Democratic candidates for president in 2020 have a rich inventory of matters on which to challenge the incumbent. Thus far, Democrats have focused primarily on domestic issues, showing little interest in addressing Trump’s dismal record in foreign affairs: alienating allies and cozying up to brutal dictators, proceeding by impulse rather strategy, and substituting bluster for diplomacy. A helpful survey of some of the chaos within foreign policy apparatus of the Trump administration appears in a May 6 Los Angeles Times article, “Trump battles series of foreign policy setbacks after some risky bets.” The article concludes:
Trump’s handling of China trade has been like much of the rest of his foreign policy — prone to unilateral and inconsistent actions that at times have undermined other policies and priorities. Diplomats say it reflects the lack of traditional interagency review and coordination. Instead, most policy decisions come from the White House and often solely from the president.
“The big problem I have with Trump is that there’s very little long-term strategy and he never aligns with allies,” said Ian Bremmer, the president of the Eurasia Group, a global risk assessment firm. “On top of that, you’ve got Trump, who personally barely sees from tweet to tweet.”
Perhaps the Democratic candidates’ indifference to foreign affairs stems from a judgment that, except in times of crisis, such matters are of secondary importance to the electorate generally and particularly to likely voters in Democratic primaries. Yet several aspects of Trump’s conduct of foreign policy surely merit their critical attention. For example. Trump’s ineffectual attempts to negotiate with Kim Jong Un, his confused approach toward the conflict between Israel and Palestine (awaiting Jared Kushner’s “plan”), the absence of any coherent strategy in Syria and Afghanistan, and the failure to grapple with China’s emergence as a global power. But nothing cries out for attention more loudly than Trump’s puzzling and troublesome relationship with Vladimir Putin and Putin’s Russia.
The most memorable symbol of the Trump-Putin relationship has been Trump’s craven performance when he met with Putin in Helsinki. In full view of television cameras, Trump accepted Putin’s assurances that Russia had not interfered in the 2016 election. And Trump did so despite the unanimous conclusion of American intelligence services that Russia had indeed interfered and done so in several ways. More recently, their relationship was again displayed in a telephone call between the two men on Friday, May 3. As David Graham explained in the Atlantic, it was “Helsinki all over again.”
Trump described the Putin call in a tweet on the same day:
Had a long and very good conversation with President Putin of Russia. As I have always said, long before the Witch Hunt started, getting along with Russia, China, and everyone is a good thing, not a bad thing…. We discussed Trade, Venezuela, Ukraine, North Korea, Nuclear Arms Control and even the “Russian Hoax.” Very productive talk! May 3, 2019.
Trump amplified his tweet later that day in comments to the media. When asked about the call, Trump said he did not tell the Russian president to halt the Kremlin’s efforts to interfere in American elections. When Trump was asked if he discussed the Mueller Report with Putin, Trump said “He actually sort of smiled when he said something to the effect that it started off as a mountain and it ended up being a mouse.” Trump continued, “But he knew that because he knew there was no collusion whatsoever. Pretty much that’s what it was.” It is not clear how Trump could tell that Putin was smiling, but one can well imagine that he might have been, given Trump’s own reaction to the Report. (As Harvard’s Laurence Tribe has quipped, Trump would not talk to Mueller about Putin, but he would talk to Putin about Mueller.)
Clinging to his mantra of “no collusion,” Trump continues to ignore the fact that, with or without the complicity of the Trump campaign, Russia engaged in a massive effort of interference. Indeed, even Trump’s captive Attorney General, William Barr, acknowledged that reality in his recent Senate testimony describing the Mueller Report. Moreover, and even more important, Trump’s own senior national security officials, believe that there is every indication that Russia is prepared to interfere again in 2020. (Such officials have included former Secretary of Homeland Security Kirsten Nielsen, FBI Director Chris Wray, NSA Director Adm. Michael Rogers, Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley and National Geospatial Intelligence Agency Director Robert Cardillo.) Yet Trump remains willfully oblivious. When a reporter then asked if Trump had told Putin not to meddle in the next election Trump replied, “We didn’t discuss that. Really we didn’t discuss it.”
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo did speak to Russian Foreign Secretary Lavrov about Russian interference when they met on Monday, May 6. Following Trump’s lead, however, Pompeo managed to do so in the mildest possible terms. Thus, Pompeo said to reporters that he had told Lavrov that Russian interference was “not appropriate.” Not appropriate? Yikes! Is there any more wishy-washy form of chastisement he could have employed?
On Saturday, Trump complained that media coverage of the Mueller Report had overshadowed the importance of his call with Putin:
Very good call yesterday with President Putin of Russia. Tremendous potential for a good/great relationship with Russia, despite what you read and see in the Fake News Media. Look how they have misled you on “Russia Collusion.” The World can be a better and safer place. Nice! May 4, 2019.
What that “tremendous potential” might be is difficult to imagine.
Another topic discussed during the call was Venezuela. There, Trump blithely accepted Putin’s assurance that he is “not looking at all to get involved in Venezuela, other than he’d like to see something positive happen for Venezuela.” Putin’s claim of not getting involved was squarely in conflict with Secretary Mike Pompeo’s report earlier in the week that President Nicolas Maduro “had an airplane on the tarmac, he was ready to leave this morning as we understand it and the Russians indicated he should stay.” So Trump was continuing in his practice of accepting Putin’s word over the conclusions of his own experts.
Interviewed by Chris Wallace on Sunday, Pompeo gamely insisted that when he and Foreign Minister Lavrov met the next day, he would tell Lavrov that “every country must get out [of Venezuela], including the Russians. That’s what I’ll tell them.” But how seriously could he expect Lavrov to take him?
The last blog suggested that “to the extent that Trump continues to ignore or downplay Russian interference in our elections, it will create the unavoidable inference that he is hoping that Russia will again weigh in on his behalf in 2020.” That inference was explicitly drawn by Paul Waldman, in the Washington Post on May 6. He put it bluntly:
We know why Trump has not issued any warnings to Putin about our next election. It’s because Trump plainly wants and expects that just as the Kremlin worked to get him elected in 2016, it will work to get him reelected in 2020.
This is a chilling thought that deserves the prominent and focused attention of every Democratic candidate for president. It is not only in their own interest but the national interest.
Trump and Putin in Helsinki 2018; YURI KADOBNOV/AFP/Getty Images
An excellent overview, Doug, of our dismal diplomatic landscape. It is almost as though Trump is trying to destroy the United States but for what reason? If this were a Democrat president, the Republicans would be yelling, “Treason!”
Terrific post. I’m sure we will be hearing a lot about Trump’s incompetence in foreign affairs during the primary season. In particular, his signal failure to keep pace with China and disgraceful embrace of autocratic leaders like Vladimir Putin. Any way you look at it, Trump is a dangerous and inept leader who must be defeated in 2020.
Joe Biden has wisely chosen to run on the theme that Trump is a menace to our country. Biden is a well informed statesman who understands world affairs and can work well with Congress and the courts. But It remains to be seen if he will win the Democratic Party nomination and if a majority of voters in battle ground states are fed up with Trump.
The GOP would do well to knock Trump off
of his high horse and nominate a well qualified politician like Mitt Romney.
It certainly would be nice for a change to have a worthy contender from each major party in the race.
Your commentary was right-on-the-money as always. Also hilarious (I was laughing about your remark @ Trump’s “tremendous potential” with Putin, but only after I made sure my doors were locked). Yikes indeed.
I believe you are right on, Doug, on the relevance of Trump’s ineffective, poorly planned, and at times nonsensical and blustering handling of foreign policy issues as an important, and so far neglected, issue by most Democrats. Only Biden has raised it to any significant extent thus far, and he is one who does have the experience and hopefully wisdom to return some sanity to how we deal with the rest of the world.
Comments are closed.