, two important factors play an important role in this complex picture.
The first one is the gradual marginalisation of the United Nations from managing political crises in Asia. This violates the first article of the UN Charter, which tasks the international community with maintaining peace and security in the world.
The second is the rapid increase in military spending by major Asian countries. Official figures by the Stockholm Institute for Peace Studies indicate a steady rise in military spending in Asia, primarily by China, up 5.4 per cent over in the last year. At the same time, President Trump has explicitly pushed for a historic rise in US military spending. Security and national interest obviously and unfortunately rely on the growth of the arms industry rather than on international co-operation.
.png)
12/04/2023 18:18
