 |
| Trump's Executive Order banning Muslims |
In an earlier post, I speculated on what a Trump Middle East
foreign policy might encompass (http://new-middle-east.blogspot.it/2016/11/the-trump-presidency-us-foreign-policy.html). Little
did we know that President Trump would up-end much of the United States’ traditional
policies in the MENA region so soon after taking office. Now that we have seen how much change Trump
has already brought to US Middle East foreign policy during his first week in
office, what can we predict will be the outcome?
Trump’s style runs completely counter to traditional
diplomacy. In some respects, this is a
good Too often in the past, US
presidents and secretaries of state have been too timid in criticizing
political elites in nation-states whose policies run counter to US national
interests and international political norms and values. A good example of this timidly has been the
lack of criticism of Saudi Arabia for its domestic human rights abuses and
sponsorship of global terrorism via the export of its extremist Wahhabi
ideology. Obviously, the need for Saudi
oil made any US administration forgo criticism of the oppressive Saudi regime. It will be interesting to see if Trump continues this policy tradition.
Trump’s foreign policy, like his domestic policy, applies a
business model drawn, in part, from the decision-making process outlined in his
well- known book, The Art of the
Deal. It is already clear that
staking out an aggressive policy position with regards to foreign nations will
be his modus operandi. To accomplish that end, Trump feels he must
stake out his position in publicly.
Unlike the business world, however, public diplomacy - in the Trumpian
sense - has already shown itself to be counter-productive. Certainly the last week has proven this to be
true.
As an example, we can site two policies which Trump tried to
implement this week. First, his
assertion that Mexico would pay for the $15 billion wall that he wants built
along the Mexican-American border placed President Enrique Peña Nieto in a
defensive position, causing him to vigorously deny that Mexico would pay for it.
 |
| Key Trump aide Steven Bannon |
The second policy which bans citizens from 7 Muslim majority countries in the Middle East from federal judge has already blocked the implementation of Trump’s ban. At least 2 countries, Iran and Iraq, have reciprocated by blocking American citizens from entering their countries.
A nation-state’s security is always its most important
concern. President Trump is on the mark
to be concerned, as commander- in- chief, about the United States’ security,
especially in an era of increased international terrorism. However, the question on the table is whether
his executive orders during his first week in office enhance or undermine the security
of the United States. Are we as a country more or less secure as a
result of his actions?
In the case of Iran, this tit-for-tat will not have an
immediate or significant detrimental effect on United States policy in the
Middle East. In the case of Iraq, on the
other hand, the impact could be enormous if continued beyond the 120 days. In the short term, Iraq’s counter-policy will
constrain US diplomats in pursuing our national interests in Iraq because their
contacts and movement in the country will undoubtedly be impeded.
In the longer term, the Trump ban will provide great propaganda
fodder for Iraqi politicians hostile to the US, e.g., pro-Iranian militias and
Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Sadrist movement. The ban will give more ammunition to Iran’s
allies within the Iraqi government, such as the sectarian former Prime Minister,
Nuri al-Maliki, whose policies, after he began his second term as prime
minister in 2010, exacerbated many of the political problems which Iraq
currently faces. But it is militia
leaders such as Hadi al-Ameri, Qais Khazzali and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who
maintain close ties to Iran, will be the greatest beneficiaries.
There are other problems with the ban. How can Trump explain why Saudi Arabia, whose
citizens were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, is not included in the
ban? Why is Egypt not covered by the
ban? Could US business interests be at play in explaining this contradiction in
Trump’s policy? Specifically, could
Trump’s own business interests in Saudi Arabia and Egypt explain their not
being included in the ban? Put differently,
many foreign countries see the omission of Saudi Arabia in particular as
contradicting the supposed goals of the policy and hypocritical.
Despite calls from Republicans, such as Senators John McCain
and Lindsey Graham, Trump has refused to say anything negative about Putin,
including condemning his policies in Syria which has resulted in serious
civilian causalities through bombing and have stiffened Bashar al-Asad’s resolve
not to agree to a negotiated solution to the crisis. And Trump has refused to criticize Russian
policy in the Ukraine – the seizure of Crimea and the support of pro-Russian
separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Trump’s refusal to call out Putin for his efforts to interfere
in the 2016 presidential elections, and his dictatorial rule, which has
involved suppressing all opposition Russian media, seizing the assets of capitalists,
and enriching himself and his personal elite through widespread corruption is
only adding to the United States’ foreign policy problems. It threatens to divide and possibly even destroy
the traditional Western alliance which was built after WW II. NATO and later the European Union have become
the most successful alliance and economic partner respectively for the US. To undercut NATO and the EU will only work to
Putin’s benefit and encourage him to engaged in even more aggressive foreign
policy behavior vis-à-vis Europe, economically and militarily.
The ban is being interpreted in many Muslim majority countries.as
an attack on Islam. This is unfortunate
because it can be argued that Trump has made a self-fulfilling prophecy of
Samuel Huntington’s well-know, but flawed, “crisis of civilizations” argument.
Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem will further undermine
the already moribund peace process between Israel and the Palestine National
Authority. Also it makes it more
difficult for Arab states which would like to engage in rapprochement with
Israel to be able to do so. Along with the
ban of citizens from Muslim majority countries in the Middle East, moving the
United States embassy will anger Muslims throughout the Middle East and larger
Muslim world and, once again, provide great copy for the terrorist propaganda
mill.
Finally, we need to ask the fundamental questions: Will the
Muslim ban make the United States any more secure? Will moving the United States embassy to Jerusalem
enhance United States national interests and, for that matter, benefit Israel?
The answer in both cases is no. The United States also has in place a strong
vetting system for all foreign nationals entering the United States. For example, the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) has created a comprehensive data base linking Canada the
United States and Mexico, in other words, if a terrorist were to land in Mexico
City, that individual’s name would appear in Washington and Ottawa.
Having the United States Embassy to Israel move from Tel
Aviv to Jerusalem will only inflame passions in the Middle East, which is
probably the most unstable region in the world.
Trump’s declaration has already encouraged the government of Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to dramatically increase illegal settlements in the
West Bank. It strengthens the extreme
right in Israel which does not enjoy support among the majority of Israelis as
is clear from local public opinion polls.
