OPINION:
“Return to Normalcy” was a popular political slogan in the 1920s. The world war was an aberration and America would never again become entangled in European wars. The sentiment was understandable. But it was also wrong; in less than two decades America was at war again.
One hears a similar sentiment today among our foreign policy elite: Donald Trump was an aberration and it is time to return to “normal” by which is meant the foreign policy outlines of previous decades.
Rejoin the Paris Climate Accord, rejoin the World Health Organization (WHO), return to the six-party talks over North Korea and re-engage in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Excuse our allies’ refusal to pay their fair share on defense, reach out to the Palestinians to achieve peace in the Middle East and put the most charitable construction on China’s actions. All will be well.
But this too is wrong. The world has changed in significant ways, some as a result of Donald Trump’s presidency, but some as a result of forces underway for decades before President Trump was inaugurated. In some instances, the Trump phenomenon was itself the result of these forces, more symptom than cause.
The most important changes, of course, have occurred in China. It is to Mr. Trump’s credit that he realized that the consensus view on China for the past three or four decades was wrong. China’s economic development has not fostered political liberalism. Short of an unexpected, wrenching change in China there is no reason to expect it to do so in the future.
Policy toward China will require specific, tough responses. It will no longer do to allow China to pillage American businesses in trade relationships. It will no longer do to overlook China’s expansive foreign policy on its borders. Time is not on the side of waiting to address China’s policies. We cannot count on China’s economic development to do our work for us.
Nor does Russia show signs of liberalizing. Returning to the pre-Trump years will not avail. It is not politically feasible to remove the economic sanctions the Trump administration has put on Russia. And given the breathless and unfounded accusations of collusion with Russia, it is difficult to see how a new Democratic administration can walk all this back. Another attempt at “reset” would be no more successful than the last one. We will remain at odds with Russia.
Much the same is true elsewhere. Turkey’s economic success has not resulted in a more liberal government. To the contrary, Turkey has slid ever closer to an authoritarian regime. Nor has Egypt evolved in a way that guarantees increased support for Western liberal values. Neither the dictatorial rule of al-Sisi nor the return of the Muslim Brotherhood, even if elected democratically, will advance liberal values. Nor would a Muslim-oriented regime in Egypt be good for the people of Egypt, for Israel or for Israel’s new partners in the Middle East.
Nothing would stop the evolving Middle East peace process quicker than a Muslim government in Egypt which is hostile to Israel.
With regard to international agreements, does it really seem post-Trump that rejoining the WHO without significant reforms is a good idea? Or rejoining the Paris Climate Accord without negotiating an arrangement more in America’s interests and less in China’s? Or re-starting the six-party talks with North Korea and expecting them to accomplish any more than they did last time? Or giving a pass to our European allies when it comes to their defense budgets?
And most of all, what sense would it make to return to the JCPOA with Iran, without significant changes? The Obama administration kicked the can down the road, but we are now far nearer to the end of that road. By the end of the next administration Iran, which is already enriching uranium beyond agreed levels, can proceed fully and openly under the JCPOA with its nuclear weapons program in only six years.
Finally, Mr. Trump has set the bar for American military intervention in a new and higher place. Stand-off drone attacks are not overly controversial in the American polity; but the American people and their representatives in Congress will, going forward, hold a far more skeptical view of direct U.S. intervention unless and until core American interests are very carefully defined. This will complicate the choices available to policy makers.
In short, the world has changed too much to simply return to the status quo ante Mr. Trump. Above all else, liberal orthodoxy will have to divest itself of its blind faith that economic development is an unseen motor which automatically brings about good outcomes. As Baudelaire said, belief in progress is a lazy man’s creed. It will be vital to face up to foreign policy challenges directly even if accommodation is the easiest short-term course. If we do not, the trend lines will soon enough cause us to wish we had — as we discovered after the 1920s.
• Jeff Bergner is an adjunct professor in the Batten School at the University of Virginia. He previously served as staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as assistant secretary of State.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.