Western allies of the United States convened in Munich recently, expressing concern and uncertainty regarding President Trump’s assertive foreign policy. However, it is those not represented at the Munich Security Conference, such as Palestinians, Afghans, Greenlanders, and Panamanians, who are increasingly marginalized in Trump’s geopolitical strategy.
Their needs and aspirations seem secondary to Trump’s goal of reshaping global dynamics under an “America First” doctrine. Ukrainians, too, face the risk of being excluded from peace negotiations as Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin engage in discussions to resolve the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which has resulted in significant loss of life and territory.
Charles A. Kupchan, a professor of international affairs, noted that while strong-arming has historically been part of American foreign policy, there was typically an effort to legitimize power through dialogue, which appears absent in Trump’s approach.
Trump’s foreign policy has drawn comparisons to past U.S. expansionism, reminiscent of President William McKinley’s era, which included the acquisition of territories following the Spanish-American War. His tactics also echo the secretive negotiations of British and French diplomats during World War I that led to the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which disregarded local ethnic and religious considerations in the Middle East.
Historians suggest that the arbitrary division of the Middle East has contributed to ongoing conflicts, raising concerns that Trump’s disregard for local interests could exacerbate tensions in regions like Gaza and Panama.
Richard N. Haass, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, emphasized that the outcomes in Ukraine, Gaza, and Panama will ultimately be shaped by the local populations, despite the influence of major powers like the U.S., Russia, or China.
While Trump has stated that Ukraine will be included in negotiations with Russia, his announcement of “immediate” peace talks caught both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders off guard, reflecting a rapid and unilateral approach to diplomacy.
Analysts suggest that Trump’s swift actions are intended to preempt criticism and avoid the scrutiny that could arise from more traditional negotiation processes, as seen in his previous term when the U.S. engaged in prolonged talks with the Taliban.
Critics argue that the 2020 agreement with the Taliban led to the subsequent collapse of Afghanistan’s government, while Trump’s supporters attribute the failure to President Biden’s withdrawal strategy.
Vali R. Nasr, a professor of international affairs, noted that Trump’s current strategy aims to present decisions as faits accomplis, limiting opportunities for public influence or critique.
Trump is not alone in pursuing private negotiations; previous administrations have also engaged in discreet diplomacy. However, his approach appears more focused on material interests rather than ideological considerations, as seen in his dealings with adversaries compared to allies.
Challenges may arise as Trump attempts to persuade allies to accept his proposals, which have been met with resistance from leaders in Jordan, Egypt, and Panama, as well as Greenland, which has rejected U.S. acquisition offers.
Analysts argue that Trump’s foreign policy is heavily driven by commercial interests, often sidelining the local populations affected by these decisions. This transactional approach, devoid of ideological justification, marks a significant departure from previous U.S. foreign policy practices.
As Kupchan pointed out, unlike past imperialistic endeavors that were often cloaked in a civilizing mission, Trump’s strategy is characterized by a stark materialism, raising questions about the long-term implications for global stability and local governance.