{"id":539,"date":"2018-11-05T13:54:35","date_gmt":"2018-11-05T13:54:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/?p=539"},"modified":"2019-06-13T09:32:47","modified_gmt":"2019-06-13T08:32:47","slug":"539-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/539-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Division at Home – Continuity Abroad?"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Dr Maria Ryan, Assistant Professor of American History, University of Nottingham<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

It has become a truism to say that Donald Trump\u2019s political style is incendiary and divisive. While Trump did not create the United States\u2019 longstanding economic, racial, and cultural divisions, he has fed and manipulated them like no other President in modern history. His scapegoating of the media\/the Democrats\/the Clintons\/immigrants for the country\u2019s political, social, and economic problems is reminiscent of fascism. Most recently, this toxic atmosphere resulted in the largest single mass murder of Jews in US history at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, and the attempt to maim or murder 14 prominent critics of Trump through pipe bombs sent in the mail by a right-wing extremist and Trump supporter.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Yet in foreign affairs, Trump has been less impactful \u2013 at least in substantive policy terms. His aggressive rhetorical style has certainly brought American power into disrepute even amongst longstanding Western allies. However, as I argue in my contribution to Mara Oliva and Mark Shanahan\u2019s edited collection, The Trump Presidency: From Campaign Trail to World Stage<\/em>, Trump\u2019s handling of foreign affairs in his first eighteen months had much more in common with Obama\u2019s foreign policy than most Democrats or Republicans would like to admit \u2013 and more than might be expected given Trump\u2019s domestic record.<\/p>\n

Since summer 2018, Trump\u2019s approach to the world has remained largely within the parameters of the post-Cold War mainstream US foreign policy tradition, and especially within the mainstream of the Republican Party. Even for some of Trump\u2019s most controversial foreign policy decisions, there are significant precedents in recent history.<\/p>\n

As regrettable as his withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement is, it is reminiscent of the Republican Party\u2019s refusal to consider ratifying the 1998 Kyoto climate agreement, which \u2013 along with Clinton\u2019s own reservations about the agreement, despite the fact that he signed it \u2013 meant the US never joined the accord. The George W. Bush administration rejected the science of global warming, agreeing only to selected non-binding emissions reductions in the 2005 Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Rejection of the science of man-made climate change is a mainstream position within the Republican Party. This has hampered any attempts to tackle climate change at a global level, including the most recent effort by Obama.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s tariffs against China go against the grain of a gradual expansion of global free trade; but \u2018free\u2019 trade is not, and never has been, completely free. Protectionism remains integral to US foreign economic policy in certain areas, such as agriculture and sugar. George W. Bush imposed tariffs on imported steel from March 2002 \u2013 December 2003. Western economies developed through protectionism and despite the rhetorical embrace of free trade and the longstanding trend towards freer<\/em> trade, we do not live in a world of completely free trade. Trump is unusual only in his open criticism of it, though this criticism was balanced, to some extent, by the signing of an updated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement \u2013 the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) \u2013 in October 2018, demonstrating that Trump was not opposed to pursuing freer<\/em> trade.<\/p>\n

The President\u2019s intention to withdraw from the 1986 Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the only arms control agreement to outlaw an entire class of missiles, is very worrying and, to be sure, a highly regressive step. But again, this is (unfortunately) not entirely without precedent. George W. Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2001 \u2013 an agreement that outlawed National Missile Defense, perhaps the most potentially destabilising system that any nuclear power could develop (on the grounds that it would nullify every other missile programme in the world and thus permit offensive action without fear of symmetrical retaliation). Moreover, the United States has often failed to live up to the spirit and the letter of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), generally implementing it in a selective way, such as through its support for the Indian civilian nuclear power programme \u2013 assistance that the NPT permits only to states that forgo nuclear weapons. Trump\u2019s INF policy is bad \u2013 but it does not make him an outlier.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed by the Obama administration with Iran (as well as the EU, Germany, China, and Russia), is another regressive and dangerous step. But sadly, it was Obama\u2019s effort to negotiate with Tehran that departed from the recent historical norm, not Trump\u2019s rejection of that diplomacy. The Clinton administration\u2019s 1995 trade embargo against Iran; its extraterritorial sanctions targeting countries that traded with Iran (and Libya); its designation of Iran as a \u201crogue state\u201d; and the country\u2019s subsequent inclusion in the Bush administration\u2019s \u201caxis of evil\u201d \u2013 all of these measures were in keeping with the now-forty-year-old campaign to isolate and contain Iran. Obama\u2019s agreement with Tehran was hugely unpopular with Republicans and even some Democrats. Trump\u2019s position reflects mainstream Republican opinion and is in keeping with Washington\u2019s longstanding refusal to recognise the Islamic regime in Tehran.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

At the NATO leaders summit in Brussels in July 2018, Trump unleashed a broadside against Germany, which he claimed was \u201ca captive of Russia\u201d because of its reliance on gas imports from Moscow. Yet he signed onto the leaders\u2019 summit agreement, which pledged to establish a new NATO Readiness Force capable of deploying thirty naval units, thirty ground units, and thirty air squadrons in thirty days \u2013 the \u201830 x 30 x 30\u2019 plan \u2013 aimed largely at Russia. While the leaders claimed to prefer constructive co-operation with Moscow, they concluded that \u201cthere can be no return to \u2018business as usual\u2019 until there is a clear, constructive change in Russia\u2019s actions that demonstrates compliance with international law and its international obligations and responsibilities.\u201d Trump\u2019s rhetorical prevaricating over his commitment to NATO did not seem to impact upon the final agreement of the summit.<\/p>\n

Finally, the administration has also continued the Obama era bombing campaign in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Echoing its two predecessors, it invoked the September 2001 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force, passed after 9\/11, as its legal justification, as well as the Obama administration\u2019s extension of the AUMF to al Qaeda \u201cand Associated Forces\u201d \u2013 thus permitting action against groups that did not exist when 9\/11 occurred.<\/p>\n

Given Trump\u2019s dire lack of policy knowledge, his penchant for frequently replacing cabinet members, and his erratic temperament, this picture may well change. In his first two years, however, Trump\u2019s foreign policy has been characterised more by continuity than change.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Dr Maria Ryan, Assistant Professor of American History, University of Nottingham It has become a truism to say that Donald Trump\u2019s political style is incendiary and divisive. While Trump…Read More ><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":106,"featured_media":540,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"__cvm_playback_settings":[],"__cvm_video_id":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[20,110],"class_list":["post-539","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blogs","tag-trump","tag-us-foreign-policy"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nDivision at Home - Continuity Abroad? - The Monroe Group<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"It has become a truism to say that Donald Trump\u2019s political style is incendiary and divisive. . . Yet in foreign affairs, Trump has been less impactful \u2013 at least in substantive policy terms\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/539-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Division at Home - Continuity Abroad? - The Monroe Group\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"It has become a truism to say that Donald Trump\u2019s political style is incendiary and divisive. . . Yet in foreign affairs, Trump has been less impactful \u2013 at least in substantive policy terms\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/539-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Monroe Group\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-11-05T13:54:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-06-13T08:32:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/62\/Unorganized\/gettyimages-696659164.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"960\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"468\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Beth Snyder\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Beth Snyder\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/539-2\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/539-2\/\",\"name\":\"Division at Home - Continuity Abroad? - The Monroe Group\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-11-05T13:54:35+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-06-13T08:32:47+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/#\/schema\/person\/024277e6681a492948ea60c8889f68f6\"},\"description\":\"It has become a truism to say that Donald Trump\u2019s political style is incendiary and divisive. . . Yet in foreign affairs, Trump has been less impactful \u2013 at least in substantive policy terms\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/539-2\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/539-2\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/539-2\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Division at Home – Continuity Abroad?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/\",\"name\":\"The Monroe Group\",\"description\":\"American History & Politics Research Network\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/#\/schema\/person\/024277e6681a492948ea60c8889f68f6\",\"name\":\"Beth Snyder\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a4e91732226b40232c315454f7f51c0e3498dc414e0b3e60308ae79fe917099a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a4e91732226b40232c315454f7f51c0e3498dc414e0b3e60308ae79fe917099a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Beth Snyder\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/author\/py008026live-reading-ac-uk\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Division at Home - Continuity Abroad? - The Monroe Group","description":"It has become a truism to say that Donald Trump\u2019s political style is incendiary and divisive. . . Yet in foreign affairs, Trump has been less impactful \u2013 at least in substantive policy terms","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/539-2\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Division at Home - Continuity Abroad? - The Monroe Group","og_description":"It has become a truism to say that Donald Trump\u2019s political style is incendiary and divisive. . . Yet in foreign affairs, Trump has been less impactful \u2013 at least in substantive policy terms","og_url":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/539-2\/","og_site_name":"The Monroe Group","article_published_time":"2018-11-05T13:54:35+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-06-13T08:32:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":960,"height":468,"url":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/62\/Unorganized\/gettyimages-696659164.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Beth Snyder","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Beth Snyder","Estimated reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/539-2\/","url":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/539-2\/","name":"Division at Home - Continuity Abroad? - The Monroe Group","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-11-05T13:54:35+00:00","dateModified":"2019-06-13T08:32:47+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/#\/schema\/person\/024277e6681a492948ea60c8889f68f6"},"description":"It has become a truism to say that Donald Trump\u2019s political style is incendiary and divisive. . . Yet in foreign affairs, Trump has been less impactful \u2013 at least in substantive policy terms","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/539-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/539-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/539-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Division at Home – Continuity Abroad?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/#website","url":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/","name":"The Monroe Group","description":"American History & Politics Research Network","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/#\/schema\/person\/024277e6681a492948ea60c8889f68f6","name":"Beth Snyder","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a4e91732226b40232c315454f7f51c0e3498dc414e0b3e60308ae79fe917099a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a4e91732226b40232c315454f7f51c0e3498dc414e0b3e60308ae79fe917099a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Beth Snyder"},"url":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/author\/py008026live-reading-ac-uk\/"}]}},"cc_featured_image_caption":{"caption_text":false,"source_text":false,"source_url":false},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/539","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/106"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=539"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/539\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":546,"href":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/539\/revisions\/546"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/540"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=539"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=539"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/research.reading.ac.uk\/american-history-politics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=539"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}